Expectations

[tmcats]

"No offense to people like Dereck Young and other folks who do the recruiting rankings, but if they were really that good at truly evaluating talent, they wouldn't be journalists working for internet websites." Tbones

no truer statement ever written than ^^^. snyder liked to 'play old' because it gave him time to develop those lower ranked kids into higher ranked stars like jordy, mcgraw, whitehair, finney, on and on. that's why he is so admired for his player development.

to defend the d'youngs of the world, and i neither read his stuff nor know him personally, but that trade is based on tracking what the blue bloods are doing and rank accordingly. it's a worthy method because nick knows who is good and who is not ready. but it's also fraught with danger when kids are ranked high because they are recruited by texas and then underperform expectations.

ou had 50 four and five-star recruits when they visited mhk. they were beaten by a team with zero according to 247 composites.

[hilltopwildcat]

How long has it been since we had a class ranked higher than 9th in the B12? And don't give me the "ratings don't matter" garbage.

I'll give you plenty of "garbage" to choke on.

Our all time highest "rated" recruits are listed in the following order:
1) Marvin Simmons, 2) Chris Boggas, 3) Daniel Davis, 4) Ayo Saba, 5) Eugene Germany, 6) Matt Boss, 7) Jerome Janet, 8) Nick Patton, and 9) Josh Freeman.

Out of that list of our most highly rated recruits of all time, I'd only take Saba and Freeman as recruits if I had to pick them for a second time. I'd say recruiting "rankings" are hit and miss at the very best. No offense to people like Dereck Young and other folks who do the recruiting rankings, but if they were really that good at truly evaluating talent, they wouldn't be journalists working for internet websites. They would be making a high 6 figure salary at a P5 football program. The bottom line is, they don't know how players will pan out. They just simply don't know. Just like scouts for the NFL or MLB, they just don't know. Players can physically develop a LOT between the years of 18 and 21, especially with great coaching and S&C. The difference between most 4* and 5* kids and 3* kids who get good development in college from when they are 18-21 years old, just isn't that much of a difference. If you simply look at the rosters of OU and Texas then compared them to ours, you would think there is no way we would even deserve to be on the same field as them. In the end, we beat OU and lost to Texas by 3 points on a last second FG. Based on recruiting rankings, those teams should have beaten us by +4 touchdowns.

The bottom line is, it just doesn't work that way. A moderately rated 3* kid who gets great development along with S&C can compete with 4* kids all day long. Certainly there are athletic freaks out there who would be fantastic players to get on our team. Yet, the main "Core" of the team being mid to upper 3* players who develop into great players is very common.

What we need are a few players that are true difference makers for us that push us over the top.

Then explain to me why OU is almost always at the top of the list in recruiting rankings and have won how many B12 titles in a row?

I've always said Snyder was 35-40 points better than the ratings. When he was in the 40's we were usually awesome teams, in the 80's and 90's pretty much 4-6 in conference and would get a decent bowl game. One reason so many more 3's develop into stars is because there are what 50 5* and 150 4* and hundreds of 3*'s. Odds would favor more 3*'s going on to the league. Tyler Lockett was a 3*. Coaching absolutely makes a difference because all teams have a lot of 3 and 2*s. It's rare that the team with the highest rated class doesn't finish highest. UT is......well, they're UT.

[powercat127]

I agree with Tulsacat. I know we don't have enough of the super star players we have had in the past. But a hallmark of this program has been a coach, HCBS, who took players with modest talent and built a team that was greater than the same of its parts--it is called leadership. I also get that had begun to flag some in recent years.

All that said, I think HCCK is cast in that same mold, at least I hope so. He will go out and get the players he wants, hopefully not players attracted by the alternative helmets, but players who are here to play football and go to school. In the interim he, and is staff, are demonstrating some of what I noted above. I think they have figure out how to use the people they have to get the best out of them. I think it took a couple of the big 12 games to get that adequately figured out.

Did TX have better talent, I think so-not necessarily player for player but in general. Was TX as well coached as KSU I'm not sure but I don't think so. Even with out the top players mentioned in another post we were in this at the end. I think that was quality coaching.

Anyway maybe I am a little afield from the core of this thread.

We need to have high expectations for this team. I think our head coach does and has showed it by beating all pre-season expectations and we still have 3 games to play

[Tbonespop]

I'll give you plenty of "garbage" to choke on.

Our all time highest "rated" recruits are listed in the following order:
1) Marvin Simmons, 2) Chris Boggas, 3) Daniel Davis, 4) Ayo Saba, 5) Eugene Germany, 6) Matt Boss, 7) Jerome Janet, 8) Nick Patton, and 9) Josh Freeman.

Out of that list of our most highly rated recruits of all time, I'd only take Saba and Freeman as recruits if I had to pick them for a second time. I'd say recruiting "rankings" are hit and miss at the very best. No offense to people like Dereck Young and other folks who do the recruiting rankings, but if they were really that good at truly evaluating talent, they wouldn't be journalists working for internet websites. They would be making a high 6 figure salary at a P5 football program. The bottom line is, they don't know how players will pan out. They just simply don't know. Just like scouts for the NFL or MLB, they just don't know. Players can physically develop a LOT between the years of 18 and 21, especially with great coaching and S&C. The difference between most 4* and 5* kids and 3* kids who get good development in college from when they are 18-21 years old, just isn't that much of a difference. If you simply look at the rosters of OU and Texas then compared them to ours, you would think there is no way we would even deserve to be on the same field as them. In the end, we beat OU and lost to Texas by 3 points on a last second FG. Based on recruiting rankings, those teams should have beaten us by +4 touchdowns.

The bottom line is, it just doesn't work that way. A moderately rated 3* kid who gets great development along with S&C can compete with 4* kids all day long. Certainly there are athletic freaks out there who would be fantastic players to get on our team. Yet, the main "Core" of the team being mid to upper 3* players who develop into great players is very common.

What we need are a few players that are true difference makers for us that push us over the top.

Then explain to me why OU is almost always at the top of the list in recruiting rankings and have won how many B12 titles in a row?

I've always said Snyder was 35-40 points better than the ratings. When he was in the 40's we were usually awesome teams, in the 80's and 90's pretty much 4-6 in conference and would get a decent bowl game. One reason so many more 3's develop into stars is because there are what 50 5* and 150 4* and hundreds of 3*'s. Odds would favor more 3*'s going on to the league. Tyler Lockett was a 3*. Coaching absolutely makes a difference because all teams have a lot of 3 and 2*s. It's rare that the team with the highest rated class doesn't finish highest. UT is......well, they're UT.

The following teams are perennially at or near the top of recruiting every season, yet they almost always fall short of meeting expectations: Texas, Miami, NEBRASKA, Florida State, Notre Dame, USC, and Texas aTm just to name a few. In your case, recruiting rankings would nearly always match the season final rankings, yet they don't. Yes, there are teams at the top that are also at the top of recruiting: Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia, LSU, and OU.

What is OU, Bama, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State, and Clemson doing that Texas, Texas aTm, Florida State, Nebraska, Miami, USC, and Notre Dame isn't doing because their recruiting rankings over the last 5 years are dang near the same. Shoot, 2 years ago UCLA and Tennessee had really high recruiting classes and should be hitting their stride this season with that talent, but they aren't.

Don't get me wrong, recruiting rankings ARE a data point - but its just one data point. It's a flawed system. No team is going to take the 100th ranked recruiting classes and become a national powerhouse. But good coaches can take a top 40 class and compete with top 20 or even top 10 classes at the big programs.

Football is won and lost in the trenches. Evaluating quality linemen in HS and what they can develop into once they are in college is extremely difficult. Its a lot easier to rank skill position players more accurately, but even then a mid 3* kid can develop in his first 1-2 years of college into the same level that a 4* or even 5* kid can. Kids catch up quickly once they get into a big time program with a good developmental approach.

The Big time programs will recruit well and develop well. Some big time programs recruit well, but don't develop well. Some programs give the appearance of recruiting well, but this is an example of the flawed system of rankings.

Programs like K State can recruit a lot of good quality 3* kids along both lines of scrimmage and develop them into really good players. Then we need to develop some quality skill players. What puts us over the top is when we get a few elite play makers that push the core development players over the top. I believe with how we are set up, we can do just as well with a top 30 recruiting class as the big programs do with top 10 recruiting classes. I just don't see us doing the same with a top 60-70 recruiting class though. I believe a top 40-50 recruiting class can get us to a top 25 performance level with great coaching.

To me, the biggest flaw in the system is how linemen are evaluated. The recruiting sites rarely get this right. To their credit, they do get the skill positions right much more often than not.

[hilltopwildcat]

pop, agree with every word after the first 2 paragraphs. Expectations are what people put on the program. If your expectation is a national championship, you're setting yourself up for a lot of heartache. Personally, I look at the rankings for an indication of what talent teams have added, if they added for what they needed or just to rack up stars. Until proven otherwise, if Saban gets the top-rated class, I'm going to put him at #1 because he's got the track record. Herman may or may not be the answer at UT. Miami, dumpster fire, same with the nubs although I'm not counting Frost out yet, Florida St, dumpster fire.

A recruiting ranking is merely that, NOT a prognosticator of the eventual performance for a myriad of reasons. Equating a team's latest recruiting class to what they should finish the next season is foolish. However, a player they add may push them over the top.

[ToledoCat#2]

The fact that Prince ran off Matt Boss from Cherryvale was a disgrace. Boss was developing into a very fine OL.

[AJcat7755]

The big difference between top programs and K-State is when K-State misses on a 4 or 5*, everyone remembers it because not that many come to these schools. When top programs miss, they have another one waiting to take his place. They can afford to miss because the odds that a 4 or 5* being good are higher then a 3* and they have more of them. Proper evaluation becomes key for programs that aren't getting tons of top recruits because the misses hurt more.

[ArKSU]

Why are HOFHCBS and HCCK better coaches than Saban, Swine-ney and many others? Thay actually know how to coach (teach) and do so.

Saban and Swine-ney and several others are just too damn lazy and egotistical to actually do the work. They want it handed to them.

[wild@nite]

Why are HOFHCBS and HCCK better coaches than Saban, Swine-ney and many others? Thay actually know how to coach (teach) and do so.

Saban and Swine-ney and several others are just too damn lazy and egotistical to actually do the work. They want it handed to them.

Egotistical? Maybe. Lazy? I think you're clueless.

[ArKSU]

wild@nite
Egotistical? Maybe. Lazy? I think you're clueless.

Quite simply, they don't want to do the work it takes to bring the Not 4/5 stars up to where those kids can actually be what is within their capabilities.

Saban and Swiney-ney are way too busy to actually have to deal with players who are not 4/5 Stars.
Go watch the 6/5 A coaches. They expect their players to be ready on Day 1 and not have to do the work it takes to actually bring them up to speed.

Same with the Blue Bloods in the NCAA. There is a reason that Pete Carroll is 0-2 against KSU. And TexAzz is just now tied with KSU.