Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#2012034 - 12/01/16 03:49 PM Rivals #81 - Kansas
KUCO_VOC Offline
KU1980

Registered: 05/22/08
Loc: Denver, CO
sick I don't see #81 as a good 2017 ranking. I will update monthly. Nobody will be fooling me this year that transfers etc really make us a # 52. Like last year. K man was always good at doing that crap.
_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style)

Top
#2012041 - 12/01/16 04:50 PM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
58hawk Offline
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 12/16/09
Loc: KCMO
I didn't know we had filled the entire class yet. Am I missing something here?
_________________________
KU Coach Naismith invented the game so you get to play it.

Top
#2012043 - 12/01/16 04:57 PM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
58hawk Offline
Wilt Chamberlain

Registered: 12/16/09
Loc: KCMO
Those numbers are misleading because its more the overall number of recruits committed not just star ranking. K-State had just one more 3 star and they were ranked 68 for example.
_________________________
KU Coach Naismith invented the game so you get to play it.

Top
#2012047 - 12/01/16 05:23 PM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
dgless21 Online   mad
Local Deity

Registered: 03/27/05
Loc: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Forgive me for not putting too much weight in recruiting rankings.

Chris Martin, Combs, Wrench, Kyron Watson, etc looked nice on paper and helped our recruiting ranking, but you can't build a team on players that don't show up and/or don't work hard.

Don't get me wrong, I follow recruiting as much as anyone, and I wouldn't complain about getting another Mike Lee...or picking up Adrian Ealy or Corione Harris.

However, Sims, Stanley, Wise, Tornedon, Herbert, Adeniji, Bean, McCauley, Martin, Miller, etc have proven to me that our staff can find gems that may be listed as two stars (or less) as long as they're going to work.
_________________________


Hail to thee our Alma Mater, hail to old KU!

Top
#2012051 - 12/01/16 10:24 PM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
moose1 Offline
Max Falkenstien

Registered: 12/29/06
Loc: Wichita
Also KU is going to have a small recruiting class. They increase the ranking partly of quantity, which to me doesn't matter near as much as getting the right guys. From the looks of who has signed so far, it is probably as good as the Hawks were going to get. I am hoping for a few late gets that are better than KU was expecting.

Top
#2012058 - 12/02/16 06:40 AM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
KUCO_VOC Offline
KU1980

Registered: 05/22/08
Loc: Denver, CO
If Kansas staff turnover is anything like last year, the players they recruit now will suddenly become less valuable to Beaty according to your theory dgless.
_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style)

Top
#2012066 - 12/02/16 10:27 AM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
Hot_Toddy Offline
Junior Jayhawk

Registered: 07/28/09
According to Rivals, the 2004 recruiting class was ranked #82. This class included Charlton Keith, Joe Mortensen, Anthony Collins, James McClinton, Dexton Fields, Aqib Talib, Mike Rivera, among others.

I'm not saying the 2017 class will turn out the same way but it just proves how you can't put much stock into these recruiting rankings.

Top
#2012069 - 12/02/16 12:23 PM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
dgless21 Online   mad
Local Deity

Registered: 03/27/05
Loc: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Originally Posted By: KUCO_VOC
If Kansas staff turnover is anything like last year, the players they recruit now will suddenly become less valuable to Beaty according to your theory dgless.


Are you really needing attention this badly?

I never related coaching turnover to this year's recruiting class.

I suggested we may not be as successful next year if certain coaches leave. This could be due to a longer than expected learning curve, a lower quality coach, personality clashes, or players being demotivated (like at Houston).

A coach leaving also likely reduces, at least temporarily, the number of coaches that can be recruiting, loses us a connection in whichever area he recruited, and it likely means Beaty will be spending time looking for a replacement rather than scouting, planning, or recruiting.

By the way, we have the 75th ranked recruiting class on rivals.
_________________________


Hail to thee our Alma Mater, hail to old KU!

Top
#2012074 - 12/02/16 12:57 PM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: dgless21]
KUCO_VOC Offline
KU1980

Registered: 05/22/08
Loc: Denver, CO
Originally Posted By: dgless21
Originally Posted By: KUCO_VOC
If Kansas staff turnover is anything like last year, the players they recruit now will suddenly become less valuable to Beaty according to your theory dgless.


Are you really needing attention this badly?

I never related coaching turnover to this year's recruiting class.

I suggested we may not be as successful next year if certain coaches leave. This could be due to a longer than expected learning curve, a lower quality coach, personality clashes, or players being demotivated (like at Houston).

A coach leaving also likely reduces, at least temporarily, the number of coaches that can be recruiting, loses us a connection in whichever area he recruited, and it likely means Beaty will be spending time looking for a replacement rather than scouting, planning, or recruiting.

By the way, we have the 75th ranked recruiting class on rivals.
Except for your snarky comment, I believe you make my case perfectly. Recruiting class rankings, if you did not know, change over time. 81st when I posted here.

Recruiting rankings are what we have to compare our progress over our off season until we have another game to all other schools.
_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style)

Top
#2012075 - 12/02/16 01:24 PM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
dgless21 Online   mad
Local Deity

Registered: 03/27/05
Loc: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Your case is that our players gain/lose value depending on coaching. True.

However, if our recruits can gain and lose value depending on the environment he's put in that he has no control over, doesn't that remove the entire value of recruiting rankings?

You are essentially saying that a player's value/ranking/stars don't matter. It all depends on how he is developed and trained once on campus, right? So us having the 81st/75th recruiting ranking has no bearing on how successful the players, and by association, the team will be, right?
_________________________


Hail to thee our Alma Mater, hail to old KU!

Top
#2012091 - 12/03/16 07:28 AM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: dgless21]
KUCO_VOC Offline
KU1980

Registered: 05/22/08
Loc: Denver, CO
Originally Posted By: dgless21
Your case is that our players gain/lose value depending on coaching. True.

However, if our recruits can gain and lose value depending on the environment he's put in that he has no control over, doesn't that remove the entire value of recruiting rankings?

You are essentially saying that a player's value/ranking/stars don't matter. It all depends on how he is developed and trained once on campus, right? So us having the 81st/75th recruiting ranking has no bearing on how successful the players, and by association, the team will be, right?
Team recruiting rankings as they relate to future success individually in college is always a crap shoot. But generally speaking, the top 10 ranked teams in recruiting somehow end up in the season following, in or near the top 25 coaches poll (based upon wins and SOS). It's a good indication that team rankings during recruiting season make a difference, yes. If we were ranked at 60 ish now we wouldn't have to worry about team rankings. It would be good enough and then we could worry more about the individuals (players) needed to complete a good all around roster addition. But we are at 80 ish which tells me my best recruiters for Kansas ain't cutting it.
_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style)

Top
#2012092 - 12/03/16 07:33 AM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: Hot_Toddy]
KUCO_VOC Offline
KU1980

Registered: 05/22/08
Loc: Denver, CO
Originally Posted By: Hot_Toddy
According to Rivals, the 2004 recruiting class was ranked #82. This class included Charlton Keith, Joe Mortensen, Anthony Collins, James McClinton, Dexton Fields, Aqib Talib, Mike Rivera, among others.

I'm not saying the 2017 class will turn out the same way but it just proves how you can't put much stock into these recruiting rankings.
I do recall Talib was very low in terms of HS rankings but as to why 2004 was that low overall, I would need to do much more review than I have available. QB Todd R got hot along with a few unique skill position players for Mangino.
_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style)

Top
#2012098 - 12/03/16 11:54 AM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
dgless21 Online   mad
Local Deity

Registered: 03/27/05
Loc: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Originally Posted By: KUCO_VOC
Originally Posted By: dgless21
Your case is that our players gain/lose value depending on coaching. True.

However, if our recruits can gain and lose value depending on the environment he's put in that he has no control over, doesn't that remove the entire value of recruiting rankings?

You are essentially saying that a player's value/ranking/stars don't matter. It all depends on how he is developed and trained once on campus, right? So us having the 81st/75th recruiting ranking has no bearing on how successful the players, and by association, the team will be, right?
Team recruiting rankings as they relate to future success individually in college is always a crap shoot. But generally speaking, the top 10 ranked teams in recruiting somehow end up in the season following, in or near the top 25 coaches poll (based upon wins and SOS). It's a good indication that team rankings during recruiting season make a difference, yes. If we were ranked at 60 ish now we wouldn't have to worry about team rankings. It would be good enough and then we could worry more about the individuals (players) needed to complete a good all around roster addition. But we are at 80 ish which tells me my best recruiters for Kansas ain't cutting it.


So to summarize, it's a complete crap shoot, but a difference in 20 spots is something we should all be worried about before recruiting season is over?

It's a good indication based on...Your opinion? Facts? Stats? What?
_________________________


Hail to thee our Alma Mater, hail to old KU!

Top
#2012103 - 12/03/16 12:42 PM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
KUCO_VOC Offline
KU1980

Registered: 05/22/08
Loc: Denver, CO
You are on my wave length now. Yes 20 more spots higher makes me like Beaty & co. Right now? Not so much.
_________________________
Kansas football will rise again (Coach Don Fambrough style)

Top
#2012107 - 12/03/16 01:16 PM Re: Rivals #81 - Kansas [Re: KUCO_VOC]
dgless21 Online   mad
Local Deity

Registered: 03/27/05
Loc: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Originally Posted By: KUCO_VOC
You are on my wave length now. Yes 20 more spots higher makes me like Beaty & co. Right now? Not so much.


Based on your history of posts, it's a lose/lose discussion.

If we had a high ranked recruit (like Mike Lee) or recruiting class, you'd say it doesn't matter until they sign or show up on campus.

If we have a low ranked recruit (like Topps, Grunhardt, Defense, etc) or recruiting class, you complain that we should chase better players and have a better class.

You're going to keep whining about anything you can regardless of what happens.
_________________________


Hail to thee our Alma Mater, hail to old KU!

Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Preview