Online Now 424

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

On this Board 214
Record: 3046 (4/11/2012)

Online now 395
Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

The Paddock

The place to discuss general topics outside of Kentucky

UK Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

My 2 cents on the new composite rankings....

  • Yup, it's only August (practically) and we're 6 months and 1 week until Signing Day. A lot can change between now and Feb. However, if you look at the recruiting classes nationally, you'll see that most schools are at least 50% finished with their class, some are 75%+.

    With that being said, let's look at how UK ranks nationally. UK is currently at 58. Let's not even bother comparing them to other SEC programs (sans Vandy) because everyone agrees that's unfair. However, lets see how they stack up against other non-traditional, non-powerhouse programs. Our former fearless leader Jeff Drummond stated many times that for UK to put a "consistently" competitive product on the field, they need to find themselve in the #30-#35 range for recruiting ranking for several years back to back. Is that possible? I think so. But who are the teams ahead of us to get there?

    Below are a list of programs that I TRULY feel UK should be able to beat in recruiting. Why? The SEC is the biggest and best selling tool that a program can have. According to the "experts" on this board- UK has as good if not better football facilities than about any program outside of the SEC (excluding the powers like Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas, etc). UK has ( or had) a Top 25 fan base and a 70,000 seat stadium. They have a great coaching staff and AD (according to most on this board) that has them headed in the right direction. So, with that being said, why shouldn't UK be able to out-recruit the following programs?

    Listed by ranking in composite:

    14. Washington- some nice history, but average at best facilities and zero in-state talent.
    24. Maryland- no history, below average facilities, no fanbase.
    27. Missou- not much high end in-state talent (this year is the exception, not the norm). Not a lot of tradition.
    28. Vandy- has sucked for 50+ years regardless of the coach. A new HC and staff comes in and immediately has them souring up the charts in recruiting. Still has some of the WORST facilities in all of football.
    29. Arizona- no different than UK.
    30. Illinois- prior to Zook, they recruited like UK. During and post Zook, they are recruiting much more talented players.
    32. Northwestern- give me a break.
    37. Boston College- Doug Flutie isn't walking through that door.
    38. Rutgers- a consistent national doormat prior to Schiano (whom left for the NFL). Terrible facilities (one of the reasons he left), terrible conference, terrible fan support.
    39. NC State- not sure
    41. Tulane- seriously?
    42. BYU- seriously?
    44. SMU- seriously?
    46. Cinci- see Rutgers, but even worse facilities and fan support.
    47. Central Florida- yes, they have in-state talent, but it's a Conference USA program that just got a Big East invite.
    48. Washington State- seriously?
    51. Duke- seriously?
    53. Houston- seriously?
    54. Wake Forest- seriously?
    56. East Carolina- seriously?
    57. Central Michigan- seriously?

    MinterWonderlnd ●

  • Not bad comparisons.

    Two things I would submit.

    A. The questions about Joker's job are hurting recruiting. If we win game 1 I think a lot of those questions get answered and recruiting improves right away.
    B. I think our staff truly does "evaluate" talent on their own. They don't rely on other offer sheets etc. They place a TON of emphasis on their camps and that's why you see some preceived "stretches" offered at our camps. If they see it in person they feel very comfortable. That's why we have some un-ranked guys who have committed fairly early.

    If we can get a few high 3's we'll shoot up that list. If some of our "un-ranked" guys get evaluated fairly well once the season starts we'll shoot up more.

    In terms of your comments about our piers the only thing I'd say is that many of those programs are in much more densly populated states and a lot of them don't have 2 other d-1 programs in the state.

    Take for example Mizzou. They have two cities much bigger than any city in KY. A lot more talent in KC and St. Louis than their is in the entire state of KY. Yet Mizzou is the only show in town. Imagine if UofL didn't exist?

    Maryland in many ways is Washington DC's football school...

    Illinois is the only show in the state besides NW.

    Rutgers - see maryland
    Washington - For some reason Washington and Oregon have a TON of success recruiting California.

    Those aren't excuses, they are reality.

    hoptownukfan

  • Say what you want, but I'm following the Rich Brooks Mantra from here until Signing Day, "It's time for UK Football fans to start raising their expectations". If that means expecting an SEC program with great facilties to be able to beat out the likes of Duke, Tulane, Northwestern, etc.... so be it.

    MinterWonderlnd ●

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    Say what you want, but I'm following the Rich Brooks Mantra from here until Signing Day, "It's time for UK Football fans to start raising their expectations". If that means expecting an SEC program with great facilties to be able to beat out the likes of Duke, Tulane, Northwestern, etc.... so be it.

    I wasnt' saying that we shouldn't expect more. But there are realities that we deal with....

    hoptownukfan

  • Good post, OP. And you are right that UK has the potential to out recruit those teams you mentioned on a regular basis.....Though it won't happen if we don't win. We have a coach that is questionable at this time, a fan base that's expressing their feelings, and very low expectations for this coming yr. Doesn't bode well for any recruiting situation.

    If we win 5 games this yr, return everyone for 2013, and then get 7 wins in 2013, then I believe that you'll start to see sub-40 ranked classes in 2014/15........the snowball starts rolling down the hill.

    Though we could tank this next yr and get run over by the snowball.

    BlueRaider22

  • It's a long way until signing day. Plus David Washington hasn't even been rated yet? Time will tell.

    This post was edited by footballcat65 on 7/30/2012 at 2:52 PM

    footballcat65

  • footballcat65 said...

    It's a long way until signing day. Plus David Washington hasn't even been rated yet? Time will tell.

    With limited scholarships this season to hand out, UK will be 60-70% full by the end of this week if they pick up the 3 commits and you include David Washington.

    MinterWonderlnd ●

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    Yup, it's only August (practically) and we're 6 months and 1 week until Signing Day. A lot can change between now and Feb. However, if you look at the recruiting classes nationally, you'll see that most schools are at least 50% finished with their class, some are 75%+.

    With that being said, let's look at how UK ranks nationally. UK is currently at 58. Let's not even bother comparing them to other SEC programs (sans Vandy) because everyone agrees that's unfair. However, lets see how they stack up against other non-traditional, non-powerhouse programs. Our former fearless leader Jeff Drummond stated many times that for UK to put a "consistently" competitive product on the field, they need to find themselve in the #30-#35 range for recruiting ranking for several years back to back. Is that possible? I think so. But who are the teams ahead of us to get there?

    Below are a list of programs that I TRULY feel UK should be able to beat in recruiting. Why? The SEC is the biggest and best selling tool that a program can have. According to the "experts" on this board- UK has as good if not better football facilities than about any program outside of the SEC (excluding the powers like Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas, etc). UK has ( or had) a Top 25 fan base and a 70,000 seat stadium. They have a great coaching staff and AD (according to most on this board) that has them headed in the right direction. So, with that being said, why shouldn't UK be able to out-recruit the following programs?

    Listed by ranking in composite:

    14. Washington- some nice history, but average at best facilities and zero in-state talent. 24. Maryland- no history, below average facilities, no fanbase. 27. Missou- not much high end in-state talent (this year is the exception, not the norm). Not a lot of tradition. 28. Vandy- has sucked for 50+ years regardless of the coach. A new HC and staff comes in and immediately has them souring up the charts in recruiting. Still has some of the WORST facilities in all of football. 29. Arizona- no different than UK. 30. Illinois- prior to Zook, they recruited like UK. During and post Zook, they are recruiting much more talented players. 32. Northwestern- give me a break. 37. Boston College- Doug Flutie isn't walking through that door. 38. Rutgers- a consistent national doormat prior to Schiano (whom left for the NFL). Terrible facilities (one of the reasons he left), terrible conference, terrible fan support. 39. NC State- not sure 41. Tulane- seriously? 42. BYU- seriously? 44. SMU- seriously? 46. Cinci- see Rutgers, but even worse facilities and fan support. 47. Central Florida- yes, they have in-state talent, but it's a Conference USA program that just got a Big East invite. 48. Washington State- seriously? 51. Duke- seriously? 53. Houston- seriously? 54. Wake Forest- seriously? 56. East Carolina- seriously? 57. Central Michigan- seriously?

    Maryland and Rutgers are within 200 miles of NYC, Washington DC, Baltimore, Philidelphia and the entire tide water area. Huge population area a good 30 to 40 million or more people.

    Northwestern and Illinois has Chicago to pull from one of the largest citys in the US.

    Missouri has St Louis and Kansas City two huge urban areas to pull from, are not far from Chicago and pull some out of Texas which is probally within 500 miles of them.

    The west coast schools are pulling their recruits out of California the most populace state in the US.

    Houston and SMU you say seriously but they are right in the middle of a state Texas that is one of the biggest hotbeds of football talent in the US.

    It is true that some of the schools that you list UK should be able to recruit with but the ones I listed have a huge numerical advantage over UK in their recruiting area.

    Cll80

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    With limited scholarships this season to hand out, UK will be 60-70% full by the end of this week if they pick up the 3 commits and you include David Washington.

    The three committs plus Washington can change things in a big way.

    footballcat65

  • hoptownukfan said...

    Not bad comparisons.

    Two things I would submit.

    A. The questions about Joker's job are hurting recruiting. If we win game 1 I think a lot of those questions get answered and recruiting improves right away. B. I think our staff truly does "evaluate" talent on their own. They don't rely on other offer sheets etc. They place a TON of emphasis on their camps and that's why you see some preceived "stretches" offered at our camps. If they see it in person they feel very comfortable. That's why we have some un-ranked guys who have committed fairly early.

    If we can get a few high 3's we'll shoot up that list. If some of our "un-ranked" guys get evaluated fairly well once the season starts we'll shoot up more.

    In terms of your comments about our piers the only thing I'd say is that many of those programs are in much more densly populated states and a lot of them don't have 2 other d-1 programs in the state.

    Take for example Mizzou. They have two cities much bigger than any city in KY. A lot more talent in KC and St. Louis than their is in the entire state of KY. Yet Mizzou is the only show in town. Imagine if UofL didn't exist?

    Maryland in many ways is Washington DC's football school...

    Illinois is the only show in the state besides NW.

    Rutgers - see maryland Washington - For some reason Washington and Oregon have a TON of success recruiting California.

    Those aren't excuses, they are reality.

    Good post. I believe that some of the current commitments could see their stocks rise, and I think Kentucky will finish the recruiting class strong with some good players. There's no reason why guys like Fant and Yancey shouldn't be 3 star players. I also am not sure if the staff will honor some of the offers if they are nearly full and want to make room for good players (i.e. Jalen Battle may have an offer contingent on doing well this season, and it would be hard to turn down Logan and Alexander at the same position).

    SDcatfan131

  • Washington should be one of the top jucos in the country next season and should get a nice rating. Also, one of our commits is a kicker, who I like a lot, but kickers never get rated highly. Add in Thomas likely gets bumped up a couple points once 247 re-evaluats him and then me personally disregarding ratings when it comes to oline recruits and putting all trust in Summers' ability to evaluate/teach and our class is better than #58 already.

    stlwildcat

  • Cll80 said...

    Maryland and Rutgers are within 200 miles of NYC, Washington DC, Baltimore, Philidelphia and the entire tide water area. Huge population area a good 30 to 40 million or more people.

    Northwestern and Illinois has Chicago to pull from one of the largest citys in the US.

    Missouri has St Louis and Kansas City two huge urban areas to pull from, are not far from Chicago and pull some out of Texas which is probally within 500 miles of them.

    The west coast schools are pulling their recruits out of California the most populace state in the US.

    Houston and SMU you say seriously but they are right in the middle of a state Texas that is one of the biggest hotbeds of football talent in the US.

    It is true that some of the schools that you list UK should be able to recruit with but the ones I listed have a huge numerical advantage over UK in their recruiting area.

    Number of in-state kids signed by the University of Missouri recently:

    2012- 4
    2011- 3
    2010- 6

    Their 2013 group of commits is the largest number of in-state kids in the last 10 yrs.

    MinterWonderlnd ●

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    Number of in-state kids signed by the University of Missouri recently:

    2012- 4
    2011- 3
    2010- 6

    Their 2013 group of commits is the largest number of in-state kids in the last 10 yrs.

    The question isn't how many they have signed It's how many kids from missouri have signed with bcs schools. I'd bet that number is significantly more than ky's.

    hoptownukfan

  • hoptownukfan said...

    The question isn't how many they have signed It's how many kids from missouri have signed with bcs schools. I'd bet that number is significantly more than ky's.

    If you're saying the reason Missou has outrecruited UK is because of population, you're essentially saying Missou is doing better because of in-state talent, right? Clearly, Missou's recruiting rankings over the last 3 years have very little to do with in-state talent since they're only getting a handful of kids from within the state. About the same number as UK, actually.

    MinterWonderlnd ●

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    Yup, it's only August (practically) and we're 6 months and 1 week until Signing Day. A lot can change between now and Feb. However, if you look at the recruiting classes nationally, you'll see that most schools are at least 50% finished with their class, some are 75%+.

    With that being said, let's look at how UK ranks nationally. UK is currently at 58. Let's not even bother comparing them to other SEC programs (sans Vandy) because everyone agrees that's unfair. However, lets see how they stack up against other non-traditional, non-powerhouse programs. Our former fearless leader Jeff Drummond stated many times that for UK to put a "consistently" competitive product on the field, they need to find themselve in the #30-#35 range for recruiting ranking for several years back to back. Is that possible? I think so. But who are the teams ahead of us to get there?

    Below are a list of programs that I TRULY feel UK should be able to beat in recruiting. Why? The SEC is the biggest and best selling tool that a program can have. According to the "experts" on this board- UK has as good if not better football facilities than about any program outside of the SEC (excluding the powers like Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas, etc). UK has ( or had) a Top 25 fan base and a 70,000 seat stadium. They have a great coaching staff and AD (according to most on this board) that has them headed in the right direction. So, with that being said, why shouldn't UK be able to out-recruit the following programs?

    Listed by ranking in composite:

    14. Washington- some nice history, but average at best facilities and zero in-state talent.
    24. Maryland- no history, below average facilities, no fanbase.
    27. Missou- not much high end in-state talent (this year is the exception, not the norm). Not a lot of tradition.
    28. Vandy- has sucked for 50+ years regardless of the coach. A new HC and staff comes in and immediately has them souring up the charts in recruiting. Still has some of the WORST facilities in all of football.
    29. Arizona- no different than UK.
    30. Illinois- prior to Zook, they recruited like UK. During and post Zook, they are recruiting much more talented players.
    32. Northwestern- give me a break.
    37. Boston College- Doug Flutie isn't walking through that door.
    38. Rutgers- a consistent national doormat prior to Schiano (whom left for the NFL). Terrible facilities (one of the reasons he left), terrible conference, terrible fan support.
    39. NC State- not sure
    41. Tulane- seriously?
    42. BYU- seriously?
    44. SMU- seriously?
    46. Cinci- see Rutgers, but even worse facilities and fan support.
    47. Central Florida- yes, they have in-state talent, but it's a Conference USA program that just got a Big East invite.
    48. Washington State- seriously?
    51. Duke- seriously?
    53. Houston- seriously?
    54. Wake Forest- seriously?
    56. East Carolina- seriously?
    57. Central Michigan- seriously?

    Your thread should read "My climax after reading the 247 composite rankings." What is this your 14th negative nancy post today? Give it a rest dude.
    UK fans ( most of which have seen the medocrity for years) dont need you to constantly remind them where we sit in the college football landscape.

    PAXCAT ●

  • My 2 cents? It's fun to talk about now, but realistically, you can't truly rank classes until you get down the road a few years. Here are the composite rankings of recruiting classes from 2007-2011 from Rivals, with the recruiting ranking 1st, and their finish in the final top 25 poll of last season in parentheses. *NR means NOT RANKED.

    #1 (#1)
    #2 (#6)
    #3 (#2)
    #4 (NR)
    #5 (NR)
    #6 (#19)
    #7 (#23)
    #8 (#16)
    #9 (NR)
    #10 (NR)
    #11 ((NR)
    #12 (NR)
    #13 (#12)
    #14 (#9)
    #15 (#4)
    #16 (NR)
    #17 (#22)
    #18 (NR)
    #19 (#24)
    #20 (NR)
    #21 (NR)
    #22 (NR)
    #23 (NR)
    #24 (#21)
    #25 (NR)

    Of the top 10 recruiting classes, only 3 actually finished in the top 10 of the final poll last year, and 4 of them weren't even ranked. Of the top 25 overall recruiting classes, 13 of them finished the season unranked. I don't care how many recruiting services there are, it's damn near impossible for them to properly evaluate every prospect.

    JDHoss ●

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    Yup, it's only August (practically) and we're 6 months and 1 week until Signing Day. A lot can change between now and Feb. However, if you look at the recruiting classes nationally, you'll see that most schools are at least 50% finished with their class, some are 75%+.

    50% finished? 75% finished? There's no such thing as any % finished until signing day is over. Some players bolt...some players come in. It's a never ending process until the names are on the LOI.

    JDHoss ●

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    If you're saying the reason Missou has outrecruited UK is because of population, you're essentially saying Missou is doing better because of in-state talent, right? Clearly, Missou's recruiting rankings over the last 3 years have very little to do with in-state talent since they're only getting a handful of kids from within the state. About the same number as UK, actually.

    Very little to do with in-state talent? That is a factually incorrect statement.

    2013 currently eight recruits from Mo. Three are four star and five are three star. That yield alone comes close to the entire state of Kentucky for this banner year.

    Of course, this is a banner year for D1 talent in the state of Mo. But, of course, the comparison of how bad we are in relation to them at this moment was using their recruits for this year, Missouri's banner year for recruits.

    2012 with five commits from Mo and all five were four star recruits. That yield alone is typically much better than the entire state of Kentucky.

    2011 The entire group is not rated by 247 but they did only have six from Missouri listed on the 247 site. Rivals lists three, all three stars in a recruiting class composed 100% of three stars by their ratings. Go figure.

    2010 Only three out of that group are rated and all three have four stars. That beats the top end of the entire state of Kentucky talent year end and year out.

    So, I'm not sure how this has little to do with in state talent as these are kids rated at the top ends. I haven't looked at 247's new (or old) calculations but rivals heavily favors having kids ranked near the top (four stars, etc.) to give enormous boosts to the rating of a recruiting class. Those in-state recruits heavily factor into Missouri's ranking every year. Do they have other good recruits from outside the state? Yes. Does that mean Missouri's plethora of successfully recruited and highly ranked in-state talent doesn't have an enormous effect upon their ranking. No. That is a fact based upon the calculations that make the rankings being discussed. That is not opinion.

    signature image

    rompcat

  • rompcat said...

    Very little to do with in-state talent? That is a factually incorrect statement.

    2013 currently eight recruits from Mo. Three are four star and five are three star. That yield alone comes close to the entire state of Kentucky for this banner year.

    Of course, this is a banner year for D1 talent in the state of Mo. But, of course, the comparison of how bad we are in relation to them at this moment was using their recruits for this year, Missouri's banner year for recruits.

    2012 with five commits from Mo and all five were four star recruits. That yield alone is typically much better than the entire state of Kentucky.

    2011 The entire group is not rated by 247 but they did only have six from Missouri listed on the 247 site. Rivals lists three, all three stars in a recruiting class composed 100% of three stars by their ratings. Go figure.

    2010 Only three out of that group are rated and all three have four stars. That beats the top end of the entire state of Kentucky talent year end and year out.

    So, I'm not sure how this has little to do with in state talent as these are kids rated at the top ends. I haven't looked at 247's new (or old) calculations but rivals heavily favors having kids ranked near the top (four stars, etc.) to give enormous boosts to the rating of a recruiting class. Those in-state recruits heavily factor into Missouri's ranking every year. Do they have other good recruits from outside the state? Yes. Does that mean Missouri's plethora of successfully recruited and highly ranked in-state talent doesn't have an enormous effect upon their ranking. No. That is a fact based upon the calculations that make the rankings being discussed. That is not opinion.

    Minter never lets pesky facts get in the way of his agenda.

    hoptownukfan

  • Interesting point Rompat and Hop. I was just looking at quantity of in-state players signed by Missou, not quality. Appears as if I overlooked a very important fact. Quantity wise, Missou doesn't appear to have a big adantage over the last 3 years. Quality wise, they do keep their top players at home, unlike what UK has been able to do recently.

    MinterWonderlnd ●

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    Interesting point Rompat and Hop. I was just looking at quantity of in-state players signed by Missou, not quality. Appears as if I overlooked a very important fact. Quantity wise, Missou doesn't appear to have a big adantage over the last 3 years. Quality wise, they do keep their top players at home, unlike what UK has been able to do recently.

    Missouri landed five recruits with four stars in 2012 from the state of Missouri. How many four star recruits were in the entire state of Kentucky in 2012?

    signature image

    rompcat

  • Guys this has digressed from the main point that we're 58th in recruiting and behind plenty of C-USA and BIg east schools...so I just don't get caught up on Mizzou vs. UK. THis is very telling as only recruiting has been a solid thing under Joker...as that goes to the wayside...what else is there to lean upon.
    "

    K__TIME

  • K__TIME said...

    Guys this has digressed from the main point that we're 58th in recruiting and behind plenty of C-USA and BIg east schools...so I just don't get caught up on Mizzou vs. UK. THis is very telling as only recruiting has been a solid thing under Joker...as that goes to the wayside...what else is there to lean upon. "

    Don't we only have 10 out of potentially 18-21 commits? If the class doesn't come together on signing day, we can complain then.

    As far as "leaning on" something, there's a whole season of football to watch. That will tell us more about the future of the program than our recruiting ranking 6 months before signing day.

    There may be something "telling" in December, or in February, but I'm not sure there's anything "telling" in August. Unless, of course, you're looking for something "telling" to post about on the internet. In which case, it's less of an indicator of the football program, and more of a personal problem.

    JDHLaw11 ●

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    Yup, it's only August (practically) and we're 6 months and 1 week until Signing Day. A lot can change between now and Feb. However, if you look at the recruiting classes nationally, you'll see that most schools are at least 50% finished with their class, some are 75%+.

    With that being said, let's look at how UK ranks nationally. UK is currently at 58. Let's not even bother comparing them to other SEC programs (sans Vandy) because everyone agrees that's unfair. However, lets see how they stack up against other non-traditional, non-powerhouse programs. Our former fearless leader Jeff Drummond stated many times that for UK to put a "consistently" competitive product on the field, they need to find themselve in the #30-#35 range for recruiting ranking for several years back to back. Is that possible? I think so. But who are the teams ahead of us to get there?

    Below are a list of programs that I TRULY feel UK should be able to beat in recruiting. Why? The SEC is the biggest and best selling tool that a program can have. According to the "experts" on this board- UK has as good if not better football facilities than about any program outside of the SEC (excluding the powers like Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas, etc). UK has ( or had) a Top 25 fan base and a 70,000 seat stadium. They have a great coaching staff and AD (according to most on this board) that has them headed in the right direction. So, with that being said, why shouldn't UK be able to out-recruit the following programs?

    Listed by ranking in composite:

    14. Washington- some nice history, but average at best facilities and zero in-state talent. 24. Maryland- no history, below average facilities, no fanbase. 27. Missou- not much high end in-state talent (this year is the exception, not the norm). Not a lot of tradition. 28. Vandy- has sucked for 50+ years regardless of the coach. A new HC and staff comes in and immediately has them souring up the charts in recruiting. Still has some of the WORST facilities in all of football. 29. Arizona- no different than UK. 30. Illinois- prior to Zook, they recruited like UK. During and post Zook, they are recruiting much more talented players. 32. Northwestern- give me a break. 37. Boston College- Doug Flutie isn't walking through that door. 38. Rutgers- a consistent national doormat prior to Schiano (whom left for the NFL). Terrible facilities (one of the reasons he left), terrible conference, terrible fan support. 39. NC State- not sure 41. Tulane- seriously? 42. BYU- seriously? 44. SMU- seriously? 46. Cinci- see Rutgers, but even worse facilities and fan support. 47. Central Florida- yes, they have in-state talent, but it's a Conference USA program that just got a Big East invite. 48. Washington State- seriously? 51. Duke- seriously? 53. Houston- seriously? 54. Wake Forest- seriously? 56. East Carolina- seriously? 57. Central Michigan- seriously?

    Very nice Minter. very relevant post. You are 100% correct. Even though UK is always in the lower 4 in the SEc as far as class rankings..we are hauling in a lot better talent than 60% of schools. Joker has us headed in the right direction..we will be a 25 to 30 type class yearly...with a couple forays into the top 20 ..mabye in 2014. What Joker and his staff do a good job of is evaluation. They turn over every stone...they find the needles in the haystacks. I mean..look..Trevathan, Woodyard, Lindley, Burden, Maxwell, Locke, ect ect..none were rated above 3 and most were either unrated or 2 stars.
    Joker does a excellent job taking "heart" guys..like Cobb..another unbelieveably underrated recruit..and turning them into bonafide stars..and NFL players. Before Joker..even under Brooks..Uk was recruiting and landing kids with offers from Mac schools...mabye Ole Miss or Miss ST..a Illinios offer..now we are getting more and more kids with offers from powers like FSU, Ohio ST, Notre Dame, Clemson,Miami, ect ect.
    It also hurts UK in the fact that once a kid commits to UK..they never seem to get any extra "stars" by the recruiting services. No way Jacob Hyde shouldnt be a high 4 star DT. He just whipped the butts of all the 5 star OT's at the U-19 Team USA event. (Tunsil and Bivin and others) Alvonte Bell finally got his 4th star..heck..kid is 6'6 240 and runs like a deer..offers from dozens of major programs. Look at Khalid Thomas...a 2 star...untill recently...offers from Notre Dame, Ohio St, FSU, Miami, BCU, ect.
    Id love to see top 10 classes..even top 25 classes..but Id rather win..we've done pretty well vs the top 10 guys in Fla St, Clemson, LSU..we played Alabama tougher than anyone 2 years in a row..06-07.??
    The only thing that was holding us back was Steve Browns passive defensive philosophy...give this staff 2 to 3 years...when the offense and defense are good in the same season..we will surprise some teams ..end up with a rare 10 win season and never look back..will we ever be a dominating force? Probably not..but I think we can have spurts of glory..when the stars align just right. I think 2014 and 2015 we will be a tough team to beat.

    This post was edited by BigBlueDawg12 on 7/30/2012 at 10:40 PM

    BigBlueDawg12

  • If you look at Scout we've accomplished exactly what the OP wants 3 out of the last 4 years, a recruiting ranking of 30-35 nationally.

    Ok so what else do we need to do to get over the hump? Any other ideas.

    Its all about getting game changing players at every position when it comes to recruiting. We aren't gonna be landing the 5 star kids. We've gotta find a way to evaluate better and have fewer misses than everybody else. Gotta find more guys like Towles, Warford, Miller, Clemons, Caffey, Trevathan, Dupree, Rumph, Cobble, Jarmon, Bell. Gotta keep finding more guys that love football, wanna play in the NFL, and will do everything they are asked to do when they get here. Recruiting numbers only tell part of the story.

    This post was edited by tWhit on 7/31/2012 at 12:50 AM

    tWhit

Kentucky
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports