Pipeline
NFL production
Signing classes 2007 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
- S1
Program year analysis and class DNA metrics for Kansas State (2007).
2007 recruiting class — expectation versus Stars2Stats outcomes
Class medals
“Built on development, not recruiting rankings.”
S2S Class DNA
One-year metrics for this recruiting class
Recruits that contributed to program
Share who became impact players (starters, elite contributors, or NFL)
Based on only Low HS Projection → All-Conference or higher
Recruits that reached the NFL in any tier
Share with limited verified outcomes
Pipeline
Signing classes 2007 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
The 2007 recruiting class for Kansas State saw a significant discrepancy between original rankings and actual outcomes. With an original class rank of 46 and a subsequent S2S rerank dropping to 113, the overall performance of this class indicates a substantial underachievement relative to initial expectations. The class featured a total of 34 recruits, yet only one player, Clyde Aufner, stood out as a clear hit with an All Conference designation.
The outcomes reflect a mixed level of development across the roster. Many recruits, particularly those who were unranked, achieved modest success as college starters; however, the majority did not surpass expectations significantly. The presence of several busts, particularly among ranked recruits like Jeremy Reed, suggests that the program struggled to develop talent effectively from higher-rated recruits, which may have contributed to the class's overall lower ranking post-evaluation.
Overall, the 2007 recruiting class for Kansas State underperformed expectations. The considerable drop in the S2S rerank indicates that many recruits did not develop as initially anticipated. The presence of a single hit contrasted with multiple busts underscores the difficulties Kansas State faced in translating their recruiting efforts into on-field success. The class's takeaway suggests that higher-ranked recruits did not yield the expected returns, leading to a need for improved evaluation and development strategies in future recruiting cycles.