Bleacher Report - Articles by C.W. O'Brien

Kansas Recruiting Corner: Bolton, Davis, Evans, and Other Tid-Bits

C.W. O'Brien — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:50:38 -0400

It has been a pretty eventful last few days. There is lots of recruiting news to report. Today will showcase the first weekly "Way Out Prospect" report. It is a new feature to the Recruiting Corner, where we take a look at some of the prospects that Kansas University will be recruiting in 2011 and beyond.

This feature should help create some more familiarity with KU's recruiting as well as foster a little bit of excitement for the future.

Zach Bolton Commits

Zach Bolton of Houston, TX became KU's 12th verbal commitment for the Class of 2010. The offensive tackle is listed at 6'2", 260 lbs., and runs a 4.8 in the 40-yard dash.

He is listed as a three-star on both Rivals and Scout. Rivals has the Houston prospect as the 18th best offensive guard prospect in the nation. Scout has him listed as the 17th. ESPN has given him an initial rating of 76 at the guard position, despite the fact that Bolton has played as an offensive tackle since he started high school.

Bolton chose KU over offers from Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wake Forest, New Mexico State, North Texas, Rice, SMU, Baylor, Houston, Illinois, and Iowa State

The Klein Forest High School product is very athletic and makes good initial contact. He has the speed to make impact blocks down the field and the strength to hold blocks.

His biggest weaknesses are his pad height and leverage. He will likely benefit from a redshirt year and a collegiate conditioning program. He has a good frame and can easily put on 30 pounds without sacrificing a lot of speed.

Carl Davis Update

Adlai Stephenson High School, (Sterling Heights, MI) OT/DT Carl Davis has narrowed down his list of potential suitors to four: Kansas, Iowa, Michigan State, and Wisconsin. Iowa is the current leader, although Davis is far from done with the recruiting process. The 6'5", 300-pound monster has yet to make the trek down to Lawrence.

Davis is currently listed as a three-star prospect on Rivals and has been rated a 75 by ESPN. He has not yet been evaluated by Scout.

Davis is very athletic for a big man. He has good footwork and quickness to go with long arms. He still has a little baby fat on him, but he has a solid frame and can still add quite a bit of muscle.

While KU is always looking for athletic defensive lineman, I will not be surprised if they are looking to play this prospect on the offensive side of the ball. With his frame and reach, he could be a very physically dominating guard or right tackle.

Way Out Prospect: WR Dorial Green

Dorial Green is one of those special prospects that is best described as a "freak." Despite only being a freshman, he starred for Hillcrest High School's (Springfield, MO) football, basketball, and track teams, earning honors in all three sports. Despite his youth, he has spent the better part of the summer tearing up the camp circuit.

At 6'5", 206 pounds, Green has a body that already looks like a college freshman. What really stands out is his speed. Green claims a 4.43 forty time. Unlike most people who claim sub-4.5 times, he was clocked at 4.48 and 4.49 twice this summer while attending camps. His combination of size and speed is already making college scouts drool.

The Hillcrest phenom has legitimate track speed as well. He has a PR of 10.88w in the 100m and a 22.10 in the 200m. His time in the 200m is one of the fastest in the nation for a freshman. His speed is only going to improve. Like most young sprinters, he still needs to develop the footwork needed to properly accelerate out of the blocks. This will translate well onto the football field.

On the basketball court, Green is a monster rebounder with a decent mid-range shot. He was named all-conference last year. He is also drawing interest from colleges for basketball.

As a freshman, Green had nearly 1000 yards receiving and averaged almost 24 yards per catch. The best part about him as a prospect is that he is far from being a polished receiver. He has an amazing upside and can still develop his hands, footwork, blocking, and route running.

Green is currently interested in KU, OU, and Mizzou for both football and basketball. The only downside to this prospect is that if he continues to grow, he may decide to focus only on basketball.

He is a star on the rise and is already almost certain to be a "Five-Star-Gotta-Have" prospect.

In Other Recruiting News

• Offensive Tackle Nick Demien is down to four schools: OU, Mizzou, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Oklahoma is currently at the top of his list, with Mizzou in a close second.

• Offensive Tackle Denton Simek has narrowed his list down to three schools: Arizona, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State.

• Arlington, TX Cornerback Ciante Evans is expected to narrow his list down in the near future. He has indicated that he would like to make his verbal by the end of the summer. He recently attended Nebraska's Junior Days, and while he enjoyed the visit, he was not ready to commit.

Happy Trails

The weekend saw a couple of KU targets decide to go elsewhere. KU wasn't particularly high on either prospects' list, but they would have both been good pickups for the Jayhawks.

• Offensive Tackle Trent Spurgeon from Owasso, OK has committed to Arizona.
• Weak-side Defensive End Marcus Rush from Cincinnati, OH has committed to Michigan State.

Kansas Recruiting Corner: Unmet Needs For the Class Of 2010

C.W. O'Brien — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:52:03 -0400

Going into this recruiting cycle, it is a well-documented fact that KU has to sign a smaller class. With only 17-18 scholarships currently available, KU has already received verbal commitments from 11 prospects.

That leaves the Jayhawks with roughly 6-7 more available scholarships for this recruiting class. While that number may expand with possible pro defections and player transfers, it is unlikely that it will expand by much.

With the Class of 2010 over halfway complete, it is time to get into the nitty-gritty.

There are several needs still to be filled, and the number of scholarships to fill those requirements are quickly dwindling.

Below is a position-by-position breakdown of KU's positional needs for 2010, who has already committed to fill those psitions, and who KU is targeting to fill the remaining roster spots.

Quarterback
Need: 1
Remaining Scholarships: 0
Notes: With the commitment of Walker, KU virtually wrapped up their quarterback recruiting. The only possible change would be if a player like Austin Hinder or Blake Bell decided that they want to go to KU—in which case, KU would find a scholarship somewhere.

Verbal
Jacoby Walker (Spring, TX) 6'2" 210 lbs. 4.59 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (Dual QB #35)

Running Back
Need: 2
Remaining Scholarships: 1+
Notes: Kansas will likely take at least one more running back commitment, but could take more. Beachum and Randle are both athletic enough to play multiple positions. The Jayhawks would take both in a heartbeat without giving the idea a second thought.

Verbal
James Sims (Irving, TX) 6'0" 205 lbs. 4.50 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (RB #51)

Best Available Prospects
D.J Jones (Denison, TX) 5'11" 210 lbs. 4.50 forty
-Rivals 4-Star (RB #16)

Joe Randle (Wichita, KS) 6'0" 180 lbs. 4.42 forty
-Rivals 4-Star (RB #19)

Delans Griffin (Clinton, OK) 5'10" 180 lbs. 4.49 forty
-Rivals 4-Star (RB #24)

Andre Dawson (Cedar Rapids, IA) 6'1" 210 lbs. 4.50 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (RB #39)

Jatashun Beachum (Dallas, TX) 6'2" 275 lbs. 4.65 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (ATH #33)

Tight End
Need: 1
Remaining Scholarships: 0
Notes: While KU was still recruiting athletic tight ends for awhile after the commitment of Trent Smiley, it appears that they have backed off of the idea.

Verbal
Trent Smiley (Frisco, TX) 6'4" 230 lbs. 4.60 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (TE #16)

Wide Receiver
Need: 2+
Remaining Scholarships: 1+
Notes: With Keeston Terry and Ricki Herod already in the fold, I think that KU is holding one more scholarship open for either Justin McCay or Marcus Lucas. They are both 'can't miss' prospects; McCay because of his athleticism, and Lucas because of his size/speed combination. If neither prospect chooses KU, I don't expect KU to receive another receiver commitment.

Verbals
Keeston Terry (Blue Springs, MO) 6'3" 185 lbs. 4.69 forty
-Rivals 4-Star (WR #37)

Ricki Herod Jr. (Mesquite, TX) 6'2" 175 lbs.
-Rivals 3-Star (WR #53)

Best Available Prospects
Justin McCay (Shawnee, KS) 6'3" 205 lbs. 4.53 forty
-Rivals 4-Star (ATH #6)

Marcus Lucas (Liberty, MO) 6'5" 195 lbs. 4.50 forty
-Rivals 4-Star (WR #19)

Offensive Line
Need: 0
Remaining Scholarships: 1+
Notes: This is one of the only positions that KU can afford to not sign anyone. Nine of the ten prospects on KU's two deep for 2009 return for 2010.

There are also several other players waiting in the wings to step onto the field for 2010. HC Mark Mangino has made offensive line depth a priority over the last few years, and is finally in a position to be very selective with his scholarships. Expect KU to only sign one or two OL prospects, if they sign any at all.

Best Available Prospects
Daryl Williams (Corinth, TX) 6'5" 269 lbs. 4.90 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (OT #35)

Robert Griffin (Euless, TX) 6'7" 355 lbs. 5.40 forty
-JuCo (OT NR)

Zach Bolton (Houston, TX) 6'2" 260 lbs. 4.85 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (OG #18)

Chris Littlehead (Tahlequah, OK) 6'2" 305 lbs.
-Rivals 3-Star (OG #43)

Jeremy Burton (Muskogee, OK) 6'3" 285 lbs.
-Rivals 3-Star (OG NR)

Defensive End
Need: 2
Remaining Scholarships: 1
Notes: The one remaining scholarship is basically Donovan Vestal's to give up. If Vestal wants it, it is his. However, if Vestal doesn't make a decision in the near future, he could see his scholarship be given to Texas Tech commit Jacqaylin Arps.

Verbal
Geneo Grissom (Hutchinson, KS) 6'4" 230 lbs. 4.63 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (SDE #25)

Best Available Prospects
Donovan Vestal (Arlington, TX) 6'5" 240 lbs. 4.70 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (SDE #33)

Derrick Bryant (Columbus, OH) 6'4" 230 lbs. 4.55 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (SDE #29)

Jaqwaylin Arps (Denison, TX) 6'3" 230 lbs.
-Rivals NR (WDE NR)

Defensive Tackle
Need: 1
Remaining Scholarships: 0
Notes: KU was done searching for a defensive tackle the second Jeremiah Edwards came on board.

Verbal
Jeremiah Edwards (Garland, TX) 6'1" 270 lbs. 4.90 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (DT #71)

Linebacker
Need: 1
Remaining Scholarships: 1+
Notes: The switch to a base 4-2-5 defense has lowered this as a positional need quite a bit. While the Jayhawks may take a second linebacker, but they don't necessarily have to. There is now a premium on speed rather than sheer bulk.

Verbal
Jimmay Mundine (Denison, TX) 6'1" 225 lbs. 4.60 forty
-Rivals NR (ILB NR)

Best Available Prospects
Courtney Gaston (Ft. Gibson, OK) 6'4" 215 lbs. 4.55 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (OLB #42)

Austin Wilson (Tyler, TX) 6'0" 200 lbs. 4.60 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (OLB #46)

Nduka Onyeali (Denver, CO) 6'1" 225 lbs. 4.50 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (OLB #50)

Jeremiah George (Clearwater, FL) 5'11" 191 lbs. 4.60 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (OLB #54)

Jayrone Elliott (Cleveland, OH) 6'3" 207 lbs. 4.94 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (OLB #75)

Defensive Back
Need: 2+
Remaining Scholarships: 1+
Notes: With the abundance of spread offenses in the Big XII, there is a greater need for speed and depth in the defensive backfield. Despite the fact that Kansas signed five DB's in 2009, expect KU to sign at least another three in 2010.

Verbals
Antonio Burton (Denton, TX) 5'11" 180 lbs.
-Rivals 3-Star (S #74)

Dave Clark (Baton Rouge, LA) 6'2" 181 lbs.
-JuCo NR (CB NR)

Best Available Prospects
Tre'Vante Porter (Midwest City, OK) 6'0" 185 lbs. 4.40 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (CB #37)

Ciante Evans (Arlington, TX) 5'11" 170 lbs. 4.50 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (CB #44)

Toney Hurd Jr. (Missouri City, TX) 5'9" 184 lbs. 4.48 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (CB #46)

Damion Payne (Klien, TX) 6'0" 185 lbs. 4.41 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (CB #62)

Isaac Umesi (North Richland Hills, TX) 5'10" 182 lbs. 4.40 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (CB #74)

Tommie Saunders (San Antonio, TX) 6'1" 200 lbs. 4.50 forty
-Rivals 3-Star (S #26)

Jeremy Deering (Tampa, FL) 6'2" 198 lbs.
-Rivals 3-Star (S #46)

Specialists
Need: 0
Scholarships Available: 0
Note: While Kansas didn't exactly have a lot of room to pick up players that weren't needed, they were happy to make room for Justin Castor. His ability to create touchbacks on kickoffs makes him a valuable commodity.

Verbal
Justin Castor (Arvada, CO) 6'5" 180 lbs.
-Rivals NR (K NR)

While Kansas may be running a little short on scholarships this year, they have been able to get enough early commitments to really be able to focus on getting the right recruits for the class, as opposed to the right number of recruits.

While KU still has several needs, there also exists several options for each of those positions. The next couple of months could get very interesting on the recruiting trail.

Kansas Recruiting Corner: Terry, Mundine, and Other Tid-Bits

C.W. O'Brien — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:08:37 -0400

Keeston Terry Commits

While it was just speculation yesterday at noon when I posted the rumors, it became official late yesterday afternoon. While Rivals has not yet made the change, both Scout and ESPN have confirmed that Terry is now a Jayhawk. If that isn't quite enough confirmation, the story has been confirmed on Husker Extra.

Terry is a Four-Star wide receiver prospect on both Rivals (WR No. 37) and Scout (WR No. 24). Keeston is the son of former KU stand-out Doug Terry. He is listed at 6'3", 185 lbs., and runs a 4.6 forty. He is known for his burst out of cuts, skill at intermediate routes, and the quality of his hands.

Terry also had offers from Nebraska, Stanford, Wisconsin, Illinois, K-State, and Mizzou. He is the Jayhawks 11th commit for the Class of 2010, committing less than an hour after linebacker Jimmay Mundine.

“My decision had nothing to do with the people up in Lincoln or the coaching staff,” Terry told Scout.com yesterday. “There are great people up there with awesome fan support but I just felt more comfortable in Lawrence. I was real torn between the two schools but you can only choose one and my heart was leading me to a different direction.”

Terry is just the latest in a string of Nebraska decommits that the Jayhawks have picked up in recent years. Expect this budding recruiting rivalry to continue to develop over the next several years as the Huskers and Jayhawks improve.

Jimmay Mundine Commits

Jimmay Mundine of Denison, TX became the 10th Kansas verbal for the Class of 2010 yesterday afternoon. The linebacker/defensive end prospect is listed at 6'2", 215 pounds, and runs a 4.65 forty. He has not yet been rated by any of the big three recruiting services. Despite playing primarily at defensive end, he is being recruited as a linebacker.

Mundine, who only had one offer, thoroughly impressed the coaching staff with his performance at the Super Jayhawks Camp earlier this summer.

The Denison High School product has also stated that he is trying to convince fellow teammate and Texas Tech defensive end commit Jaqwaylin Arps to come to Kansas as well. Mundine and Arps were on campus Tuesday and both came away thoroughly impressed.

It is important to note that Mundine is one of SEVERAL Denison High School prospects that KU is recruiting. The most widely known is Four-Star running back DJ Jones Jaqwaylin Arps has held a KU offer since the beginning of 2009.

Wide receiver Cody Reeves, who ran a 4.45 electronically timed 40 at the Super Jayhawk Camp, and WR/QB Jordan Taylor have also drawn interest.

In Other Recruiting News

• Jatashun "Big Tex" Beachum made his way to Lawrence for an unofficial visit on Friday. Beachum was expected to be on campus earlier this month, but his visit was delayed. This exciting athlete has been a heavy KU lean for several months, and could be the next prospect to commit for the Class of 2010.

• Donovan Vestal has indicated that he will likely take a few more visits before committing anywhere. It is unclear how this will affect KU's recruiting. Vestal has been the number one defensive end target for KU for several months and has been a strong KU lean for quite a while.

It is unknown whether he is looking to make sure that KU is the right place for him or if he is looking to see if he can find a better offer. While Vestal has indicated recently that he wants to have his commitment locked down by early August, his deadline may be pushed back so that he can make his additional visits.

• Athlete Marquisse Hill is no longer committed to the University of Missouri. He has been a soft verbal for several months, but has finally decided that it is wide open. His top three are Arkansas, Minnesota, and Mizzou.

While it is unlikely that Hill will end up at KU, he is also unlikely to recommit to Mizzou. Expect Hill to join his cousin Ronnie Wingo (Class of 2009) at Arkansas.

Happy Trails

KU lost another prospect yesterday, although the writing has been on the wall for several months. Milton was never really sold on KU, and it appeared that Lawrence was probably his Plan C at best. It is a shame...a 6'6" receiver with 4.6 speed could have done some serious damage in OC Ed Warinner's system.

• Wide Receiver Matt Milton from Mascoutah, IL has committed to Tennessee.

Kansas Recruiting Corner: Castor, Terry, Griffin, and Other Tid-Bits

C.W. O'Brien — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:04:42 -0400

Justin Castor Commits

Justin Castor became KU's 9th known commitment for the Class of 2010 on July 30. The 6'5", 180 lbs. kicker has not yet been rated by Rivals or ESPN, but is listed as the 18th best kicker in the nation by Scout.

The Arvada, CO native also had an offer from Wyoming and was drawing interest from K-State, Colorado, and Stanford.

This prospect came out of nowhere at the KU Kicking Camp this summer and thoroughly impressed the coaches.

He became a bit of a priority for the staff. While it is highly unusual for any school to offer a kicker a scholarship out of high school, and even more unusual for a school to do it as an pre-season recruit, according to reports, "he was just too good a prospect to pass up."

So why a kicker? The Arvada West standout has a leg. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. As a sophomore 13 of 59 kickoffs were touchbacks.

As a junior the number skyrocketed, 36 of 62 kickoffs were touchbacks. He has good form and is only going to get stronger. He also kicked three FG's as a sophomore and nine as a junior. Somehow he managed to haul in a receiving touchdown as well.

He is an all-around quality athlete. He placed seventh in the triple jump at the Colorado High School 5A track meet as a junior and was also honorable mention Colorado All-State 5A in basketball as a junior.

He has been on his high school's varsity football team since he was a freshman and was named to first team All-State as a junior and honorable mention as a sophomore.

At this time, it is uncertain what kind of impact Castor will have with Jacob Branstetter still on the roster. Branstetter will be a junior when Castor arrives on campus, so there is plenty of room to redshirt Castor in preparation for the future. Although with the strength of his leg, Castor may play immediately on kickoffs.

Keeston Terry Rumors

Rumors are beginning to surface that Nebraska commit Keeston Terry may be changing his verbal to KU. Terry, a Four-Star wide receiver prospect from Blue Springs, MO committed to the Huskers in May. Terry is the son of former KU standout Doug Terry.

When the news broke that Terry had committed, some of us on Hawk Digest commented that we wouldn't be surprised if he changed his commitment before signing day unless he was 100 percent committed to Nebraska and their program.

This statement had little to do with Nebraska's coaching staff or the quality of their teams, but rather all of the ties that Terry had to KU's program.

While nothing is certain, it appears that Terry is having second thoughts on his commitment. He may reaffirm his commitment to Nebraska, he may commit to KU, or he may look elsewhere. With signing day still seven months away, a lot can happen.

I have yet to officially hear any rumblings on any of the big three (ESPN, Rivals, Scout) there is a lot of talk around Lincoln, Lawrence, and the Kansas City area. There are currently threads on the Nebraska and KU forums on Scout. There have also been snip-its noted on several reputable KC area recruiting blogs since mid-June.

There are rumors that he has already talked to HC Bo Pelini and informed him. There have been rumors that Tyler Gabbert has been calling Terry to get him to re-affirm his commitment to the Huskers. There are also rumors that Terry has been deleting Nebraska fans from his Facebook account.

My friend Terry claims to be one of these fans (side note, I honestly think that it is tacky to try to add football/basketball players and recruits to your social networking pages unless you actually know the kids...people spam their accounts just so they can get close to them).

There are a lot of rumors floating around, all of them without any solid backing, but I tend to think of the old saying "where there's smoke, there's fire."

It is like the Briscoe rumors that have been floating around since May about his academic standings...there was nothing concrete about any of them...and then HC Mark Mangino mentioned something about Dez having to complete some course work before he would be eligible to play this fall.

I personally won't believe any of these rumors until I see something official from Terry or his family, but the longer these rumors grow legs, the more truth there may be to them.

In Other Recruiting News

• Columbia Rock Bridge tight end Trey Millard has narrowed down his list to three. KU didn't make the final cut.

• Justin McCay has reopened his recruiting after the death of his father last month. He recently attended the University of Florida's Friday Night Lights camp. He is expected to narrow his list before he starts school in the fall.

• Four-Star running back prospect Delans Griffin (Clinton, OK) has recently made his offer from KU public. He rushed for nearly 2000 yards as a junior, in addition to catching 12 passes and averaging nearly 40 yards per kickoff return and 30 yards per punt return.

Griffin has expressed a desire to stay in the state of Oklahoma and play for the Sooners or Cowboys, but neither has offered as of yet. With two RB commits already, it is unlikely that OU will offer.

Oklahoma State will have at least nine scholarship running backs on their roster for the fall of 2010, it is unknown whether or not they have the scholarship space to extend him an offer.

Griffin has solid track speed. He was clocked several times in 2009 in the mid-10 second range with a PR of 10.54 in the 100m and in the low 22's for the 200m. He finished first in the 100 and second in the 200 in 4A at the Oklahoma state track meet.

Happy Trails
Thankfully, it has been a very slow week in recruiting...after the last couple of weeks, one of these is needed.

• Offensive Tackle Luke Burleson from Allen, TX has committed to Baylor.
• Athlete Lovocheya Cooper from Arp, TX has committed to Oklahoma State.

Kansas Recruiting Corner: Trey Millard, Courtney Gaston, and Other Tid-Bits

C.W. O'Brien — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:25:54 -0400

Trey Millard Update

Rock Bridge High School (Columbia, MO) ILB/TE prospect Trey Millard is reportedly close to making a commitment. He has made visits to KU, Stanford, Iowa, Oklahoma, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, and South Carolina.

Millard, who attended KU's Junior Days in the spring, has KU listed in his Top Eight, but the Jayhawks are likely out of the hunt for this prospect. Originally, the Rock Bridge prospect indicated that educational quality and coaching staff quality were his two biggest factors. At that time, KU was high on his list.

With KU's current depth at tight end, it was highly unlikely that the Jayhawks would sign two tight ends without forcing one into a positional change. While both Smiley and Millard are quality defensive prospects, Smiley is probably the more athletic prospect of the two and fits the mold of a pass-catching tight end better, especially as a Y receiver in the slot.

Despite initially having a lack of preference for collegiate position, Millard has indicated in recent weeks that he would prefer to play tight end at the next level. It is currently unclear how much the commitment of Trent Smiley has impacted KU's slide down his list, but it has almost certainly impacted it to some amount.

Other Recruiting News

• Elite Offensive Tackle prospect Trent Spurgeon has narrowed his list down to two schools; Texas Tech and Arizona. Spurgeon, a four-Star prospect out of Owasso, OK is a former high school teammate of KU incoming freshman Gavin Howard. The Owasso product attended KU's Junior Days in the Spring.

• Defensive End Donovan Vestal is closing in on his decision. Vestal has had the Jayhawk faithful on the edge of their seats for the better part of a month. It is widely known that Vestal is near the top of KU's board at defensive end. He has stated that he expects to make his decision by early August.

• KU is making a strong push for OLB Courtney Gaston from Ft. Gibson, OK. Gaston, who was listed as a 4-Star until very recently, reportedly runs 4.5 forty and has a 38" vertical. He is listed at 6'3", 205 lbs. on Rivals, but now claims to be almost 6'5", 225 lbs. The athletic linebacker has offers from KU, K-State, Arkansas, and Tulsa.

Happy Trails

It has been another really rough week for recruiting. Several talented prospects have chosen to go elsewhere. It is still very early in the recruiting cycle, so anything can happen, but I have a feeling that all of these prospects are off of the board for good

• Offensive Tackle Anthony Gatti from St. Louis, Mo. has committed to Mizzou.
• Offensive Tackle Evan Washington from DeSoto, Tex. has committed to LSU.
• Guard Travis Jackson from Columbus, Ohio has committed to Michigan State.
• Weak-side Defensive End Holmes Onwukaife from Cedar Park, Tex. has committed to Florida State
• Cornerback Tyler Stephenson from Lancaster, Tex. has committed to Baylor.
• Cornerback Brenton Bogar from Muskogee, Okla. has committed to Tulsa.
• Safety James Haynes from Orange, Tex. has committed to OU.

Kansas Recruiting Corner: Sims, Beachum, and Other Tid-Bits

C.W. O'Brien — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:12:14 -0400

I posted a recruiting update on Monday because I honestly anticipated a bit of a slow week in recruiting.

Kansas University had not received a commitment in the last week, the guys I thought were going to commit over the weekend didn't, so I figured it was time to start going through some of the prospects and give some updates.

That was Monday morning. This is today. There have been some significant strides made on the recruiting trail in the last few days.

James Sims Commits

On Monday afternoon James Sims became KU’s eighth official commitment for the recruiting class of 2010. The 6'0", 205-lb. back is from Irving, Texas and is the sixth Texas prospect to commit to KU.

As of now, the versatile back has not been rated by Rivals, but has a three-star rating by Scout (#73 RB) and a 77 rating from ESPN.

Sims also had offers from Arkansas, Pudue, Iowa State, Utah, North Texas, Tulsa, and UTEP.

The Macarthur High School product has D-I size to go with excellent speed (4.5-4.55 forty) and his lower body strength is amazing (600-pound squat).

He is a between the tackles runner with soft hands. He caught 21 passes as a junior and 12 passes as a sophomore for seven touchdowns; one TD for every 4.5 receptions.

He isn’t considered explosive, but he has the ability to power through tackles on the interior and burst once he gets into open space.

Jatashun Beachum Update

Beachum or Big Tex, as he is better known, has an unofficial visit coming in the next week or so. Beachum’s recruitment has adjusted slightly over the last few weeks, more so than originally thought on the last update.

KU has reportedly moved to the top of his list, with Oregon and Oklahoma close behind. This has been confirmed by Beachum’s high school football coach, as well as Bryan Cisler at Rivals.

Florida has backed off of him drastically and there is some debate over whether or not Oregon has actually offered him a scholarship. This is good news for the Jayhawks.

Ja’Ney Jackson has developed a good relationship with Beachum, and as of now, KU is recruiting the beast of a man at running back. As of now, the relationship with Jackson and the ability to play running back appear to be the key selling points for KU.

Anthony Gatti Update

Parkway North (St. Louis, MO) offensive tackle Anthony Gatti has narrowed down his list to three. His current top three are Ole Miss, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Earlier this summer, it was reported that Gatti wanted to select a school before his season started, but as of now it doesn’t look like that will happen.

Gatti, who attended KU’s Junior Days earlier this year, was leaning towards KU and MU at the start of the summer. All signs pointed to him holding out for a Missouri offer, but the Tigers held out their offer until mid-June.

When he didn’t instantly commit to the Tigers, his recruitment opened up drastically. Since then Ole Miss, Wisconsin, and Wake Forrest have all turned the heat up.

While he has narrowed down his list to three potential suitors, KU has not backed off of his recruitment. Ed Warinner is personally handling Gatti’s recruitment. While he appears to be solid with those three schools, the longer KU can stay on the edge, the better.

If he visits the three schools and doesn’t like what he sees or hears, the Jayhawks would be in the right position to pick up this talented offensive tackle.

Mystery In The Making

In recent weeks there have been a few weird adjustments on the recruiting trail with regards to players that are committing. Isaac Umesi, Carey Fortson, and Corey Jones have all allegedly given verbals to KU, however those verbals disappeared from Scout and Rivals almost as quickly as they appeared.

Umesi had an offer from KU for quite a while. Apparently he voiced his commitment in an interview with Scout. It was placed on their site and then quickly taken down. Scout no longer has him listed as having an offer. On Rivals, KU is listed as high and everyone else is listed as a medium.

Fortson has had an offer in place for about the last six weeks or so. It has been reported that he loves KU and has since before he started high school. He was expected to come to Lawrence on an unofficial visit last weekend. Now he is no longer listed as having an offer on either site.

Jones is a mystery in his own way. He is from Memphis, TN, which is far from being a recruiting pipeline for KU. The DE/LB reportedly received an offer in the mail about a week ago and made the decision that he wanted to go to KU.

I don’t know if this was a question of guys jumping the gun on conditional offers or if the kids all had offers and said, “I really want to go to KU,” and their statements were just construed as verbals. I honestly don’t have a clue what is going on. If anyone has any insight, let me know.

Other Recruiting News

Rumors are circulating out of Wichita that, while Joe Randle’s recruitment is expected to slow down, his top two schools are currently KU and Oklahoma State. While I have been able to find nothing to confirm those rumors, Wichita Southeast’s football coach, Gary Guzman, has indicated that Randle wants to play in the Big 12 and he also wants to stay close to home.

Happy Trails

The following players have committed elsewhere in recent days. It is a shame to see Jolly and Fuller off the board. I think Bibbins saw the writing on the wall with Smiley and started looking elsewhere. It is the nature of the beast.

• Wide Receiver Jordan Jolly from Midwest City, TX, has committed to Houston.
• Tight End Kenneth Bibbins from Sugar Land, TX, has committed to Houston.
• JuCo Weak Side Defensive End Adam Davis from Folkston, GA (Hutchinson CC), has committed to K-State.
• Cornerback Kyle Fuller from Baltimore, MD, has committed to Virginia Tech.
• Safety Alton Demby from Galena Park, TX, has committed to Houston.

Jayhawk Recruiting Corner: Joe Randle and a Few Recruiting Tidbits

C.W. O'Brien — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:43:15 -0400

Joseph Randle Update

While this is far from being breaking news, there have been a few recent updates with the recruitment of Wichita Southeast running back/defensive back Joseph Randle.

Randle is a four-star RB prospect on both Rivals and Scout, in addition to being on the ESPN 150 watch-list. He has been listed as anywhere from the 16th-20th best running back prospect in the country.

Randle currently has offers from colleges in the Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Pac-10. Despite all of the attention that he has been getting from colleges on the national level, he has indicated throughout his recruiting that he would like to stay a little closer to home.

He has indicated previously that he likes KU, KSU, Mizzou, and that Oklahoma would be a dream school for him.

There have also been rumors floating around the Wichita area that Randle and Bishop Carroll QB Blake Bell wanted to play college football together. When Bell gave a verbal to OU, it looked like a match made in Boomer-Sooner heaven.

Then in late June, that dream took a hit.

The Sooners have received verbals from two of the nations top three all-purpose running backs. While I am sure that Bob Stoops would gladly pick up a third running back for the Class of 2010, especially one as athletic and versatile as Randle, one has to wonder whether or not there is space.

As of now, OU has verbals from 15 prospects.

That leaves a maximum of 10 more prospects available (12 if OU signs two JuCo players that enroll in the spring). Yes that leaves 10-12 scholarships still available, but the Sooners still need to fill holes at wide receiver, both strong and weak-side defensive end, outside linebacker, inside linebacker, and cornerback.

In all likelihood, Bob Stoops is probably going to try to sign two more wide receivers, two more defensive ends, two corners, and at least one inside and one outside linebacker. That is eight scholarships right there. Throw in the fact that OU hasn't signed 25 or more prospects since 2006, and OU may be done recruiting once those holes are filled.

One also must wonder if there are enough carries to accommodate three solid running backs. In 2008, OU used two primary running backs and a third back in relief. Chris Brown and DeMarcco Murray picked up the bulk of the carries, and that led Mossis Madu becoming a slot receiver last spring so that he could see the field more often in 2009.

There just aren't enough touches to go around.

In recent months, former KU RB/DB John Randle has indicated that his brother is highly interested in KU, K-State, and Mizzou. KSU has already received a verbal from fellow Wichita stand-out DeMarcus Robinson for the Class of 2010.

It has been known for quite a while that it will be next to impossible for any team to sign both Wichita products. Mizzou will have five underclassman RB's on their roster in 2009, and starter Derrick Washington will still have eligibility remaining when Randle hits the field.

All indications point to Randle taking his time, completing his visits, and picking a school that is the right fit for him.

In Other Recruiting News:

Still no word yet on either Carey Fortson or Donovan Vestal.

Both have indicated that they favor KU and are expected to commit to KU this month. Fortson's visit was last weekend, but no news about a potential commitment has been forthcoming. Personally, I am excited with both prospects. They both bring speed and athleticism to the table.

An interesting note, Rivals has removed Fortson's offer from their site. I don't know if something has happened and the scholarship is no longer on the table or if it's simply a mistake.

Do we have a mystery brewing?

Happy Trails

The following prospects have given verbal commitments to other schools. Once again, these all appear to be solid verbals. While Carpenter and Rotheram were fringe prospects, KU has been chasing after Ariguzo and Rogers for months. They would have made good additions to the Jayhawk line-up.

Offensive Tackle Beau Carpenter from Sulphur Springs, TX has committed to Texas Tech.
Guard Matt Rotheram from North Olmsted, OH has committed to Pittsburgh.
Inside Linebacker Chi Chi Ariguzo from Columbus, OH has committed to Northwestern.
Outside Linebacker Deon Rogers from Port St. Lucie, FL has committed to Georgia.

Kansas Jayhawk Recruiting Corner: Trent Smiley Commits,Other Tidbits

C.W. O'Brien — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:48:02 -0400

I don't have a lot of time today, but I just wanted to get this out there.

Trent Smiley is a 6'4", 225-pound tight end from Wakeland High School in Frisco, TX. He has a reported a 4.6-second 40-yard dash. He is rated as the 46th-best tight end prospect and a three-star overall by Scout, but has not been rated by either Rivals or ESPN. He is the seventh Kansas University commit for the 2010 recruiting class.

Smiley had offers from Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma State, Wake Forest, Rice, Florida State, and Iowa State. He was also drawing serious interest from Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Northwestern.

He is a very physical, very talented player. Much in the Mangino fashion, Smiley is an under-the-radar prospect. As a junior, his catches were limited due to the number of three and four wide receiver sets Wakeland used with Florida State-bound quarterback Will Secord at the helm.

Smiley is, reportedly, a gym rat. He boasts a 300-pound bench and a 405-pound squat along with his 4.6-second dash time.

Despite playing tight end, Smiley also plays defensive back. His size, speed, and athleticism make him a scary prospect as a linebacker or nickel back if he chooses to play defense for Kansas. At this point, it is unknown whether Smiley will play offense or defense.

In a recent interview with Rivals, he informed them that he is comfortable in Lawrence and felt at home with the team and coaching staff.

In other recruiting news:

All-Everything wide receiver-line backer prospect Justin McCay is slowly trying to trim down his list of potential suitors. Thus far, UCLA, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State have been trimmed because he didn't feel like he was a good fit for their programs. McCay is having a hard time cutting down his list. Instead of eliminating teams, he is posting groupings of five that have made the initial cut. With offers from virtually every BCS school, and some non-BCS schools, in hand, who knows how many initial groupings there will be.

He has indicated that as of now, there is no favorite, and his groupings don't point to any one team. His first group of five:

Wisconsin, Oklahoma
Florida
Tennessee
Kansas State

There is no word when his next grouping will be released, but this grouping is far from his final list. Expect Notre Dame, KU, and Missouri to be on the next grouping. All three are still very much in the hunt.

In all likelihood, there will be three key factors in his school selection:

whether he wants to stay close to home or not

whether or not a team wants him on offense or defense
the prospects of getting on the field and making an impact early

McCay has indicated that he will not be selecting a school until after the first of the year, so be prepared to sit back, buckle up, and enjoy the ride. This one may not be over with till signing day.

Jatashun Beachum has listed his top five.

Kansas University
Oregon
Florida
Oklahoma
Tennessee

Florida and Oregon are the two leaders currently. He currently holds 15 scholarship offers from around the country. His unique blend of size, power, and speed has him projected at everything from quarterback and running back to defensive tackle or defensive end.

As a runner, he has good north-south motion, incredible power, and tackle-breaking ability. He is a bruiser back that wears on defenses as the game progresses. He lacks the high-gear speed at the second level, but if he can consistently pound defenders for 5-7 yards, that probably doesn't matter much.

As a defensive end or tackle, he has size, power, and lateral movement necessary to beat opposing offensive lines off of the snap or bull-rush through them. He is a very intriguing prospect whichever way he goes.

Happy Trails

The following prospects have given verbal commitments to other schools. While nothing is out of the realm of possibility, all of them appear to be solid verbals.

Quarterback Sean Robinson from Rochester, IL has committed to Purdue.
Offensive Tackle Brandon Scherff from Denison, IA has committed to the University of Iowa.
ATH Julian Wilson from Moore, OK has committed to OU.

Kansas Recruiting Corner: Defensive Back Antonio Burton Commits For 2010

C.W. O'Brien — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:07:38 -0400

The University of Kansas received its first July commitment for the Class of 2010 when Guyer High School (Denton, Texas) defensive back Antonio Burton verbally committed to play for Mark Mangino and the Jayhawks.

Burton is the sixth prospect to commit for the 2010 season. Currently, Burton has not been rated by Scout, Rivals, or ESPN. Burton is the second defensive back to commit for the 2010 recruiting class and the fourth defensive prospect.

The Denton native chose KU over Arizona, Baylor, UTEP and Tulsa.

Burton is listed at 5'11", 180 pounds. An ACL injury in the summer between his freshman and sophomore year prevented Burton from playing varsity football until his junior season.

Burton is a very athletic, intelligent defensive back. He is a sure tackler and doesn't bite on head fakes. As a junior, he had 77 tackles, eight pass break-ups, and four interceptions. He also blocked a punt and returned it for a touchdown.

He is the fourth member of Guyer High school's senior class to commit to an FBS football program.

“I like the coaching staff and the school,” Burton told HS Gametime after a recent trip to Lawrence. “It’s a really nice place. The academics are good, too.”

Kansas Recruiting Corner: 7-2 List of Offered Prospects

C.W. O'Brien — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:25:39 -0400

NAME

HOMETOWN

POS

Forty

Rivals

Scout

ESPN

COMMITMENT

NOTES

Jacoby Walker

Spring, TX

6'2"

190

4.68

Kansas

COMMITS

Ricki Herod Jr.

Mesquite, TX

6'2.5"

175

Kansas

Dave Clark

Baton Rouge, LA

6'2"

180

Kansas (JuCo)

Jeremiah Edwards

Garland, TX

6'0"

270

4.9

Kansas

Geneo Grissom

Hutchinson, KS

SDE

6'4"

225

4.6

Kansas

OFFERED

Dwight Macon

Steubenville, OH

5'11"

190

4.7

PROSPECT

Sean Robinson

Rochester, IL

6'5"

205

Detchauz Wray

East St. Louis, IL

5'11"

180

New Offer

Brandon Bourbon

Potosi, MO

6'2"

205

4.4

Andre Dawson

Cedar Rapids, IA

6'1"

205

4.5

Darryl Fields

Madill, OK

6'2"

197

4.48

Tyson Gulley

Akron, OH

5'9"

175

4.5

Mike Hayes

Brenham, TX

5'9"

192

4.38

Anthony Hitchens

Lorain, OH

6'1"

195

4.5

D.J. Jones

Denison, TX

5'11"

210

4.55

Joseph Randle

Wichita, KS

6'0"

180

4.5

James Sims

Irving, TX

6'0"

205

4.5

Kyaunn Thompson

Moore, OK

5'11"

175

4.49

Kennith Bibbins

Sugar Land, TX

6'4"

215

4.63

Noah Cheshire

Wylie, TX

6'3"

240

Trey Millard

Columbia, MO

6'2"

245

4.5

Trent Smiley

Frisco, TX

6'4"

225

4.6

Eric Waters

Mansfield, TX

6'4"

215

4.7

decommit

Kadron Boone

Ocala, FL

6'1"

190

4.5

ESPN 150

Joshua Ford

Washington D.C

6'3"

195

4.5

Corey Fortson

Longview, TX

6'0"

170

4.4

N R

Kyle Guinyard

Ennis, TX

6'1"

180

4.5

Jimmy Hall

Sylvania, OH

6'1"

185

Chris Hawkins

Channelview, TX

6'2"

175

Jordan Jolly

Missouri City, TX

6'0"

170

4.5

Jazz King

Duncan, SC

5'11"

180

4.45

Marcus Lucas

Liberty, MO

6'5"

195

ESPN 150

Matt Milton

Mascoutah, IL

6'6"

192

4.57

ESPN 150

Kyle Prater

Hillside, IL

6'5"

192

4.56

ESPN 150

Outside Top-10

Dexter Ransom

Brenham, TX

6'3"

215

JuCo

Torian Richardson

Duncan, SC

5'10"

170

4.6

Bud Sasser

Denton, TX

6'2"

185

Kenny Shaw

Orlando, FL

6'0"

170

4.5

ESPN 150

Darius Tubbs

Humble, TX

6'4"

205

4.55

DeAndrew White

Galena Park, TX

6'0"

170

4.4

ESPN 150

Julian Wilson

Moore, OK

6'3"

180

4.48

Dillon Bonnell

Highland Ranch, CO

6'4"

275

Luke Burleson

Allen, TX

6'6"

275

5.1

Nick Demien

Wentzville, MO

6'6"

295

4.99

ESPN 150

John Cullen

Fullerton, CA

6'6"

280

JuCo

Eric Franklin

Youngstown, OH

6'6"

325

5.5

Anthony Gatti

St. Louis, MO

6'6"

280

Eric Graham

Jenks, OK

6'5"

280

Chaz Green

Tampa, FL

6'6"

290

ESPN 150

Robert Griffin

Euless, TX

6'7"

355

5.4

JuCo

James Kohler

Ames, IA

6'7"

240

New Offer

Skyler Schofner

Johnstown, OH

6'7"

276

5.01

Brandon Scherff

Denison, IA

6'5"

275

Denton Simek

Prague, OK

6'4"

260

4.88

Trent Spurgeon

Owasso, OK

6'8"

280

Evan Washington

DeSoto, TX

6'5"

290

ESPN 150

Daryl Williams

Wide receiver is far from a positional need for the Class of 2010, however it is a position where the Jayhawks can continue to make strides to upgrade their talent.

Ed Warriner's spread offense has allowed Kansas quarterbacks to compile video game-esque stats the last two years. In that time, KU has thrown for over 7,700 yards and 69 touchdowns and three different receivers have posted 1,000 yard seasons.

Recruits that want to get a lot of touches are starting to seriously consider playing football in Lawrence. There are currently five 4-Star wide receivers that are highly interested in KU.

Mark Mangino has never been afraid of playing underclassmen and there is plenty of potential for younger players to get on the field early and often in 2010.

The depth at wide receiver appears to be solid, but relatively untested for the most part.

Jonathan Wilson and Dez Briscoe will be seniors, but the rest of the depth at wide receiver is unknown. Aside from Briscoe and Wilson, there are only two other receivers on the 2010 roster that even caught a pass in 2008.

The Jayhawks were able to put add talent and size to the depth chart in the Class of 2009.

Receivers Chris Omigie and Erick McGriff both stand over 6'4" and Bradley McDougald is a very fast, shifty receiver that will likely spend his time at the slot receiver position.

With a plethora of 3-, 4-, and 5- receiver sets, Mark Mangino likes to have 15 to 16 receivers on the roster. Going into 2010, Kansas will have only 12 receivers on the roster, leaving space for 3-4 new recruits.

With nine upperclassmen on the depth chart, it is highly unlikely that KU will sign a junior college receiver. At this point it isn't a question of age for KU's targets, but rather a question of what type of receiver the Jayhawks will sign and how many of each style.

After researching all of KU’s current targets (offered, committed elsewhere, and not offered) there are a few trends that emerge.

The coaching staff is looking for three different types of backs: Giants, Speed Demons, and Utility Men. Each type has a differrent feature that makes it an asset to the KU offense.

Speed is an important aspect of each type of receiver. It is highly unlikely that KU will sign a recruit that can't run at least a 4.6 forty. While that is far from barn-burner speed, it is the minimum speed for the KU offense to move efficiently

The Giants

Prospects categorized as ‘Giants’ are all tall, long receiver automatically create match-up problems for opposing defenses.

They are too tall to be covered properly by most defensive backs, and too fast to be covered well by most linebackers. These are the types of players that teams covet for jump ball situations.

They have the ability to be difference makers in the offense and can line up on the edge, in the slot, or as a tight end if the situation calls for it.

Ideal Ht: 6’4”-6’6”
Ideal Wt: 195 lbs.-220 lbs.
Ideal Forty: 4.50 sec.-4.57 sec.

Offered Giants

Marcus Lucas (Liberty, MO)—6’5”, 195 lbs.
Matt Milton (Mascoutah, IL)—6’6” 192 lbs., 4.57 forty
Kyle Prater (Hillside, IL)—6’5”, 192 lbs., 4.56 forty
Dexter Ranson (Brenham, TX)—6’4”, 217 lbs., 4.55 forty JuCo
Nate Askew (San Antonio, TX)—6’4”, 213 lbs., 4.56 forty
Darius Tubbs (Humble, TX)--6'4", 205 lbs., 4.55 forty

The Speed Demon

Prospects of this type are catagorized based on their speed. These are the types of receivers that are home run threats on every play. They can line up on the edge or in the slot.

They are dangerous in open space and can turn a 2 yard pass into a 10 yard gain quickly. They are hard to guard in man coverage and have plenty of space to work in a zone defense.

While being tall isn't a requirement of a speed demon, it certainly helps. Any time a speed mismatch is combined with a size mismatch, good things are bound to happen in the passing game. The speed also improves down field blocking for the running game.

Ideal HT: 5'11"-6'3"
Ideal WT: 180 lbs.-200 lbs.
Ideal Forty: Less than 4.5 sec.

Offered Speed Demons

Julian Wilson (Moore, OK)—6’3”, 180 lbs., 4.48 forty
Kevin Johnson (Houston, TX)—6’2”, 190 lbs., 4.4 forty
Jimmy Hunt (Cahokia, IL)—6’1”, 195 lbs., 4.45 forty
Jazz King (Duncan, SC)—5’11”, 180 lbs., 4.45 forty
Kenny Shaw (Orlando, FL)—6’0”, 160 lbs. 4.5 forty
Andrew White (Galena Park, TX)—6’0”, 170 lbs., 4.4 forty
Kyle Guinyard (Ennis, TX)—6’1”, 180 lbs., 4.5 forty

The Utility Man

Utility men are often referred to as possession receivers or role players. This definition isn't quite right because these are the types of receivers that really make or break a team. They have good hands, run crisp routes, and block well. They are the do-anything receivers. Seldom do they create physical mismatches, but they provide the quality depth on the field that forces opposing defenses to cover every receiver. While they may only get 10 yards on a 9 yard pass, the important thing to remember is that they are able to consistently make that catch. Utility men oil that keeps the offense going in tough situations.

Ideal HT: 5'11"-6'3"
Ideal WT: 170 lbs.-200 lbs.
Ideal Forty: 4.50 sec.-4.60 sec.

Committed Utility Men

Ricki Herod Jr. (Mesquite, TX)—6’2.5”, 175 lbs.

Offered Utility Men

Joshua Ford (Washington DC)—6'3", 195 lbs., 4.6 forty
Chris Hawkins (Channelview, TX)—6’2” 175 lbs.
Bud Sasser (Denton, TX)—6’2” 185 lbs.
Jimmy Hall (Sylvania, OH)—6’1” 185 lbs.
Jordan Jolly (Missouri City, TX)—6’1”, 170 lbs., 4.6 forty
Torian Richardson (Duncan, SC)—5’10”, 170 lbs., 4.6 forty
Kadron Boone (Oscala, FL)—6'1", 190 lbs., 4.6 forty
Martize Barr (Washington DC)—5'11", 182 lbs., 4.59 forty

Roster Impact

The amount of upperclassmen on the roster in 2010 puts the coaching staff into a position of luxury for the Class of 2010. KU doesn't need to fill a specific role on the field immediately. This gives the Jayhawks the ability to be selective with their prospects.

The one variable that can throw a wrench into KU's luxury is Dez Briscoe. The talented wide receiver's decision on the NFL following his junior year may force KU to adjust their recruiting strategy. If Briscoe bolts for the NFL, Kansas may try to pick up a taller JuCo receiver to fill his shoes in the short term.

Much like lineman, KU tries to pick up 3-4 receivers annually. Even if Briscoe bolts for the NFL, it shouldn't have a massive impact on Kansas' recruiting strategy in the future.

While there is no immediate need, per se, expect to see KU make a push for taller and/or faster wide receivers. That is the trend in college football currently, and recruiting decisions made today will have an impact on on field performance tomorrow.

Right now, it looks as if KU will make a push to sign at least one Giant, two Speed Demons, and one Utility Man. The position change of A.J. Seward from tight end to wide receiver, combined with incoming freshman Erick McGriff and Chris Omigie may allow KU to sign another Speed Demon instead of an additional Giant. The success of any of those three players in 2009 may have an impact on that decision for 2010.

Expected 2010 Wide Receiver Roster

Chris Omigie (rFr./So.) (Giant)
Bradley McDougald (rFr./So.) (Speed Demon)
Erick McGriff (rFr./So.) (Giant)
Isaiah Barfield (Jr.) (Utility Man)
Willie O'Quinn (Jr.) (Utility Man)
A.J. Seward (Jr.) (Giant)
Dez Briscoe (Sr.) (Utility Man)
Matt Bouwie (Sr.) (Utility Man)
Rod Harris Jr. (Sr.) (Utility Man)
Tertavian Ingram (Sr.) (Speed Demon)
Jonathan Wilson (Sr.) (Utility Man)

Kansas Jayhawks Recruiting Corner: 2010 Running Back Recruiting Goals

C.W. O'Brien — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:07:52 -0400

There can be little doubt that running back is one of KU’s positions of emphasis (POE) for the 2010 recruiting class. Between player defections going into the 2008 season and graduations following the 2009 season, the depth at the running back position will become a major issue in 2010.

The Jayhawks were able to put a band-aid on the problem with the 2009 recruiting class (Deshaun Sands, Toben Opurum, and Daniel Porter), but there is still work to be done to shore up the depth.

There will be three running back scholarships available for the Class of 2010. What the coaches plan on doing with those slots remains to be seen.

The coaching staff may attempt to fill all three available slots or they may sign two in order to get on a more normal graduation rotation (two out, two in). The relative youth on the depth chart may encourage the coaching staff to sign a JuCo back.

In reality, the answer will depend a lot on what the coaching staf is able to do with the younger players, and how those players perform.

If Rell Lewis is solid in 2009, then the coaching staff may choose to just sign high school players. If both Sands and Opurum are able to redshirt, KU may only sign two players. For better or worse, there are a lot of variables to account for and the decision of whom and how many players to sign can go a lot of different ways at this point.

After researching all of KU’s current targets (offered, committed elsewhere, and not offered) there are a few trends that emerge. The coaching staff is looking for backs that bring a lot to the table (i.e. receiving, throwing, returning punts and kicks).

A running back that can’t catch will drastically reduce KU’s play calling ability, so that is almost a requirement. Speed is also a high priority. Using those trends, KU is targeting two very specific types of backs: the ‘Workhorse’ and the ‘Houdini’.

The Workhorse

Prospects categorized as ‘Workhorse’ are all bigger backs that you can strap the wagon to and ride down the field. While they are not all power runners exactly, almost every back in this category has shown the ability to carry the ball 200+ times relatively injury free.

These are the types of backs that can take a hit and stay on their feet…and deliver a hit as well.

Ideal Ht: 6’0”-6’2”
Ideal Wt: 200 lbs.-220 lbs.
Ideal Forty: 4.45 sec.-4.55 sec.

Offered Workhorses

Brandon Bourbon (Potosi, MO)—6’2”, 205 lbs., 4.4 forty
Andre Dawson (Cedar Rapids, IA)—6’1”, 210 lbs., 4.5 forty
Darion Hall (Naples, FL)—6’1”, 200 lbs., 4.4 forty
DJ Jones (Denison, TX)—6’0”, 220 lbs. 4.5 forty
Joseph Randle (Wichita, KS)—6’0”, 180 lbs. 4.5 forty
James Sims (Irving, TX)—6’0”, 205 lbs. 4.5 forty

The Houdini

Prospects in this category are the smaller, faster backs known for disappearing behind the line of scrimmage and reappearing down the sidelines. These guys all have great speed and run with a steady, fluid motion.

Even when cutting, spinning, etc, everything is done with speed as the central goal. Every play around the edge is dangerous with these guys.

Ideal HT: 5’9
Ideal WT: 180 lbs.-195 lbs.
Ideal Forty: Less than 4.5 sec.

Offered Houdinis

Mike Hayes (Brenham, TX)—5’9”, 192 lbs., 4.38 forty JuCo
Tyson Gulley (Akron, OH)—5’9”, 175 lbs., 4.45 forty

Roster Impact

The success or failure of the current underclassmen backs will determine who KU recruits for the Class of 2010. It will have an impact not only on the style of back that Kansas recruits, but also on the age. Even this smallest change with regards to style or eligibility can have a substantial impact on recruiting 2-3 years down the road.

It appears that KU will sign at least another workhorse, if for no other reason than to shore up depth questions. If Lewis is not as productive as the staff would like or if Sands development isn’t coming along as fast as expected, expect KU to sign another smaller back.

The immediate need of the style will dictate whether or not the Jayhawks signs a JuCo player. If the development, skill, etc. is on par with the outlook, then the coaching staff will likely refrain from signing a junior college running back.

Expected 2010 Running Back Roster

Rell Lewis (Jr.)—Houdini
Daniel Porter (Sr.)—Houdini
Deshaun Sands (rFr./So.)—Houdini
Toben Opurum (rFr./So.)—Workhorse

Links for KU RB Prospect Film
Brandon Bourbon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVSGT4P2bDQ
Darion Hall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1lbZhwCo9s
D.J. Jones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhbcOh6i0z4
James Sims http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmkdLqdhEhI&NR=1
Joseph Randle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj5INFbSMwM
Tyson Gulley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmOxK9GSmKw

KU Recruiting Corner: When Will KU Start Seeing More Commits?

C.W. O'Brien — Sun, 10 May 2009 13:21:40 -0400

As a self-proclaimed recruiting guru, I follow recruiting. I track trends. I pay attention to visitation days. It gives me something to do.

I love seeing players commit to KU. Once that happens I can start picturing them in the uniform, figuring out where they fall on the hypothetical depth chart that exists in my head, guessing who will redshirt or change positions, etc. If there are no new recruits, I can't do this and I get bored.

Since the mad dash of three recruits in four days, I've been pretty bored. Don't get me wrong, I am still very excited about all three of them and the potential that they have at the University of Kansas. But, I am bored.

I had a lot of free time on my hands today, so I tracked the recruiting productivity of the coaching staff over the last four years. These stats reflect the timing of recruiting for the coaches as well. I have no idea how these trends compare on a national level...to be honest I have a lot of free time today, but not that much.

Here is what I found:

1) Statistically the three most productive months are June, December, and January. That trend continues over the last two years as well.

2) The three least productive months are July, August, and September. Like the more productive months, this trend continued over the last two years.

3) The most productive month in the four year span was December 2005 (Class of 2006) where KU signed nine recruits.

4) The most productive months in the last two years came in June of 2008 and December 2008, both with six commits for the Class of 2009.

5) Over the last four years a whopping 54.3 percent of all KU signees committed to the Jayhawks after the completion of their senior football season.

6) There has been a drastic increase in the percentage of early commits (28.8 percent up from 9.7 percent) over the last two years compared to the Classes of 2006 and 2007. An early commit being a player that commits before the end of June going into their senior year of high school.

7) The average star rating (Rivals) of KU commits has increased from 2.7 Stars (2006-2007) to 3.09 Stars (2008-2009).

What does all of this mean?

Basically it all comes down to KU being more productive in the months where potential targets have the ability to visit the campus and the coaching staff (either through camps, unofficial visits, or official visits).

It also means that as the Jayhawks have improved on the field, their ability to recruit earlier in the cycle has increased the number of early commits and has led to an overall improvement in the talent level committed to play for KU.

Hopefully, if the trends hold up, it also means that I will be busy over the next six weeks pondering the impact of the four to five new commits that KU should be receiving. But who knows? These are just trends, life doesn't always go according to plan and neither does recruiting.

Kansas Recruiting Corner: Updated List Of Commits and Offered Prospects

C.W. O'Brien — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:34:09 -0400

KU Verbal Commitments

Wide Receiver
Ricki Herod Jr. (Mesquite, TX)

Defensive Tackle
Jeremiah Edwards (Garland, TX)

Cornerback
Dave Clark (Independence, KS)--JuCo

KU Offered Prospects
Italics—designates prospects offered since last update

Quarterback
Austin Hinder (Steamboat Springs, CO)
Tyler Gabbert (Ballwin, MO)
Andrew Hendrix (Cincinnati, OH)
AJ Derby (Iowa City, IA)
Jacoby Walker (Spring, TX)

Running Back
Andre Dawson (Cedar Rapids, IA)
Tyson Gulley (Akron, OH)
DJ Jones (Denison, TX)
Joseph Randle (Wichita, KS)
Darion Hall (Naples, FL)
James Sims (Irving, TX)
Mike Hayes (Brenham, TX)—JuCo
Brandon Bourbon (Potosi, MO)

Tight End
Trey Millard (Columbia, MO)
Alex Welch (Cincinnati, OH)

Wide Receiver
Deandrew White (Galena Park, TX)
Marcus Lucas (Liberty, MO)
Keeston Terry (Blue Springs, MO)
Jimmy Hall (Sylvania, OH)
Bud Sasser (Denton, TX)
Nate Askew (San Antonio, TX)
Dexter Ranson (Brenham, TX)—JuCo
Kenny Shaw (Orlando, FL)

Offensive Tackle
Nick Demien (Wentzville, MO)
Chaz Green (Tampa, FL)
Trent Spurgeon (Owasso, OK)
Anthony Gatti (St. Louis, MO)
Denton Simek (Prague, OK)
Evan Washington (DeSoto, TX)
Daryl Williams (Corinth, TX)

Offensive Guard
Adam Shead (Cedar Hill, TX)
Zach Bolton (Houston, TX)

Center
Austin Woods (Rock Wall, TX)

Weak Side Defensive End
Holmes Onwukaife (Cedar Park, TX)

Strong Side Defensive End
Derrick Bryant (Columbus, OH)
Donovan Vestal (Arlington, TX)
Anthony Gonzales (Brenham, TX)—JuCo

Defensive Tackle
Diamonte Wheeler (Arlington, TX)

Inside Linebacker
Kris Catlin (San Antonio, TX)
Trayvon Henry (Oklahoma City, OK)

Outside Linebacker
Jeremiah George (Clearwater, FL)

Cornerback
Tyler Stephenson (Lancaster, TX)
Ciante Evans (Arlington, TX)
Damion Payne (Klein, TX)
Kyle Fuller (Baltimore, MD)

Safety
Elisha Olabode (Cedar Hill, TX)
Tommie Saunders (San Antonio, TX)

Athlete
Justin McCay (Shawnee, KS)
Brad Hefley (Riverton, KS)
Jordan Taylor (Denison, TX)
James Haynes (Orange, TX)
Jatashun Beachum (Dallas, TX)
Jeremy Deering (Tampa, FL)
Kendrick Perkins (La Porte, TX)

Committed Elsewhere

Quarterback
Blake Bell (Wichita, KS)—Oklahoma Verbal

Running Back
Stephen Hopkins (Flower Mound, TX)—Michigan Verbal
DeMarcus Robinson (Wichita, KS)—Kansas State Verbal

Offensive Tackle
Garrett Grambling (Denton, TX)—Texas A&M Verbal
Mike Moudy (Castle Rock, CO)—Nebraska Verbal
Cedric Ogneuhi (Allen, TX)—Texas A&M Verbal

Weakside Defensive End
Kedrick Dial (Sulphur Springs, TX)—Texas Tech Verbal
Nehemiah Hicks (Hutto, TX)—Texas A&M Verbal

Strongside Defensive End
Lucas Vincent (Olathe, KS)—Missouri Verbal

Safety
Quintin Hayes (Lancaster, TX)—Oklahoma Verbal
Luke Muncie (Klein, TX)—LSU Verbal

Tuesday Recruiting Corner: Rolling into 2010

C.W. O'Brien — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:30:48 -0500

The 2009 recruiting class is all but wrapped up. Rivals ranked the class of 2009 31st nationally and 5th in the Big XII. The class has a strong defensive lean, with 15 of the 25 new recruits slotted on the defensive side of the ball. On paper, it is by far the best class that KU has had under Mark Mangino.

Please take a moment to be excited.

The moment is over. It is time to move on.

The heart of college football is recruiting. Recruiting is a year round process. It never stops. It doesn't take time to eat. It never sleeps. It just keeps going and going.

The recruiting landscape has changed drastically in the last ten years, due in large part to the success of Texas coach Mack Brown. In years past, colleges were able to begin recruiting evaluations and start drafting prospects lists in the spring. They would evaluate those prospects in the fall and offer them in the winter.

If a school did that now, they would never be able to sign a full class...let alone a good class.

Prospects are committing earlier and earlier each year. Texas already has ten commitments for the Class of 2010. 19 of Texas’ 20 signees in 2009 had committed by June of 2008. As it stands, colleges must follow that trend or risk falling off a recruit’s radar entirely.

Most schools have their prospect lists already drafted and a lot of player evaluations done before spring practice and are already extending scholarship offers. KU is no different. Three players committed to Kansas by July 2006 for the Class of 2007. The Class of 2008 had four commits by July, 2007. The Class of 2009 had nine commitments by July, 2008. This trend of gathering more early commitments must continue if KU has any hope of closing the talent gap further with the likes of Texas and Oklahoma.

Recruiting will be anything but easy in 2010. In addition to the normal challenges that KU faces, there are new foes on the recruiting trail. KU lost out on four players to Arkansas in 2009, including a prospect that was a KU commit. Bill Snyder’s return to K-State has the potential to throw a serious monkey wrench into KU’s ability to recruit in-state.

Fear not, all is not lost. In spite of all of the challenges that KU will face on the recruiting trails next year, there are several important factors that are tilting the scales in the Jayhawks favor for the Class of 2010.

1. Bill Miller Co-Defensive Coordinator/Linebackers Coach has traditionally recruited the state of Florida and the Jayhawk Conference (JuCo) almost exclusively. There is no reason to expect that to change any time soon. Both are areas that the Jayhawks have had mild-success with in the past, and areas that should improve with Miller spearheading the effort.

2. Ed Warriner’s push to recruit the state of Ohio appears to finally be panning out. In the last two years, KU has been able to sign two recruits from the state. While that is only a drop in the bucket, it isn’t as if Texas prospects were beating down the door to play at KU five years ago either. The addition of Defensive Line Coach Tom Sims, formerly of Illinois, should improve the effectiveness of recruiting in the heart of Big Ten country.

3. The depth of talented players in the state of Kansas and the KC Metro area for the Class of 2010 is probably the strongest it has been in at least a decade. The player rankings are not out yet, but I will be really surprised if there aren’t quite a few 4- and 5-Star prospects in those two regions.

4. Graduation will hit the Jayhawks hard after the 2009-2010 football season. Virtually every player at a skill position will be graduating after next year. That means that there will be a lot of starting jobs up for grabs. The ability to come in and start on a high octane offense should entice several talented recruits to make Lawrence their home.

The University of Kansas is finally getting to the point where they can no longer be considered a fluke program. Over the last four years, the Jayhawks have won nearly 70% of their games as well as three bowl games in the same span. As KU continues to show that it can consistently win games and get to bowls, Lawrence becomes a more attractive place attend school for potential recruits. If nothing else, the last two years have proved that.

The Jayhawks have a lot of things working in their favor for the Class of 2010. If Mark Mangino’s team is able to take care of business on the field, the recruiting should be able to take care of itself.

Kansas Jayhawks Laying Groundwork in Ohio

C.W. O'Brien — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:47:17 -0500

I was in a heated debate last night with a pair of Ohio State fans at work. Before any Buckeye fans try to correct me, until there is a second Ohio State University in the FBS, I am not going to put “the” in front of Ohio State. Deal with it. We were discussing football recruiting, and more specifically, we were talking about Kansas offensive coordinator Ed Warinner securing two commitments from Ohio prospects over the last two years for the Jayhawks.

I argued that KU has been trying to recruit the state of Ohio for several years and that the commitments of Josh Richardson (Class of 2008) and Bradley McDougald (Class of 2009) were the first steps to setting up and securing an Ohio-KU connection. My Buckeye counterparts were inclined to believe that 1) I am nuts and 2) it is impossible for any Big 12 school to consistently sign quality talent from the heart of Big Ten country.

In the words of Billy Joel, “They may be right, I may be crazy.”

The only thing is, I am not so sure that I am.

I will be the first person to question whether or not KU should have spent so much time recruiting in Ohio. I felt that it was a bold move, but for all intents and purposes, utterly hopeless. I honestly thought that trying to recruit in the state of Ohio was a complete waste of time and money.

If KU had to fight a lost cause, I would rather have seen the fight take place in California or Florida. The talent in Ohio is good, but there is just more of it in those two states. I just figured that the law of large numbers might take effect if the Jayhawks case a wide enough net in the larger states.

Warinner proved me wrong and snagged two very talented prospects the last two years. I am not deluded enough to think that Richardson and McDougald chose KU over Ohio State.

They didn’t.

It is unlikely that any Ohio kid will ever make that choice if Ohio State really wants them. Most Ohio kids that play football grow up wanting to play for the Buckeyes. It is the same as most Kansas kids that play basketball grow up wanting to play for the Jayhawks.

That wasn’t even the point of my argument. My point is that Mark Mangino and his staff are in the process of setting up the channels needed to make KU attractive to those prospects that Ohio State isn’t sold on.

The fact remains: Ohio State can only sign so many prospects each year. Even if the Buckeyes sign the top 25 prospects from the state of Ohio every year, there are still 50 to 60 prospects in the state that are talented enough to play at the FBS level. Ohio State couldn’t sign all of the talent in the state, even if they wanted to. There are still plenty of prospects in Ohio left over.

Kansas will never beat out the University of Texas for a five-star recruit from Texas. It’s never going to happen. That hasn’t stopped KU from recruiting competitively in Texas. In 2009, KU signed just as many Dallas area top 25 recruits as Texas and Oklahoma. Mangino consistently finds recruiting gems in the Lonestar State.

There is no reason why Kansas can’t annually pluck a few talented prospects away from Ohio. All that Kansas needs is a linebacker here or a lineman there. It isn’t as if the Jayhawks will be building their entire recruiting class from the state of Ohio.

Sure, there are other Big Ten schools to compete with, but there is a big difference between the type of player recruited to play in the Big 12 and those recruited to play in the Big Ten.

Even though there are a few teams in the Big Ten that run spread hybrids, it is still a conference dominated by the power run game. The Big Ten is a rough-and-tough, conservative, grind-it-out conference.

There is a reason that three of the most productive runners last season came from the Big Ten. In spite of the changes that are being made within the conference, the old adage of "three yards and a cloud of dust" still holds true.

The Big 12 is about as close to a polar opposite as it gets when compared to the Big Ten. It is a conference dominated by the spread, where running the ball on 2nd-and-3 is considered conservative. A 31-27 game is a defensive struggle. It is a wild, anything-goes conference.

Neither is better or worse than the other. They are just different. So are the types of players that the teams within those conferences recruit.

A big, powerful running back is going to get more touches in the Big Ten than he will get in the Big 12. A tall, fast receiver is going to get more catches in the Big 12 than he will get in the Big Ten.

If the Kansas coaching staff is successful in its effort to make KU more attractive to Ohio kids, it won’t be long before a mini-pipeline is in full effect. If the two Ohio prospects have moderate success for the Jayhawks, how long will it be before other Ohio kids start thinking about Lawrence as a possible destination?

That may be exactly what the Jayhawks need to take them to the next level. I fully expect the coaching staff to continue to hit Ohio heavily. The addition of Tom Sims to the coaching staff can only help. His experience in recruiting Big Ten country will be a great asset on the trail in upcoming years.

Already there has been a huge spike in the number of prospects from Ohio that are interested in Kansas for the class of 2010. That is a positive sign that the coaching staff’s efforts are paying off. While I can’t start gloating yet, hopefully I will be able to in a few years.

Then again, who knows?

They may be right.

I may be crazy.

The BCS Is Here To Stay: Why a Playoff Won't Work

C.W. O'Brien — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:25:35 -0500

College football pundits have been screaming for a playoff for years. The talking heads on virtually every major channel have been begging for it. There is a movement among fans to have a playoff set up. Even the president and congress are in on the argument.

They all claim that NCAA does not pick its FBS champion fairly. They argue that other NCAA team sports use a playoff and it works. They tend to point to the FCS and college basketball to show evidence that a playoff can work in major college football.

They may be right. It does sound good, in theory. Pitting the best teams in the NCAA against one another on the field week after week until only one is left standing...that sounds like a great way to decide who the best team really is. It makes sense…until you look at all of the drawbacks.

1. The regular season would lose its importance. This is one of the main reasons why there is such a following in college football. While a single loss doesn’t necessarily eliminate a team from the BCS championship, it makes getting there a lot harder. They need help to get there. Teams with two losses just about need a miracle to even have a chance to compete (see LSU 2007). It keeps the fans excited, knowing that every game has the potential to have a huge impact. It puts butts in the seats and keeps people glued to their television sets.

2. Make no mistake about it, the bowl system will die. Love it or hate it, the bowl system produces millions of dollars every year for the conferences through TV rights, sponsorship, payouts, etc. That is revenue that will be nearly impossible to make up in a playoff environment. Football revenue pays for virtually every non-profit sport in the NCAA. Without that revenue, those sports would die out.

It is impossible to incorporate the bowls into a playoff. A lot of fans are able to make a cross country bowl trip once a year, if they are lucky. Few fans will be able to afford to make multiple cross country trips in the span of a month. It is hard enough for fans to go to a conference championship game and then a bowl game a month later. Any playoff plan that uses bowl sites for games will only result in failure.

It is also impossible to assume that the bowl system can continue to run opposite the playoffs, similar to what the NIT has been able to do. The bowls are also not going to want to pay big money to sponsor a game for the also-rans. The Fiesta Bowl isn’t going to pay $10 million to host a game between the Big XII No. 4 and the Big East No. 3.

The Sugar Bowl isn’t going to pay top dollar for a middle of the pack SEC team in a game that will have no bearing on the final rankings.

Television viewers aren’t going to watch them because they won’t matter to anyone but the teams involved. Those bowls will have little impact on the final rankings. Sponsors aren’t going to pay for those games. It is hard enough to find sponsorship with the current bowl system. It will be next to impossible to find sponsors if none of bowls have any meaning or importance.

For arguments sake, we will say that the NCAA found a way to keep those problems at bay. Make no mistake about it, the bowl system is now dead.

A quick moment of silence for the Rose Bowl...I am sure that Big Ten and Pac-10 fans will mourn its passing...the rest of us won’t care.

Once the NCAA decides to move forward with a playoff, first things first: How do they decide who is in, who is out, and how to seed the teams? The NCAA will probably create a selection committee, similar to what is used in college basketball. It will likely involve some form of RPI, strength of schedule, etc.

You will not hear me arguing with that. I think that the basketball committee does a pretty good job for the most part. They miss a team here and there or seed someone wrong, but for the most part they do a pretty good job.

Okay, so they have found a way to keep enthusiasm up, found the funding to make up for lost revenues from the bowls, and have found a way to pick and seed the teams. Here comes the fun part, which is coincidentally why a playoff will fail: selecting the number of teams allowed in the playoff.

This is where the real problems start. Everything before this is difficult, but manageable. This isn’t.

A four team playoff (Plus One) sounds like the most logical. It is probably the easiest transition as well, but it will never get approved.

Look no further then 2008 for evidence. Following the conference championship games, there was no question about who the top four teams were: Florida, OU, Texas, and Alabama. They were the top four in the AP Poll, the Coaches Poll, the Harris Poll, and in the BCS.

There was consensus among the powers that be that those were by far the four best teams in the country.

The problem is that all four teams came from the same two conferences. In 2007, there were two teams in the top four from the SEC. In 2006, there were two teams from the Big Ten.

I could keep going, but it doesn’t matter. It is an almost certainty that whatever conference is perceived to be the strongest will have multiple teams in the top four.

For better or worse, the conferences will not agree to this for fear of having a great team from their conference left out of the playoffs because of that conferences perceived weakness.

If there is prestige and/or money on the line, the conference commissioners will fight it tooth and nail. Those problems exist in a Plus One so there will be a dog fight. End of story.

Since a Plus One model won’t work, the next logical step is an eight-team bracket. To keep the conference commissioners from the Big Six from blowing a gasket, it would include the conference champions from the six BCS conferences and two at-large teams. This is similar to the original set-up of the BCS.

All of the big conferences are represented. The non-BCS teams can still get in. This one will work, right?

Nope. This one doesn’t work either. There are two insurmountable roadblocks.

Roadblock No. 1: Good teams getting left out of the playoffs and lower ranked conference champions are allowed in. I will use 2008 as an example. The teams final BCS ranking is in parenthesis.

Guaranteed Teams
SEC: Florida 12-1 (#2 BCS)
Big XII: OU 12-1 (#1 BCS)
Big Ten: Penn State 12-1 (#8 BCS)
ACC: Virginia Tech 9-4 (#19 BCS)
Big East: Cincinnati 11-2 (#12 BCS)
Pac-10: USC 11-1 (#5 BCS)
Non-BCS: Utah 12-0 (#6 BCS)

At Large Choices
Texas 11-1 (Big XII South Co-Champion, #3 BCS)
Alabama 12-1 (SEC Runner-up, SEC West Champion, #4 BCS)
Texas Tech 11-1 (Big XII South Co-Champion, #7 BCS)
Ohio State 10-2 (Big Ten Co-Champion, #10 BCS)
Boise State 13-0 (WAC Champ, #9 BCS)

There are five teams with resumes as good, or better than both Virginia Tech and Cincinnati. All five teams are also ranked higher than both of those teams. Utah takes up one of the at-large spots as the highest rated non-BCS team, only one of those teams can get into the playoffs.

Who do you leave out? I don’t want to be the guy telling Nick Saban or Mack Brown that their teams weren’t good enough to get into the playoffs if Cincinnati and Virginia Tech are in.

“Sorry Coach Saban, I know that you were ranked No. 1 going into the final weekend and that Florida had to come from behind to beat you in the SEC title game, but we didn’t feel you were good enough”

“Sorry Coach Brown, we know that you beat OU, who is in the playoffs from your conference, that you only had one loss to another one loss team, and that you missed out on the Big XII Championship game because you lost out on the FIFTH tie-breaker, but we just didn’t think you weren’t good enough.”

I am pretty sure that I wouldn’t make it out of Austin or Tuscaloosa alive.

Roadblock No. 2: The five non-BCS conferences would have an anti-trust lawsuit filed in federal court before the ink could even dry on the playoff legislation. Those conferences would be well within their rights to do so...And they would win the lawsuit.

I would venture a guess that they already have the paperwork written and are just waiting for a chance to file suit.

But C.W., how is that possible? They don’t have BCS tie-ins now, so what is the big deal? The difference is that the BCS uses a formula to find the two best teams to crown the champion of the Coaches Poll. A playoff would be used to determine a champion for the NCAA.

While the champion of the BCS is widely regarded as that champion of the NCAA, officially it isn’t.

Yes, it is just semantics, but in this case it is very important.

The BCS has been allowed to avoid anti-trust legislation because it is not run or controlled by the NCAA, and therefore does not produce an NCAA sanctioned national title.

The BCS produces a champion for a single poll. Since there are multiple polls, the BCS does not control the entire market. Any of those polls has the ability to crown its own champion.

If the NCAA controls a playoff, the entire premise changes. The winner of the playoff would be the only sanctioned champion in college football. The NCAA would be required by law to allow every single one of its member institutions the opportunity to compete. Guaranteeing some, but not all, conference champions that opportunity does not allow all member institutions to have a chance to compete.

Failure to guarantee every conference champion a place in the playoffs would be in violation of United States anti-trust laws. It would cost the NCAA tens of millions of dollars in legal fees to defend the case. In the end it would cost millions to settle the case and the NCAA would likely be forced to include the five non-BCS conference champions anyway.

Okay, okay, so now those guys are in. Now the NCAA playoff has to have 12-16 teams. It would be comprised of the 11 conference champions and one to five at-large teams.

Guaranteed Teams

SEC: Florida 12-1 (#2 BCS)
Big XII: OU 12-1 (#1 BCS)
Big Ten: Penn State 12-1 (#8 BCS)
ACC: Virginia Tech 9-4 (#19 BCS)
Big East: Cincinnati 11-2 (#12 BCS)
Pac-10: USC 11-1 (#5 BCS)
MWC: Utah 12-0 (#6 BCS)
WAC: Boise State 13-0 (#9 BCS)
C. USA: East Carolina 9-4 (NR BCS)
MAC: Buffalo 8-5 (NR BCS)
Sun Belt: Troy 8-4 (NR BCS)

At-Large Choices

Texas 11-1 (#3 BCS)
Alabama 12-1 (#4 BCS)
Texas Tech 11-1 (#7 BCS)
Ohio State 10-2 (#10 BCS)
TCU 10-2 (#11 BCS)
Oklahoma St. 9-3 (#13 BCS)
Georgia Tech 9-3 (#14 BCS)
Georgia 9-3 (#15 BCS)
BYU 10-2 (#16 BCS)
Oregon 9-3 (#17 BCS)
Michigan St. 9-3 (#18 BCS)
Pitt 9-3 (#20 BCS)
Missouri 9-4 (#21 BCS)
Ball State 12-1 (#22 BCS)
Northwestern 9-3 (#23 BCS)
Boston College 9-4 (#24 BCS)
Ole Miss 8-4 (#25 BCS)

So now the little guys are in. This has to work, right? Wrong again. The 12 to 16-Team bracket leaves out deserving teams, just as much as an eight-team bracket does. The only difference is that in a 16-team bracket teams that are left out have a much stronger argument, due to the inclusion of so many teams from non-BCS conferences.

How can the NCAA put 8-5 Buffalo into the playoffs and leave out 9-3 Oregon, 9-3 Oklahoma State, 9-3 Missouri, 9-3 Michigan State, and 9-3 Georgia? Those teams not only had better records, but they also played tougher competition.

Once again, quality teams would be left out to accommodate weaker, non-BCS conference champions. The Big Six would never allow that to happen.

If you say that those teams can't complain, don't forget the that the NCAA basketball tournament got so big because of the exact same reason. Good teams were at home watching the games on TV while weaker teams were playing in those games.

The NCAA had to expand the tournament to accommodate those quality teams or risk mutiny in its ranks.

For a playoff to work, the NCAA football tournament would have to have at least 24-32 teams. It is the only way that will appease the Big Six and prevent the five other conferences from filing a lawsuit. It is virtually a stalemate on every other possible playoff proposal.

When is enough actually enough? The fact remains that most of the teams in the tournament would have no business being there. Outside of the top eight to 10 teams, do the rest really deserve a chance to win a national title?

Those people clamoring for a playoff feel that is the only real way to determine a champion. I don’t disagree, but I wonder how those same people will feel after the fact?

Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. Almost yearly, some team limps its way into the tournament and gets hot. They aren’t the best team in the country, they are just playing the best at that time.

There is no way that every 15-seed that has beaten a two-seed in the NCAA basketball tournament is actually better than the two seed. They just caught the two-seed on a bad day. Don’t forget that only once since the tournament expanded have all four one-seeds made it to the Final Four.

Make no mistake about it, the same thing will happen in a football playoff. Teams will have bad games. Players will get hurt. Refs will make poor calls. The ball will take a funny bounce at an inopportune time. It isn’t a question of if those things will happen. It is just a matter of who they will happen to and when those things will happen.

I want to know how those pundits will feel when the bottom seeded team wins the playoffs. Will they be able to keep a straight face when they proclaim a team with four or five losses as the best team in football?

Will they honestly be able to say that the team with four or five losses is actually the national champion or will they be forced to say that the team got hot at the right time? Will they even be able to believe themselves when they say it?

If they aren’t prepared to say those things and actually believe them, than they aren’t really ready for a playoff. I know that I am not ready to believe it. That won’t stop it from happening though.

I am not a fan of the BCS but it a much better option than a 24 to 32-team playoff. The BCS is beyond tweaks. It needs a complete overhaul. Regardless, it is still a much better way to determine a national champion than the alternative.

Eating Crow: Big 12 Predictions For the Future

C.W. O'Brien — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:08:20 -0500

Below is a list of predictions about the workings of the Big 12 conference over the next few years.

My goal is to see how accurate recruit tracking really is. Since it is impossible to gauge the impact of players without considering the coaching those players receive, coaching was considered in these predictions. However, those were the only two factors that were considered. Upcoming schedules, returning starters, depth charts, etc. were not considered when making these predictions.

I write this knowing that I will be wrong on some predictions. I am anxious to see which ones will actually pan out. I will be stepping out on a limb for some predictions...others, not so much.

While I fully expect to be blasted for some of these predictions, I will stand by them. I am sure that there will be plenty of "I told you so" moments for everyone involved. Enjoy.

Without further delay, here goes.

Texas A&M will push Texas and OU for the Big 12 South crown in 2011.

I said that I was going to step out on a limb. What, you didn't believe me? Mike Sherman's first two recruiting classes have been stellar. He has brought talent by the boatload to College Station.

Sherman has been able to recruit well, even though the Aggies have been, well, horrid. There is no reason to believe that he will stop bringing in top-notch talent any time soon. As these recruits develop and gain experience in Sherman's pro-style offense, they will give the Longhorns and Sooners fits.

K-State and Bill Snyder will not see a return to previous form before 2011.

Ron Prince put the Wildcats in a serious hole. Prince's final two recruiting classes were enormous and loaded with JuCo players. Bill Snyder wasn't hired in time to have a major impact on the Class of 2009, because nearly every Snyder-worthy prospect had already committed to another program.

It will take Snyder at last two more years to put the pieces in place. I am not saying that KSU won't win games, or even finish bowl-eligible. I am just saying that they won't have a team that resembles the 1998 or 2003 teams until at least 2011.

KU, Nebraska, and Mizzou will control the Big 12 North for at least four more years.

While each program may take a half-step back following the departure of a strong senior class (Mizzou in 2009, KU in 2010, and Nebraska in 2011), they will combine to control the North for quite a while.

Gary Pinkel has signed Top 30 classes in each of the last two years.

Nebraska was able to sign a lot of talent under Bill Callahan, and Bo Pelini hasn't missed a beat. The difference is that "Bo knows coaching."

Mark Mangino is one of the best in the business at player development. He has signed the two most talented classes of his career in 2008 and 2009.

Dan Hawkins will be replaced as head coach at Colorado by the end of the 2010-2011 season.

Despite signing an abundance of talented recruits, CU will not be a serious contender for the Big 12 North. Hawkins' prediction of a 10-win 2009 will fall two to three wins short and may, in fact, be his downfall. If that isn't his downfall, the flip-flopping of quarterbacks and erroneous play calling will be.

Hawkins' replacement at Colorado will win a lot of games in his first two years.

The talent is there. End of story.

Baylor will get to a bowl game in the next two years.

Art Briles is quietly recruiting Baylor out of the Big 12 South cellar. It will pay off sooner rather than later.

Oklahoma State will take a step back after 2009-2010.

Oklahoma State has had good recruiting classes the last two years. Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M have had better ones. Mike Gundy is going to have a hard time finding immediate replacements for his stable of workhorses who will depart next year.

Oklahoma and Texas will win three of the next four Big 12 championships.

They have owned the Big 12 for the better part of a decade. They continue to out-recruit every other program in the Big 12. Their dominance isn't going to go away any time soon.

The Big 12 North will not be able to seriously contend with the Big 12 South for conference supremacy until at least 2011-2012.

The South division has dominated the North on the field and in the living room for the last 10 years. Until the schools from the North are able to consistently out-recruit the bulk of the South, they will not be able to consistently beat them.

Recruiting for Beginners Part V: Wrapping Things Up

C.W. O'Brien — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:02:04 -0500

Despite all of the analysis and evaluation that goes into recruit-tracking, sometimes players and classes don't perform as well on the field as they do on paper.

The fact of the matter is that any number of a million things can happen once a recruit gets on campus. Players transfer or get hurt. Some recruits can't perform in the classroom and leave school. Coaches get fired. Sometimes the recruiting services just miss.

If having a top-ranked recruiting class was all that was needed to compete for a national title, then we should have seen Nebraska or Tennessee play for all of the marbles sometime in the last four years. They had the top two recruiting classes in 2005 according to ESPN. Instead of crystal footballs, both programs got new coaches.

The numbers suggest that USC should have a few more national titles, but they don't. The numbers also suggest that it is impossible for teams like Utah, KU, and Boise State to even be invited to play in a BCS bowl...never mind those teams actually winning their games.

Class rankings aren't guarantees, only indicators.

"60 percent of the time, it works every time."—Brian Fontana "Anchorman"

The reality of recruit-tracking and class grading is that they are only accurate about 60 percent of the time. Yes, I did say 60 percent. Six-zero percent.

Sixty percent is a test grade that you don't tell your parents about. If my Jeep only starts 60 percent of the time, I need to take it to a mechanic as soon as possible. If I only hit the toilet 60 percent of the time, I'm pretty sure that my wife will divorce me.

But, for a recruiting service, 60 percent is a pretty good number.

Before the name calling starts, please let me explain myself.

Every year there are literally thousands upon thousands of potential prospects that could end up on FBS rosters. The sheer number of eligible prospects is staggering. It is an unfortunate reality that not every prospect is going to be seen. Those that are actually seen may not be seen enough to actually be evaluated properly.

There just aren't enough hours in the day.

The level of competition can become a major factor when evaluating. Potential recruits play for high schools, prep schools, and junior colleges. It isn't like these prospects play each other often, or in most cases, at all. In high school, the level of competition within a state can vary from classification to classification or league to league. It can get really tedious trying to compare prospects from different states.

When you throw in prep school and JuCo prospects, gauging the level of competition among prospects can become a crap shoot.

Yes, most recruiting services have recruit combines and skill camps to gauge recruits, but that doesn't really make it that much easier. There is no way that every prospect in the country will attend the same camp. It is logistically and financially impossible.

It isn't even like every camp and combine uses the same type of equipment or grading methods. Some camps use electronic timers, some use hand-held timers. Some camps have digital scales, others don't. I can go down to my gym right now and jump on three different scales and get three different readings. The process is far from uniform.

Once the prospects actually get to school, a lot can happen. Not all coaching staffs are created equal. Some recruits develop better than others. Other recruits get bogged down on the depth chart.

Some five-star prospects flop. Some two-star prospects blossom into All-Americans.

To put this into perspective, consider draft-tracking for the NFL. The most knowledgeable minds in the NFL handle the research and evaluation of potential NFL prospects.

Their success and accuracy: about 70 percent.

The best and the brightest GMs and draft experts are only marginally more successful than their recruit-tracking counterparts, despite the numerous advantages that they have at their disposal.

The NFL draft experts only have to evaluate a fraction of the prospects that a recruiting service has to. They have hundreds of hours of tape available for each draft prospect. The level of competition can vary slightly, but in general, is considered about equal.

The NFL combine provides an opportunity to see and compare almost every available player at the same time. This allows the measurements, grading methods, etc. to be the same for every player. The standard and grading method are identical for every player at the combine.

With all of the advantages, the Draft should be much easier to evaluate and project. It isn't.

Why?

Once a player gets on a team, a lot can happen. Not all coaching staffs are created equal. Some players develop better than others. Other players get bogged down on a depth chart.

Some first round picks flop. Some seventh round picks turn into Pro-Bowlers.

So, like I said before, 60 percent is pretty good.

It was only a few years ago that recruiting services were only about 50 to 55 percent accurate. With each passing year, the recruiting services improve. They see more prospects. The evaluation methods improve and so do their projections.

The system will never be perfect. When it comes to accurately guessing how 17- and 18-year-old kids will perform, nothing will ever be one hundred percent accurate. That isn't going to stop recruiting services from trying.

If fans are looking for concrete answers as to how their team will perform in the up-coming years, they should keep looking. Recruit-tracking will not provide those answers.

However, if they are looking to find good indicators as to how their team will perform, recruit tracking is the way to go.

Recruiting For Beginners Part IV: Ending Some Of The Myths

C.W. O'Brien — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:27:25 -0500

Even though a lot has been covered, there is still quite a bit that hasn't been. That is just the way that it goes sometimes.

There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding recruit-tracking and recruiting in general. People take these misconceptions and accept them as truth, regardless of whether they are. These fallacies turn people away from recruit-tracking.

Like most stereotypes, these misconceptions are hard to crack.

Here are few myths surrounding recruiting and some answers to clarify:

1. Recruiting services boost a players ranking just because a high profile team is recruiting/signed him.

This is a big one. Most people hear it and just accept it as fact. They use it as a way to explain why the USC's, Florida's, Texas' and LSU's of the world always seem to have classes loaded with four and five star recruits.

The reality of things is that most recruiting services update prospect evaluations fairly frequently (Rivals: weekly; Scout: monthly; ESPN: as needed). When a mid-range player is being recruited by big-name school's, it sends up red-flags to evaluators.

Those prospects tend to get re-evaluated. The services want to make their evaluations as accurate as possible. Being accurate is the only way that they will be able to sell their product. They re-evaluate to see if they missed something that those school's saw.

Sometimes they increase a players ranking on the re-evaluation, but most of the time they don't. The recruiting services know that they miss stuff, that they might not have the best tape on a prospect, that they may have witnessed a player on an off-night. They re-evaluate to ensure their accuracy as evaluators.

The opposite is also true. If they have a recruit ranked very high, but that prospect is only being recruited by non-BCS also-rans, they may choose to re-evaluate.

I can think of two examples from just this year. The players and teams will remain nameless.

- In one case a two star prospect was labeled as a defensive end. He was undersized (height/weight) for a defensive end, but had good speed. He was being recruited by several brand-name schools. When they re-evaluated him further, they realized that he played a hybrid linebacker/defensive end position (similar to a 3-4 linebacker) and was being recruited by those schools to play outside linebacker. They adjusted his position and re-evaluated him as a linebacker. When they did that, he was awarded an additional star.

- In another case a 3-Star OT was ranked fairly high at his position. He had a good initial burst and great measureables, but big-time schools that had offered him were actually pulling their offers after summer camps. Both Rivals and Scout gathered more tape and re-evaluated the prospect. Upon further review, they discovered that the OT had put the best 30 blocks of his career on his tape...and that true quality blocks only happened about twice per game. The rest of the time he had poor body movement, poor footwork, and he didn't use his hands. He lost a star and his position rank dropped drastically after the new evaluation.

So, yes some prospects do get re-evaluated based on who is (or isn't) recruiting them. However, they aren't just automatically given stars and ranking boosts just because they are being recruited by name-brand schools.

If stars were handed out to big-time programs, USC, Texas, OU, LSU, and Florida would never sign a prospect that had anything less than four stars. That just isn't the case. USC has two, two-star recruits this year. Texas has seven three-star recruits.

2. Rankings don't matter because any school can win with poorly ranked players and any school can lose with high ranking players.

This is true, to a point. The largest reason for this is the coaching, not the recruits. A good coach can develop available talent and get the most out of it. A coach that can't win with talented players is probably skills in player development and/or game planning.

Opponents of recruit-tracking point to Urban Meyer as evidence of why recruiting rankings mean nothing. He was undefeated at Utah in 2004, and then continued to win when he took over at Florida.

While at Utah, his recruiting classes ranked 90th (2003), and ranked 61st (2004) nationally. However, they classes were in the top five of the Mountain West. Urban Meyer is a gifted coach and developed his team well in a short span. QB Alex Smith blossomed into a Heisman Trophy finalist and NFL first round draft pick under Meyer.

Utah was able to defeat Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl 35-7. On paper it sounded like an improbable upset. Upon further inspection of both team's recruiting averages from 2002-2004, it wasn't as big an upset as it appeared. Pitt's recruits averaged 2.54 stars and Utah's averaged 2.27 stars. That is a minuscule difference.

When Meyer got to Florida, the program finally had direction. Former Florida coach Ron Zook was a master recruiter, but couldn't get his players to produce. Meyer took those same recruits and won a national championship.

While opponents point to Meyer as an example of why recruit tracking doesn't work, I point to him as an example of why it does work.

It is important to note that in Meyer's years at Utah, both Scout and Rivals were just starting to get into the swing of recruiting evaluation. At the time, they didn't have the resources to scout nearly as many prospects as they do today.

For the Class of 2005, Scout.com was able to evaluate 940 high school prospects. They had that many prospects evaluated for the Class of 2009 by late May, 2008 and had evaluated over two thousand by July 2008. Many two and three-star recruits would have been properly evaluated and their rankings would likely have been higher.

Meyer is an amazing coach. Meyer last Utah team was undefeated. In the years following his departure, Utah went 7-5, 8-5, and 9-4. The 2005 team returned only nine starters, but they returned most of their two-deep depth chart. The talent level hadn't changed, only their coaching staff had. Utah played to it's talent level after Meyer left.

Florida's recruiting classes under Ron Zook annually ranked in the Top 20 nationally, but he was never able to win with that talent. Meyer gave that talent direction and purpose and was able to win a national title in his second year. Fifteen starters from the 2006 national championship team were already on the roster when Meyer took over.

Before Meyer arrived at Florida, they had not played to their talent level. When a coach came in that would push them to hit their level, they won a national title. It is no coincidence.

Ironically, Ron Zook is still able to recruit talent to the University of Illinois, each of his recruiting classes has ranked in the top half of the Big Ten. He has not been able to find much success with that talent yet.

3. Recruits that don't qualify academically are bound by their original letter of intent when they do qualify.

Recruits that don't qualify usually go to a prep-school or junior college to improve their grades and test scores.

If a recruit fails to qualify, they are no longer bound by their letter of intent. They are completely recruitable all over again and can sign with whatever program they want to. The school that they originally committed to can pursue that prospect again, but they are not obligated to do so. They are also not obligated to hold a roster slot open for that player.

If you are every around Chatham, VA in time to catch a prep football game (post-graduate), you should jump at the chance. Hargrave Military Academy in Chatham is the de facto boarding house for unqualified SEC/ACC football recruits. The talent on the field is amazing...it is a smorgasbord of future FBS stand-outs. Fifteen players on current NFL rosters are Hargrave alumni. In 2007, 43 members of the Hargrave post-graduate team signed LOI's to play for 4-year schools.

4. The recruiting services never admit when they are wrong.

What most people don't realize is that most recruit-tracking services produce three final class rankings.

The first comes out shorly after National Signing Day. This class ranking reflects the prospects that were signed. The average person probably only looks for this ranking.

The second ranking comes out in August before the season starts. This ranking reflects the recruits that actually made it to school and are therfore a little bit more accurate. It can actually be shocking to see exactly how many recruits don't make it to school. A total of 47 signed recruits from teams listed in the Spring Top 25 never stepped foot on campus as a student. That is almost nine percent of signed recruits, and that is just from the teams listed in the Top 25.

The third set of rankings comes out after the bulk of a particular recruiting class has exhausted it's eligibility. This set of rankings reflects how recruiting classes actually performed. It takes into account transfers, injuries, and recruiting busts. While there are usually three to five teams that were originally ranked outside of the top thirty that sneak into the rankings, most of the original top twenty are still there. Seldom are the rankings identical, but most of the time they are within five to seven spots of their original ranking.

Conclusion:

Recruit tracking gets a bad reputation for a lot of reasons that just don't exist. The reasons start out as rumor and then are accepted as fact long before they can actually be judged.

Sometimes, this is just the way of the world. No, the system isn't perfect. No system is. Until people start to actually look at the way recruit-tracking actually works and how things are done, it will always have more than its fair share of nay-sayers.

Remember, the world was flat once.

College Football Recruiting Part III: Oversigning and Greyshirts

C.W. O'Brien — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:31:02 -0500

Over-signing.

Grey-shirting.

They aren't words that are regularly used outside of recruiting. Most people have no idea what they actually mean.

The two go hand in hand, and are quickly becoming a very important aspect of college football recruiting.

Here are a couple quick definitions:

Over-signing: The practice of signing more than the NCAA allotted 25 recruits in a particular class.

Grey-shirting: A player that commits to a team and then pays his own way through school for a semester to preserve his eligibility.

With each passing year, more and more teams over-sign prospects. The reason for over-signing varies from team to team, but the fact remains that it is becoming more common place.

In 2006, 33 teams signed more than their allotment of 25 prospects. In 2007, the number of teams that over-signed jumped to 39. In 2008, 30 teams over-signed. Even before National Signing Day, 14 teams have more than 25 commits, and the number will only grow over the next two weeks.

If you aren't familiar with over-signing now, you will be over the next several years.

Over-signing:

Football teams are only permitted to enroll 25 scholarship athletes per calendar year and can only have 85 scholarship players on their team at any given time. This doesn't stop teams from signing more than their allotment of players.

Teams over-sign for a variety of reasons. Some players will not qualify academically and will never step foot onto campus. Some coaches were not able to sign 25 prospects the year before and are trying to make up for it. Other schools are trying to add depth to their teams in years where there is a large number of quality recruits.

Regardless of reason, here is how oversigning works:

A team must sign less than its allotment of 25 scholarship players the year before.
Extra players must enroll in December, prior to National Signing Day, and be on campus for the Spring semester.

Any team that exceeds the maximum 25 scholarships, must have additional players grey shirt.

Over-signing allows teams to build depth. It also allows schools to prepare for potential academic casualties. It is a practice that has been around, particularly in Southern schools, for years. It will not be going away any time soon.

These additional players do indirectly affect a team's recruiting class ranking. While not all players are counted toward the ranking, the weaker prospects are hidden by the stronger ones. This can give an inaccurate representation of the overall quality of a class.

Even teams that are not oversigned encourage players to enroll early if their are scholarships available.

Not only does it give those players the opportunity to get a head start on the system, conditioning, college experience, but any player that enrolls in December will not count towards a teams 25 annual scholarships. Technically, scholarships for early entries belong to the previous year's class.

This allows teams to get a maximum on how many players they can over-sign the next year.

Grey-shirting:

While most people are familiar with the phrase "red-shirt" most people have no idea what a grey-shirt is. In fact, the NCAA does not even acknowledge the term. In a way, grey-shirting is like the U.S. Army's Delta Force—everyone knows it's their, but the governing body doesn't acknowledge it's existance.

Here is how grey-shirting works:

A player commits to a team that is over-signed.
That player either doesn't go to school in the fall, or enrolls part-time and pays their own way. They are not officially on the team.
In January of the following year, that player enrolls full-time and officially joins the team. They are technically part of the recruiting class for the following year.

Grey-shirting is a way for schools to skate around the recruiting rules. It allows schools to over-sign, regardless of how many prospects they signed the previous year.

Every player has a five year window to play four seasons. That window starts the second a player is enrolled in college full-time or are on scholarship. Since the player is not enrolled full time and is not on scholarship, their "NCAA clock" has not started.

Once they join a team, they still have the full five year window and the ability to red-shirt if they so choose.

While grey-shirting, players are not on the team.

They can not practice or condition with the team. They can not be given any advantage not extended to the normal student body. Grey-shirts are not allowed at team meetings or functions either. For all intents they are essentially, regular students.

Conclusion:

These are important things to consider as far as a team's future is concerned. Large classes can sway the rankings, but they may be able to create additional, unplanned depth. When looking at your favorite team's recruiting class ranking, it is important to factor these things in.

Recruiting for Beginners Part II: How Are Classes Ranked?

C.W. O'Brien — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:27:55 -0500

As we discussed in the previous installment of "Recruiting For Beginners," different services rank players differently. They evaluate differently and emphasise different aspects of potential recruits.

It only stands to reason that different services would rank classes differently as well.

Having a highly ranked recruiting class does not necessarily guarantee success on the field. I will repeat that one more time just to let it sink in a little more...having a highly ranked recruiting class does not necessarily guarantee success on the field.

If it did, Nebraska and Tennessee would have played for a national championship sometime in the last four years. They had the top two classes in 2005.

USC would probably have three or four more crystal footballs in its trophy case. Ohio State would have won back-to-back national titles. You get the idea.

There are a lot of outside factors to consider. Injuries, transfers, and coaching changes can all have a major impact on the success of a particular recruiting class.

Recruiting class rankings are more like indicators than guarantees. That is important to remember. It is hard to ask for perfection out of an imperfect system.

While each service has their own unique grading criteria, all three main outlets have two principles:

Talent: Talent is rewarded to varying degrees. The more talent a team is able to sign, the higher their class will be ranked.
Limiting the total number of counted recruits: Regardless of the total number of recruits a school signs, only the top 25 recruits are counted towards a team ranking. This prevents over-signed classes from having a major impact on the rankings.

There is a lot of room for fluctuation among team rankings. It is not uncommon for a team to be ranked highly on one service and lower in another. Each service has its own unique formula for ranking classes.

Here is the abridged version of how Rivals, Scout, and ESPN rank classes:

Rivals

Rivals has developed a scoring system to rank teams. It awards points based on the number of commits and the quality of those prospects.

Teams are awarded points for the number of stars each recruit has, a recruit's positional rankings, and a recruit's position on the Rivals 100 list.

To simplify:

A 5-Star prospect is given more points than a 4-star prospect.
A prospect ranked 5th at his position is given more points than a person ranked 15th at the same position.
A prospect on the Rivals100 list is given points, but a prospect not on the list is not given points for it.
A prospect ranked third on the Rivals100 list is given more points than a prospect ranked 20th.

Rivals counts JuCo and prep players in their team rankings or level.

Another thing to consider is that teams are only awarded points for the amount of prospects in their class (up to 25). A recruiting class of 21 does not have as much point earning potential as a class with 25.

This rewards teams for signing quality prospects, regardless of eligibility. Rivals does not factor in immediate team needs. They ignore immediate needs because the prevailing theory is that most teams will have addressed those needs years in advance.

Many teams will load up on prospects from a particular position knowing that players will red-shirt or change position. Rivals does not punish them for doing so.

This is a double-edged sword that can have a negative effect on the rankings. While those talented players will count, balance is not considered.

Hypothetical Example:

Team A signs 25 prospects, all of them 4- and 5-Star recruits. BUT they only signed LB's, DB's, and DE's.

It is theoretically possible for Team A to have an extremely highly ranked class based on the level of talent that they signed, despite the fact that they didn't sign a single offensive player and that most positions on the team were completely ignored.

Scout

Scout ranks a team's class using three main points of emphasis: talent, need, and balance. High school, prep, and JuCo recruits count toward this ranking.

Talent: The overall quality of players is emphasized in this category. The better the recruit the higher the score.

Need: Team needs are emphasized. If a team recruits to meet its specific needs, it will be rewarded. If doesn't, it will be punished. There is a limit set on recruits that are counted at a given position. This prevents teams from overloading at a position and being rewarded for it.

Balance: There is an emphasis on signing players at every position to create depth for the future.

All three factors hold equal weight. This is one of the main differences between Scout and other services. Teams are neither rewarded, nor punished for the size of their class. It rewards classes for being "complete."

This can lead to teams being ranked inaccurately. A team can sign a class with a lot of talent, but if they don't recruit at every position or they load up at a specific position, it can drag their class ranking down.

A team can meet their needs and get a lot of talent, but be punished for not balancing their class.

Hypothetical Example:

Team A signs a class of 18 recruits. The team is built primarily of 4-Star recruits, but they also have three 5-Star recruits. 11 of the recruits were on defense and 4 of those defensive recruits were linebackers.

If Team A was only trying to replace a single linebacker, they would not get credit for two of those prospects. In this case, Team A was focused primarily on defense and did not balance out it's class offensively.

Team B signs a class of 22 recruits. While it is built mostly of 4-Star recruits, 6 of the recruits have 3-Star and not a single 5-Star recruit signed with them.

Team B was able to fill all of it's recruiting needs and was able to land 11 recruits on both offense and defense, without overloading a specific position.

It is theoretically possible for Team A to be ranked lower than Team B because of the fact that Team B was able to fill its needs without overloading, and had more balance among it's recruits.

ESPN

ESPN ranks teams based off of two categories: talent level and immediate need.

Talent level: An emphasis is placed on prospects from the ESPN 150 list. The more prospects on the list, the better the class. Recruits positional rankings are also factored in.

Immediate need: Teams are rewarded for signing recruits that will fill an immediate need on their depth charts.

Only high school players count towards the ESPN team ranking. Prep and JuCo recruits are listed, but they are not factored into the actual recruiting ranking. They are noted, in that they provide depth, but the actual ranking is not based off of anything other than high school players.

Tom Luginbill heads ESPN's recruiting service. He has modeled his ranking system off of ESPN's NFL Draft ranking system. It sounds good in theory, but it leads to a very misguided set of rankings.

College football is not the NFL. The draft is not the same as recruiting. It is almost impossible to accurately predict the two in the same way.

Most freshman can't step into a college program and start. It is also very difficult to depend on recruiting to fill an immediate team need. Players like Terrelle Pryor and Julio Jones are exceptions, not the rule.

Conclusion

As before, it comes down to preference. All three have their good sides and their bad. There is no perfect way to rank the classes.

Very seldom do all of the services agree on anything...not even the teams ranked in the top five. A quick inspection of the current rankings shows three different top fives made up of seven different teams. They emphasise different aspects of recruiting classes and their rankings reflect that.

In the words of my father, "Pick your poison."

College Football Recruiting For Beginners Part I: How Are Players Ranked?

C.W. O'Brien — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:20:50 -0500

I tried to write a short article to help explain some of the lesser known aspects of recruiting: how players are ranked, how classes are ranked, over-signing classes, etc. The truth is that most B/R readers don't know much about recruiting except for how high their favorite school's class is ranked, or who their favorite school's prized prospect is.

After sifting through literally hundreds of pages of useful reference material, I realized that it would be impossible to cram everything into a single article and keep the article under 15 pages.

I am not going to kid myself into believing that more than three people would read the entire article if it was that long. I know I wouldn't. Instead, I have broken it up. I will be publishing it in installments leading up to National Signing Day. Hopefully this can take some of the confusion and misinformation out of recruiting.

Also, while there will be some of my own opinions thrown in for analytical purposes, for the most part I will deal strictly in facts and figures. I will be happy to provide a bibliography and source list for anyone that wants it. Enjoy!

Part I: How Are Players Ranked?

I have been following recruiting since 1998, back in the days before websites like Rivals and Scout. I read SuperPrep, Max Emfinger's Recruiting, The Prep Football Report, and Dave Campbell's Texas Football.

When Rivals and Scout went up, I just took my hobby a step further. I have been following football recruiting year-round for almost six years. I'm no Tom Lemming or Dave Campbell, but I know a little bit.

This one is about as true a statement as it gets: Recruiting is not an exact science. Signing a great class does not guarantee success. Not every "can't miss" prospect is actually "can't miss." I wanted to get that out of the way at the beginning.

The fact remains that there is a lot that can happen between the time a player signs with a program and when their eligibility runs out. Some recruits can't academically qualify. Coaches leave the recruit's program. Players get injured. They transfer. They quit school. They get caught up in legal woes.

After talking with a lot of people, I have found that the biggest confusion comes from the fact that most people lack a basic understanding of how various recruiting services track and rate prospects. They don't understand how there can be a disparity between the way a recruit is ranked on different recruiting services.

Common questions include: What makes a 5-Star prospect a 5-Star? Why is this recruit rated as a 4-Star on (insert source) but only a 2-Star on (insert service)? The recruit looked good on the clip I saw, why is he only a 3-Star?

They are all very important questions that I hope to answer.

While there are tons of different recruiting services out there, there are three main recruiting services that really set the bar. They are: Rivals.com, Scout.com, and ESPN. They each have their own unique way of grading potential prospects. They have their own evaluators and they look at different things.

They do share four basic traits:

Game film study: All prospects are evaluated using as much film as possible. The more film on a prospect, the better the service's analysis. They get to see more than the 30 second clips that they post for viewers.
Live game study: Each service has evaluators in different regions throughout the country. While it is virtually impossible for them to see every potential prospect in person, almost every high-ranking prospect will be seen at least once. Both Scout and Rivals claim to attend several hundred games per year. This allows them to get a better feel of how prospects are rated and ranked.
Combines and camps: Recruiting services use these as an opportunity to get accurate measurements on height, weight, speed, vertical, etc. It also gives them a chance to how these prospects matchup against other top notch prospects.
Players are evaluated on today, not tomorrow: These services evaluate how good a player is currently, not how good they may be eventually. It is hard enough projecting how good a player is going to perform in college based on his current measurables and skill set. It is impossible to determine how well a player will perform based on how his body might develop or how good his skills might become.
Athlete: Players are given the position of "athlete" if a service feels that a particular player has a skill set or physical attributes that would allow him to play many different positions in college. It acts to prevent the service from projecting a player's position incorrectly. No recruiting service will have the exact same list of players at the "athlete" position, but all will make use of the title.

Contrary to popular belief, these recruiting services aren't looking into a crystal ball to get analysis. They also aren't throwing spaghetti noodles at the refrigerator to determine how many stars a player gets. What they do isn't ho-hum. There is a lot of work and preparation that goes into evaluating recruits.

No, they aren't always right, but it isn't because they aren't trying.

Here is a quick run-down of how each service rates recruits:

Rivals

Rivals uses a two-prong grading system to rate prospects. Each player is given 1 to 5 stars based on their talent, size, skill, etc. Then each player is given a number that corresponds to how they rank among prospects of the same position nationally. This helps to differentiate between the quality of players with the same general talent, size, skill, etc. Rivals has also begun grading players on their expected impact, but it does not actually factor into their over-all prospect grade.

It is important to note that these rankings are done independently. One does not have an impact on the other.

Stars:

***** = Great prospect. Game ready as a true freshman. Prospect has the ability to be a difference-maker immediately.

**** = Very good prospect. The recruit can contribute as a freshman and be a difference-maker early in his career

*** = Good prospect. Can contribute to a program and eventually start but still needs some development to be effective.

** = Average prospect. Needs time to develop but has the potential to become a contributor to a program late in their career.

* = Evaluation pending/not enough film to evaluate

The base of all of these rankings is a player's skill set. A highly skilled player can still have a decent star rating, regardless of size. The inverse is not true. Rivals will not rank a prospect with poor skills and great size as high.

That said, Rivals may add or deduct stars based on height, weight, or speed. Often times, the biggest difference between a 3-Star quarterback and a 4-Star quarterback is a couple of inches. The difference between two physically similar wide receivers could be less than a tenth of a second in the 40.

While adjusting a players stars based on an inch or two, a few pounds, or a couple tenths of a second in the 40 may seem arbitrary, it is very important in projecting a player.

In a sport dominated by 300 pound lineman, 6'3" receivers, and defensive backs that run sub-4.4 40's, it is hard to really predict which undersized players will have an impact.

It is usually the 2-star, undersized, less skilled prospects that opponents of recruit-tracking point to. It is a fact that recruiting services get these wrong from time to time. One thing to consider is that for every undersized QB like Todd Reesing or Chase Daniel, there are hundreds of similarly sized QB's that never see the field as a starter.

Once players have been issued a star-ranking, they are compared to the other prospects at a given position. They are ranked numerically in order from best to worst.

While Rivals may only list the top 100 and show the remaining prospects as NR, they have, in fact, rated every prospect at a given position. This becomes a factor when ranking classes because not every 3-Star prospect is equal.

Example:

Joe Snuffy
Johnston (IA) Johnston

6.1

6-3/226/4.7

List

Scout

Scout uses a grading scale to evaluate potential recruits. Once the prospects have been given their grade, they are assigned stars and positional rankings. The score on their evaluation determines how many stars that player receives and how that player ranks at their position.

Players are graded based on size, speed, talent, and current skills.

90-100: Rare prospect. Player can create mismatches and can have a major impact on the game as a true freshman.

80-89: Outstanding prospect. Player may be able to create some mismatches against most opponents and could potentially contribute as a true freshman.

70-79: Good prospect. Player doesn't dominate in every game, especially against quality competition. Could eventually become a starter.

60-69: Average prospect. This player is over-matched against the better players in the nation. Weaknesses will be exposed against tougher competition. Could develop into a solid contributor on the FBS level.

50-59: Prospect. Player has some redeeming qualities but is not projected to contribute at the FBS level.

45: Pending prospect with film

40: Pending prospect

Once prospects have been graded, they are assigned stars and positional rankings.

While the cut-off for stars can vary from year to year, it generally falls:

90 or more points=5-Stars

80 or more points=4-Stars

70 or more points=3-Stars

60 or more points=2-Stars

less than 60 and pending prospects are assigned 1-Star.

Prospects are then placed in order from highest grade to lowest by position. Positional grades are assigned from high to low. The recruits are not directly compared and analyzed, only their scores are.

Example

Joe Snuffy
(Johnston HS)
Johnston, IA

6-3/227

KU, OU, Iowa State, Iowa, Texas

ESPN

The World Wide Leader in Sports uses the same grading scale that Scouts uses, although ESPN does not assign stars. ESPN evaluates only a fraction of the recruits that Scout and Rivals do. ESPN uses Scouts' analysis for any player that they are unable to evaluate themselves.

ESPN takes the combined analysis and issues grades, positional rankings, and over-all national rankings independent of Scout. However, like Scout, prospects are not compared to one another, only their scores are.

Example

Joe Snuffy

6'3"

222

Johnston H.S. (IA)

QB #7

View Schools

Conclusion

Even though all three major recruiting services tend to use some of the same general guidelines, they all have their own areas of importance. They grade differently. They evaluate differently.

As always, differently people see things differently—even when they are looking at the same picture. One service may see a prospect and think that recruit is great. Another service may see something differently and evaluate accordingly.

While Rivals and Scout evaluate almost three times as many prospects as ESPN does, some people seem to trust ESPN's evaluations more.

Rivals and Scout begin player evaluations the winter of a prospects junior year. ESPN begins in the spring.

ESPN contacts teams on who they are recruiting and adjusts its evaluations accordingly, compared to Scout and Rivals who attempt to scout every potential recruit.

Rivals attempts to update it's player evaluations weekly. Scout updates theirs monthly. ESPN updates their evaluations as needed.

ESPN is free. The other two charge.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way to evaluate potential prospects. There is no right or wrong answer, there is only personal preference.

Kansas Jayhawk Recruiting 2009: Safety Bradley McDougald Commits to Kansas

C.W. O'Brien — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:03:05 -0500

The University of Kansas received a big boost to its already impressive class on Jan. 22 when Scioto (Dublin, Ohio) Safety Bradley McDougald verbally committed to the Jayhawks.

He is the 23rd known commitment for the Class of 2009. McDougald is a 4-Star rated safety prospect and is also on the Rivals 250 list. He is listed on Rivals as the 11th best safety in the country and the 13th best prospect in the state of Ohio.

The one-time Ohio State Buckeyes commit chose KU over Michigan State, Wisconsin, Cincinnati, Colorado, and Indiana.

The Scioto high school product became the sixth defensive back to commit to the Jayhawks. He is also the fourth Rivals 4-Star rated prospect to agree to play for Mark Mangino and the Jayhawks in the Class of 2009.

McDougald is listed at 6-foot-0.5, 186 pounds. He is a very gifted athlete and was a two way starter in high school and also played on special teams.

As a defensive back, he has great closing speed and can play either man or zone coverage very well. He is a sure-tackler and delivers a blow.

He is a quality asset in run support and gets a good jump on the ball. He has a good wing-span and leaping ability.

On offense, McDougald can play either wide receiver or running back. On film, he was able to run through tiny seams and showed the ability to be able to run through arm tackles. He has a good tilt and an excellent set of moves.

He has shifty hips to go with outstanding body control and balance. He can change direction, spin, and cut on a level that few backs ever attain. As a receiver, he runs a lot of screens, but can catch the ball in traffic downfield.

As of right now, McDougald will probably play on the offensive side of the field. It is unknown at this time whether it will be as a receiver or as a running back.

Regardless, he may be able to step into a contributing role as a freshman on special teams and as a reserve.

His success at KU will be determined by how he is utilized in Ed Warriner's offensive system. Offensively, he has so many talents, KU will need to find ways to get him touches.

He has the ability to line up in the slot or in the backfield, similar to OU back DeMarco Murray. If he is used properly, he can give opposing defensive coordinators headaches for years to come.

Kansas Football Recruiting: Jayhawks Wrap Up as National Signing Day Looms

C.W. O'Brien — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:48:47 -0500

A lot has changed since my last look at the Jayhawks' late-season push to finish up their recruiting class. Some prospects are no longer being considered, others are no longer considering KU, and some have committed elsewhere.

Here is a quick breakdown of what has happened in the last week and a half.

· KU has received a commitment from Denton, TX native D.J. Bashears. He is an undersized Three-Star WR prospect with great speed.

· Three-Star K prospect Zach Grossnickle has committed to Colorado.

· Three-Star Athlete prospect Terrell Williams has committed to Arkansas.

· Three-Star WLB prospect Justin Isadore has committed to TCU.

· Three-Star WR prospect Skylar Scott has committed to Baylor.

· Three-Star CB prospect Thomas Ferguson has committed to K-State.

· Three-Star RB prospect Kendial Lawrence has committed to Mizzou.

· Three-Star DE prospect Tevin Mims committed to Texas.

· Four-Star WR prospect Ricco Sanders is no longer interested in KU and is currently only interested in the SEC/ACC so he can be closer to home.

· Three-Star QB prospect Kenny Guiton is no longer interested in KU. He is looking primarily at Baylor and several smaller Texas schools.

· Three-Star RB prospect Cobi Hamilton is no longer interested in KU. Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma State have all made a late push for his talents.

· Two-Star OL prospect Justin Aumen has seen his stock drop considerably. The one-time Three-Star prospect is no longer being pursued by KU.

If National Signing Day was today, Kansas would still be sitting pretty. They have a very respectable class by national standards (32nd in the country, fifth Big XII). They don't need to get another commitment.

Just because they don't need any more commitments doesn't mean that they aren't going to try to get any more. There are still several very talented recruits still on the market, and KU has traditionally been able to find quality players to develop in this time.

Mark Mangino may be the king when it comes to finding "dark horse" players late in the recruiting season. He is almost always able to find one or two prospects in the last two weeks of recruiting who turn into major contributors.

Here are a few examples of the late gems that he has been able to acquire in recent years.

· 2008: starting punter Alonso Rojas

· 2007: starting wide receivers Dez Briscoe and Jonathan Wilson, starting tackle Jeff Spikes

· 2005: running back Angus Quigley, former starting linebacker James Holt

· 2004: former starters Matt Darton, Dexton Fields, Joe Mortensen, Charleton Keith, Anthony Collins, and Kyle Tucker

There is still plenty of talent still available for the Jayhawks to sign. With 23 known commitments, KU will try to sign three or four more prospects. Of those, there will probably be one more running back and at least one more offensive lineman.

Running back

Ronnie Wingo

Four-Star prospect out of St. Louis, MO (University). He is the big bruiser back that KU has been searching for. He has great size and speed, as well as the soft hands that every Jayhawk running back needs in Coach Ed Warriner’s offensive system.

Also considering: Arkansas, Minnesota, Illinois, and Mizzou

Why he signs with KU: He had a good, not great, time on his official visit to KU. He enjoyed the players and the coaching staff. He also had a great time when the coaching staff did their in-home visit.

He will have the ability to contribute as a freshman and the ability to be the featured back as a sophomore. Illinois has already received two RB commits, and Arkansas has received three. At Mizzou, Wingo would be forced to split time with Derrick Washington for three years.

Why he doesn’t: Toben Opurum. KU has already received a commitment from another bruiser back. While there is plenty of room in KU’s backfield, Wingo may not want to be forced to compete for time with the same player for four years.

One of Wingo’s close friends, Nathan Steelhaase, has already committed to the Illini, most of his friends will be attending Mizzou, and Arkansas covets his talents desperately.

Dominic Wilkins

Two-Star prospect out of Houston, TX (Klein Forrest) is the typical KU back. At 6’0”, 180 lbs. he isn’t a bruiser that KU needs for its one-two punch, but he is a gifted runner. He is strong and can be a workhorse for the Jayhawks between the tackles. Expect KU to make a strong push for him if they lose out on Wingo.

Also considering: Baylor and Houston

Why he signs with KU: He will have the benefit of a redshirt year, and the competition for starting time will be wide open in 2010. He will have the ability to play on a team that can get national recognition in a BCS conference.

Why he doesn’t: Wilkins knows going in that he will be expected to redshirt. This can scare some kids off. Baylor is an up-and-coming program, and he could be able to see the field earlier. KU is also much farther away from home than Baylor or Houston.

Wide Receiver

DeWayne Peace

Three-Star prospect out of Grand Prairie, TX (South). He has great speed (4.53) and is incredibly strong. He bench-pressed 295 lbs. as a senior. He has good hands and runs clean routes. He is a great downfield blocker.

Also considering: Arizona, Oklahoma State, Colorado State, Michigan, UCF, and SMU

Why he signs with KU: He has the option to either redshirt as a freshman or play as a true freshman. He could learn and develop under Dez Briscoe and Kerry Meier. KU has had three receivers break the 1,000-yard mark over the last two years.

Why he doesn’t: KU has already received commitments from three other receivers, two of which have much better size. The competition for catches will be high over the next few years.

Tight End

Tanner Poppe

Two-Star prospect from Girard, KS. He has great size (6’6”, 225 lbs.) and good hands. His speed is good, not great, for a tight end (4.7), but his leaping ability is outstanding (33” vertical), which makes him ideal for jump balls. He is a strong blocker in the run and pass. He will need to add bulk and strength, but the depth chart will allow him time to do that.

Also considering: K-State

Why he signs with KU: Poppe’s lifelong friend and current high school teammate, Darian Kelly, has already committed to KU. He will have time to develop. His size will make him hard to keep off of the field for long.

Why he doesn’t: His lead recruiter from KU, Joe Bob Clements, is now the defensive line coach at K-State.

Offensive Line

Carlos Savala

Three-Star tackle prospect from Palm Desert, CA (College of the Desert). He is a two-year junior college starter that is game ready. He has great size (6’7”, 300 lbs.) and could become the bookend that KU needs at right tackle.

Also considering: South Florida and Hawaii

Why he signs with KU: With Jeremiah Hatch moving back to his natural position at guard, there is a starting position available. He enjoyed his official visit on Jan. 16 and connected well with the other players and coaches. Hawaii doesn’t play many televised games, and South Florida’s offense is in shambles.

Why he doesn’t: The weather. Both South Florida and Hawaii have climates that he is used to. He should be able to play wherever he goes.

Aaron Moore

Three-Star center prospect from Frisco, TX (Centennial). A one-time Auburn commit started looking elsewhere on the 19th. He has good size (6’5”, 255 lbs.) and could come in and automatically be the backup at center.

Also considering: Baylor, Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma State, Purdue, and Utah

Why he signs with KU: KU affords him the opportunity to come in as a freshman and develop while still getting quality minutes in a reserve role if he wants it. If he would rather, he may have the opportunity to redshirt. KU is deep on guards and tackles, but very thin at center.

Why he doesn’t: KU has been in the hunt for this prospect for quite a while, even after he committed to Auburn. Since he de-committed so late in the process, he hasn’t had a chance to get an official visit or a home visit yet, so he doesn’t really know how he will gel with the coaches and players. That is one of KU’s selling points; without it, it could get tricky.

William Lawson

Two-Star tackle prospect from Belleville, IL (Althoff). He has amazing size as a high school senior and has the frame to easily pack on another 30+ pounds. At 6’8”, 290 lbs., he is a goliath. His skills and fundamentals are lacking, because he has never really been pushed by bigger players and better competition. That should change in the future.

He will be considered a project tackle, and it is unlikely that he will see the field until he is into his third year with the program. There is concern over whether or not he will be academically eligible.

Also considering: K-State, Iowa, Iowa State, New Mexico, Ball State, and Missouri

Why he signs with KU: Teammate Tom Mabry has already committed to the Jayhawks for the Class of 2009. KU will give him plenty of time to work on skills before they expect him to start, which will take some of the pressure off.

Why he doesn’t: He can’t qualify academically or he chooses to go to a smaller program to concentrate on his grades.

Defensive End

DeQuin Evans

Four-Star prospect out of Wilmington, CA (Los Angeles Harbor CC). He has the size and speed to start immediately. He is an every-down defensive end who is quick off the outside in a pass rush.

Also considering: Arizona, Arizona State, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisville, Oregon, USC, Washington State, and Nevada

Why he signs with KU: He made a visit to Lawrence in December, and every time he talks with another school, he continues to go back to his visit with Mark Mangino and his staff. The visit created a lasting impression. He will have the ability to compete for a starting position immediately.

Why he doesn’t: There are five reasons—Quintin Woods, Tyrone Sellars, Jacoby Thomas, Kevin Young, and Randall Dent. Even knowing that three will likely redshirt and Dent will probably become an interior lineman, that is still a lot of defensive ends to contend with over the next two years.

Donnie Pritchett

Four-Star defensive end prospect out of Santa Rosa, CA (Santa Rosa JC). At 6’5”, 260 lbs. he is a fast, strong defensive end. He has good hands and form. If he were 25 pounds heavier, he would probably be a five-star prospect. He doesn’t need much coaching, just direction.

He initially didn’t want to leave California, but after being all but ignored by most schools in the state, he realized that he would be forced to either walk-on or look elsewhere.

Why he signs with KU: Of the schools on his list, he has only made a visit to Kansas. He enjoyed the coaching staff. KU moved to the top of his list in early January and hasn’t moved since.

Why he doesn’t: Pritchett has the same five reasons that DeQuin Evans has.

Safety

Bradley McDougald

Four-Star safety prospect out of Dublin, OH (Scioto). McDougald could very well be one of the most versatile athletes that Kansas is recruiting. He has great closing speed and times his jump very well. He disrupts passes and covers well in both zone and man defense. At 6’0”, 185 lbs. he has good starting size for a safety and has good vertical and lateral speed.

KU has been recruiting him for almost 10 months. Like most DBs/WRs for KU, he could flip which side of the field he is on. KU is the only program that he is currently interested in.

Also considering: Louisville, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Cincinnati, Colorado, and Indiana

Why he signs with KU: Friend and former high school teammate Josh Richardson was a redshirt freshman for KU this year. He almost made a commitment to KU on the 21st of this month, but he wanted to wait until all of his in-home visits were complete before he made a decision. The competition for playing time is going to be wide open over the next two to three years, and Clint Bowen is not afraid to play freshmen and sophomores in the secondary.

Why he doesn’t sign: All signs point to him wearing Crimson and Blue in the fall. He may wait until he has had a few more in-home visits, but I don’t know if there is anything that is going to keep him from Lawrence at this point.

Closing

Even though there are 10 prospects still on the board, there is no way that KU will sign all of them. There is no need to pick up 30+ prospects if they don’t need 30+ prospects. They don’t need all of them. They don’t want all of them.

The Jayhawks are trying to add a little more depth and a little more talent to the roster. Most of the recruits will redshirt anyway, so fans shouldn’t expect to see more than a handful in games this fall. With the exception of the JuCo players, most of these guys were signed to take the field in 2010 or 2011.

Here is the best case scenario for KU.

· Ronnie Wingo

· Bradley McDougald

· DeQuin Evans

· Donnie Pritchett

· Tanner Poppe

· Carlos Savala

· Aaron Moore

That would give KU 30 known commitments, which would be an unusually large class, but KU would have a hard time passing up on four more Four-Star prospects, and KU needs some more depth at offensive line.

Here is the more likely scenario:

· Bradley McDougald

· DeQuin Evans OR Donnie Pritchett, but probably not both.

· Tanner Poppe

· Carlos Savala AND/OR Aaron Moore.

This would give KU 27-28 prospects in the class, which is still a fairly large class. Regardless of the way that Ronnie Wingo goes, I don’t expect KU to make a late rally for Dominic Wilkins. I only expect KU to go after William Lawson as a preferred walk-on (gray shirt) or as a scholarship player in the event that they don’t sign either Savala or Moore. The risk/reward isn’t quite there, as Lawson’s grades are in question.

DeWayne Peace will probably not be in a KU uniform regardless of how things turn out. KU has too many receivers already committed and on their roster.

No matter how it all turns out, this will be a great class and will continue the push towards closing the talent gap with the Big XII South.

Kansas Jayhawk Recruiting 2010: WR Mike Davis Offered

C.W. O'Brien — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:15:48 -0500

Dallas-Skyline (TX) wide receiver Mike Davis has received an official offer from the University of Kansas. He is listed at 6'1", 185 lbs., and has been clocked at 4.49 seconds in the 40-yard dash. Davis is currently listed as a four-star prospect by Scout. He is also on the ESPN 150 watch list, the Rival 250 list, and the Scout 100 list.

The Dallas area is a mecca for football talent, and Dallas-Skyline is no exception. It has produced five NFL players and annually has thee or more football players on the Rivals Texas Top 100 List. There are 22 former Skyline players on Division I rosters currently. Kansas is also recruiting Davis' Skyline teammate, Corey Nelson.

Davis is a do-everything player. As a sophomore, he had 23 catches for 469 yards and four scores. As a junior, Davis had 58 catches for 1,138 yards and 16 scores. He also stars defensively. During his sophomore and junior years, he returned four interceptions for touchdowns, including two in a single game as a junior.

As a receiver, he has soft hands and runs crisp routes. He has great acceleration at the snap and on cuts. He is not the type of player that can make a circus catch, but if it touches his hands, it is almost always a catch. He is reliable.

Even at his current size, he could come in and be a playmaker. He is an every down receiver and has a knack for creating space and getting open.

Davis is also being recruited by California, Florida, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, USC, Stanford, Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. He has received offers from all but Florida, USC, and Texas.

Kansas Football Recruiting: Closing the Borders With "Potential Players"

C.W. O'Brien — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:26:10 -0500

Bryce Brown: Five-Star running back (Miami)

Arthur Brown: Five-Star outside linebacker (Miami)

Blake Lawrence: Four-Star linebacker (Nebraska)

Brian Smith: Four-Star linebacker (Notre Dame)

Chris Harper: Four-Star athlete (Oregon)

Jaydan Bird: Four-Star athlete (Oklahoma)

Christian Ballard: Four-Star tight end/defensive end (Iowa)

Kyler Reed: Three-Star athlete (Nebraska)

Marhsall Musil: Three-Star athlete (Oklahoma)

Trey Hobson: Three-Star safety (Missouri)

Brody Eldridge: Three-Star tight end (Oklahoma)

Brodrick Smith: Three-Star wide receiver (Minnesota)

What do all of these players have in common? They are all playing/getting ready to play for BCS schools. They all were rated as Three-Star prospects or higher. They are all from the state of Kansas.

More importantly, they have all gone out of state to play college football since 2005.

In recent years there have been many good reasons for these prospects to go out of state.

1. Bill Snyder left K-State and was replaced by Ron Prince who all but ignored in-state talent.

2. KU started that time frame in the Big XII cellar and is only recently out of it.

3. In-state programs such as KU and K-State were not getting the television time and media notoriety that other big-time out of state programs were.

4. Programs like Oklahoma, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Miami are consistently putting many players into the NFL.

They are all very valid reasons. I won't knock a recruit for going to a school where they feel that they will have the best chance to succeed as a person and as an athlete. I wish that they had chosen Kansas, but I completely understand why those players didn't.

The state of Kansas is not Florida, California, or Texas. The population is nowhere near as large, and the talent pool reflects that. There is just not enough talent to build a roster with local kids. While the talent pool in Kansas is not deep, there are 10-15 players annually that can become major contributors.

In 2005, 2006, and 2008, KU was able to get several of the state's top players to come to Lawrence. They have been rewarded greatly for it. Starters Kerry Meier, Caleb Blakesley, and Darrell Stucky were members of the Class of 2005. Starter Jake Sharp and key reserves Jamal Green and Tyler Lawrence were from the Class of 2006.

The Class of 2008 had a major contributor in true freshman Darius Parish and will see major contributions in the future from Tanner Hawkinson, Duane Zlatnik, and Kale Pick, who redshirted in 2008-2009.

The entire landscape of the football program has changed drastically for the University of Kansas since 2005. The Jayhawks are 3-0 in bowl games over the last four years. The Anderson Family Football Complex, completed in the spring of 2008, is one of the best athletic facilities in the country. The Jayhawks have been televised 20 times in the last two years.

If there was a time to stake a claim to the best talent the state of Kansas has to offer, it is now.

The Class of 2010 is quickly turning into one of the deepest, most talented classes that the state of Kansas has had in decades. There are three players on the ESPN 150 Watch List. It has talent galore at the skill positions as well as at linebacker. Players like Blake Bell and Justin McCay are can't miss prospects.

Now the Jayhawks have to go out and land these prospects. In 2009, Mark Mangino and his staff may have found the secret to landing the top Kansas recruits.

The road to the best talent in the area runs right through Wichita, Kan. to Brian Butler. Butler runs Potential Players, a non-profit organization based out of Wichita, which was created to help hone talented local athletes and get their names out to college coaches. Big time coaches like Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops, and Pete Carroll have all attended Butler's annual spring showcase the last few years.

I have mixed emotions on the involvement of this group. On one hand, I think it is a great tool for Kansas football players to utilize. They are able to receive additional coaching and conditioning in the offseason. They also practice with some of the best talent in the state.

On the other hand, I question Butler's motivation. It is hard not to. He claims to have been wronged by his high school coaches during his recruitment and only created Potential Players to keep other Kansas prospects from getting the same treatment. I just get a bad feeling in my stomach about the level of influence that Butler and other members of his staff may have on which colleges these players choose to attend.

Are they attending a school because it is the best fit for them, or are they attending a school because Potential Players wanted them to attend it? We may never know.

What we do know is that Potential Players is the one-stop shop for recruiting in the state of Kansas.

Players like Arthur Brown, Bryce Brown, Jaydan Bird, and Chris Harper have all worked with Potential Players. Class of 2010 prospects Blake Bell, Justin McCay, Joseph Randle, DeMarcus Robinson, and John McClure are among those that regularly work with Butler and his staff.

Luckily, the Jayhawks were able to start tapping into this resource in 2009. Current Kansas commits Kevin Young, Huldon Tharp, and Riley Spencer were all members of Butler's group.

This group will be the key to helping the Jayhawks land the best in-state recruits possible. Mark Mangino and his staff have to develop relationships with Butler and the other members of his staff. They know the athletes in Potential Players as well or better than their high school coaches. They know their strengths and weaknesses. If nothing else, KU needs to use Butler as a potential scout for in-state talent.

As a former student and fan of the University of Kansas, I do not want Butler to push kids to KU. That would be unethical. I want Butler to show kids that the University of Kansas is a place where they can have a great career and get a quality education.

If Butler is able to do that, I think that more of his prospects will stay home to play football and see that they don't need to go to Miami, Nebraska, Oregon, etc. to achieve their goals.

If Butler had been able to do that two years ago, things could be a lot different.

Arthur Brown might not have been one of seven four- and five-star linebackers that the Hurricanes have signed in two years. Instead of playing garbage minutes at The U, he may have been in the regular rotation at KU and received postseason freshman honors.

Chris Harper might not be thinking about transferring. Oregon is a long way from home, and the Ducks didn't quite hold up their end of the bargain as far as position goes. Harper was recruited as a quarterback, which was the biggest reason he signed with Oregon. They moved him to receiver, and he has been unhappy ever since.

Bryce Brown might not be joining his brother in Miami in the fall or the stable of talented backs that are already at The U. He might have become an instant star in Crimson and Blue and been the featured back from his sophomore year on. Instead, he will be a part of a running by committee approach and get 5-10 touches a game until he is a senior.

Jaydan Bird might not be headed to Norman to fall onto the rear of the Sooners' very talented depth chart. Instead he could have been a starting linebacker for the Jayhawks as a sophomore and be playing alongside his friends Arthur Brown and Huldon Tharp.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Not for those players. With any luck, it will be the case in the future.

Bill Miller, Kansas' New Co-Defensive Coordinator, Is a Great Hire for Jayhawks

C.W. O'Brien — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:15:00 -0500

On Jan. 10, 2009, KU announced the resignation of linebacker coach Steve Tovar, as well as the hiring of Tovar's replacement, Bill Miller. Miller will serve as linebacker coach as well as co-defensive coordinator at the University of Kansas.

Miller is a Hutchinson, Kan. native, has been involved in coaching for over 30 years. He has coached alongside a Who's Who list of college coaches: Butch Davis, Ron Zook, Houston Nutt, Randy Shannon, Nick Saban, Mark Dantonio, Steve Kragthorpe, Larry Coker, Charlie Strong, Monte Kiffin, and Mike Gundy. He has over 18 years of experience as a defensive coordinator in BCS programs.

This is a great hire for the University of Kansas on many different levels.

Miller provides coaching experience and credibility as a linebackers coach and as a defensive coordinator.

However, the most exciting aspect of Miler's hire is that his skills are not limited to just X's and O's. Miller recruits the state of Florida almost exclusively, and I believe that may be one of the biggest factors in closing the talent gap with the likes of Texas and OU.

Mark Mangino and his staff continue to improve their "Texas Pipeline" every year. It has produced current Jayhawks Jeremiah Hatch, Jonathan Wilson, Dezmon Briscoe, and Todd Reesing, as well as former players James McClinton, Aqib Talib, and Anthony Collins.

The Jayhawks has shown the ability to recruit Texas as well as any school outside of the state not named LSU and OU. The 2009 recruiting class contains as many Dallas Area Top 20 Prospects as OU, Texas, and Texas Tech. That is a huge bonus.

What they have had trouble recruiting is barnburner speed. I am not saying that Texas athletes aren't fast. They are. There are tons of fast kids from Texas. The problem is that most of those speedsters sign with Texas, OU, and LSU. The Texas kids with sub-4.4 speed are not waiting in line to be Jayhawks.

Like great oranges, speed comes from Florida. It is manufactured and nurtured there.

Approximately 106 prospects from the state of Florida have times in the 40-yard dash of 4.5 or less this year. There are another 86 that have run 4.6 or less. One prospect clocked a time at 4.28 at a Scout.com recruiting combine.

I'm not talking about a bunch of 5'9", 140-lb. safeties and receivers running these 4.5 40s. No, I am talking about linebackers, defensive ends, tight ends, and quarterbacks with the size to go along with their speed.

To put that into perspective, the state of Kansas has produced only 32 prospects with a 40 time of 4.5 or less SINCE 2002.

Miller provides the window of opportunity for Kansas to be able to start recruiting more Florida speed. That is going to be needed if KU is going to be able to break into the next level as a program.

Florida speed is what championship-caliber teams are built around. Just ask the Gators.

2009 Jayhawk Recruiting: Kevin Young Commits to Kansas

C.W. O'Brien — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:22:29 -0500

On Jan. 9, 2009, Kevin Young ended his lengthy recruiting process when he officially committed to the University of Kansas. Young is rated as a four-star defensive end according to Scout, and a three-star defensive end according to Rivals. He is listed as the 32nd/33rd best defensive end prospect in the country and the fifth best overall prospect from the state of Kansas.

He is the fifth defensive end commitment for the University of Kansas for the class of 2009.

Young's recruitment has been a very lengthy process for the Kansas coaches. The Olathe North product originally committed to the program in the summer of 2008, but de-committed from the program after a visit to the University of Nebraska in November. KU left the offer on the table and continued to recruit him.

Young was expected to enroll early at Nebraska in order to participate in Spring football. The week before he was supposed to leave for Lincoln, he had second thoughts. He talked with the Coach, Mark Mangino, de-committed from the Cornhuskers, and renewed his commitment to the University of Kansas.

"I just got caught up in the hype when I visited Nebraska,” Young said about his switch to Nebraska in November. ”But Kansas is where I want to be now,” added Young.

“I talked to Coach Mangino and Coach Bowen and they asked me if this is really what I wanted to do,” said Young. ”After really thinking about it the last two or three days, and location never mattered, I just think Kansas is the best opportunity for me.”

The stand-out defensive end chose KU over Nebraska, K-State, UCLA, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa State, SMU, UNLV, Washington State, and Illinois.

Young is listed at 6'4", 226 lbs., and runs a 4.78 40-yard dash. He is a solid tackler and doesn't over-pursue very often. He plays faster than his listed speed along the line of scrimmage and is a very adequate pass rusher.

Like most of the freshman defensive end recruits, he will need to add bulk to his frame to play at the division one level. He has a hard time disengaging from blockers and doesn't use his hands properly. This should improve with more coaching and time in the program.

Competition at defensive end will be steep. Jake Laptad and Maxwell Onyegbule performed well in the Insight Bowl, but neither player is assured a starting position. Young will have an advantage over most of the other incoming defensive end recruits because of his early enrollment at KU.

At this point, it is unknown which of the incoming recruits will red-shirt, or if any of them will. Look for the level of competition to fuel a revamped Kansas defense and an improved pass rush.

Kansas Jayhawk Recruiting 2009: Wrapping Up The Class

C.W. O'Brien — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:29:20 -0500

Even if today was signing day, KU would still have one of the best signing classes under coach Mark Mangino. The Class of 2009 has 22 known prospects with an average rating of 3.0 stars on Rivals.com, which is currently good for 34th in the nation.

Luckily, signing day is still three weeks away. The Kansas coaching staff can still improve on their haul. There are still a few gaps that can be filled, and depth can be added.

Here is the current breakdown of Kansas Commits

Offense: nine recruits

QB: two high school recruits

RB: two high school recruits

WR: two high school recruits

OL: three high school recruits

Defense: 13 recruits

DE: four high school recruits, one junior college recruit

DL: one junior college recruit

LB: two high school recruits

DB: four high school recruits, one junior college recruit

Virtually every hole on the depth chart has been attended to already. Most of the high school recruits will have the benefit of a red-shirt year as well. From this point on, almost every additional recruit is icing on the cake for the Class of 2009.

KU may still sign as many as five additional recruits, although two to three is much more likely. Here is the best of the remaining prospects on the board for 2009:

QB:

Kenny Guiton: Three-star recruit out of Aldine, TX. He is listed at 6'2", 180 lbs, and was clocked at 4.89 seconds in the 40. He is very raw as a passer, and despite his lack of quality straight line speed, he has good hips and acceleration. He moves well in the pocket, but his judgement decreases as defensive pressure increases. He has a tendency to force the ball.

RB:

Ronnie Wingo: Four-star RB out of St. Louis, MO. He is a big, fast back that can run and catch the ball. He is one of the fastest prospects in the country. He is Mr. Everything and could fit in and excel at almost any position on either side of the ball. Wingo's recruiting has taken a life all of its own, and no one has any idea where he may land.

Dominic Wilkins: Two-star RB out of Houston, TX. He is 5'11", 180 lbs. He is a shifty back that has decent acceleration and moves. He lacks the power to bulldoze bigger defenders and the speed to burn them. He is very raw and has a good upside.

WR:

Skyler Scott: Three-star WR prospect from Lancaster, TX. Scott is listed at 6'3", 193 lbs. and has a 4.49-second 40-yard dash to his credit. His route running and hands are more than adequate, but his speed off the ball is outstanding. He could come in and play at WR and also act as a KR or PR on special teams.

Ricco Sanders: Four-star WR prospect from Duncan, SC. He is listed at 5'11", 180 lbs. and has run a lightning fast 4.36 40-yard dash. What he lacks in ideal height, he makes up for in route running, soft hands, and mobility after the catch. He would step into the locker room and easily be one of the five fastest players on KU's roster. He will be a hard prospect to land. He is from the heart of SEC/ACC recruiting country, and those schools are all recruiting him hard.

DE:

DeQuinn Evans: Four-star juco DE prospect from Wilmington, CA. He is listed at 6'3.5", 270 lbs. and has run a 4.6 40-yard dash. He is a great talent, both as a pass rusher and as a run-stopper. With KU already receiving commitments from five DEs, this makes signing him very unlikely.

Bradley McDougald: Four-star prospect out of Dublin, OH. He is the former teammate of current Jayhawk Josh Richardson. He is 6'1", 185 lbs., and runs a 4.5-second 40. He already has great natural instincts and a sound fundamental base. He would need very little coaching to be a star on the defensive side of the ball. In late January of 2008, KU was able to steal Richardson away from several Big Ten suitors...the coaching staff is hoping that they can do the same thing here.

Terrell Williams: Three-star prospect out of Tulsa, OK. He is listed at 6'3", 215 lbs. and has run a 4.58-second 40. Could be a force to be reckoned with in the next few years by forcing opposing QBs to throw to the edges, instead of the middle. He could also play on the offensive side of the ball. He has the height of KU recruits Chris Omigie and Erick McGriff, but the bulk that both of them lack.