LJWorld.com

It won’t be until next year, when Todd Reesing is gone, that it will become clear how much of the growth of the Kansas University football program can be attributed to improved recruiting and how much to having a once-in-a-generation quarterback. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

While Reesing has battled a groin strain the past couple of weeks, he has performed poorly and so has the offense. That lends support to the theory Reesing has been more responsible for the elevation of the program than the strides made in recruiting.

Mark Mangino, the first Kansas football coach with a winning record since Jack Mitchell (44-42-5, 1958-66), is in his eighth season at Kansas and has gone 50-44. Exactly half of those victories have come with Reesing starting. KU is 25-9 in Reesing starts, 25-35 in games started by other Mangino quarterbacks. Startling numbers, but not as one-sided when viewed in context. The program already was on the upswing before Reesing took over at quarterback. Mangino’s two best records came in the two seasons preceding 2007, Mangino’s fifth season and Reesing’s first as starter.

In the first three years of rebuilding a program in shambles, Mangino went 12-24. In the next two seasons, he went 13-11, including a victory against Colorado in a game in which Reesing inherited a 9-0 deficit at the half and rallied the Jayhawks to victory in relief of Adam Barmann.

Mangino took it from an F Big 12 program to a C. Reesing has taken it from a C to a B+. The question is, when he’s gone, does it regress to a C? Based on the evidence, it could. Think about it: If Reesing is healed and plays like the Reesing of old today does anyone expect Kansas State to win? Conversely, if Reesing doesn’t play better than he did the past two weeks and is left in the game despite physical limitations, does anyone have confidence Kansas can win?

Everyone is fond of saying the quarterback gets too much credit when things go well, too much blame when they go poorly. It doesn’t apply with Reesing. When right, he impacts a game in a way few quarterbacks do. He scrambles so well he extends plays to unusual lengths, making a talented bunch of receivers look even better by giving them more time to get open and masking the deficiencies of an inexperienced offensive line by getting rid of the ball before he gets sacked. When he’s not sound and can’t scramble, it hinders him more than it would most. His size comes into play when he can’t maneuver into throwing lanes as smoothly. More passes get batted down at the line.

The offensive line, which has looked overmatched in recent weeks, provides a good case study for how much overall recruiting has improved and it won’t be until next year, when lack of experience no longer is a viable an explanation for poor performances, that it can be evaluated fairly. This line looks more like a typical Big 12 blocking unit more than those of a few years ago, but so far it hasn’t consistently passed game tests as well as eye tests.

Without knowing which Reesing will perform today — the healthy one who pulls rabbits out of hats or the immobile one who falls short — trying to pick a winner is a guessing game. Kansas 31, Kansas State 28.