Can UK become a recruiting powerhouse?

[orlandocatfan_rivals383321]

We all know that Stoops, Marrow and staff have improved our recruiting profile tremendously even though it hasn’t yet paid off in terms of wins. Some of my observations from looking at the Rivals rankings beginning with the 2014 class through the 2016 class:

Rivals rankings are based on the number of signed commitments plus their point system which is based on the top rated 22 players for each school even if they sign more. The NCAA allows 25 scholarships and a roster of 85 scholarship players – with adjustments for attrition. Teams such as Tennessee could sign 31 (2014) due to transfers, injuries, dismissals. In 2014, Kentucky signed 28. For me, I wonder why Rivals only counts 22? This isn’t my point of the post, just an observation.

Based on the Rivals point system for the last three years, Kentucky ranks 25th nationally with an average of 1749 team points. I was surprised at this. Over the 3 year period, UK has an average class size of 25. Compare that with Florida’s average of 23, Georgia’s average of 24.

When you compare Kentucky’s average star rating (3.09), the Cats still rank 25th. That’s something else that’s surprised me.

That begs the question: What does it take to get the wins?

Let’s look at Louisville over the same period. The Cardinals rank 37th based on an averaging star rating of 2.85. They also average 1549 points. Louisville has been to a bowl game over the three year period while UK hasn’t. How is that? It isn’t because Louisville develops players better. There is no evidence to support that. What Louisville has done is take very talented players who have transferred from other schools. Forget about the argument about Louisville taking players who have been dismissed from other programs for misbehavior. That is an entirely different argument and discussion. Let’s leave it to the simple fact that they have taken talented players who have transferred from other very good programs. They have relied on recruiting high school players. I will give up one point on their behalf. The kids from Louisville high schools have been under rated as a general rule and have been proven to be talented.

Louisville isn’t the only school that has gone to a a major and mid-major bowl game over the last three years that have averaged less team recruiting points than Kentucky. Here’s a list:

Mississippi State: average team points 1804; average star rating 3.04 – 2016 Birmingham Bowl

Arkansas: average team points 1715; average star rating 3.00 – 2016 Music City Bowl

Louisville: average team points 1549; average star rating 2.85 – 2016 Sun Bowl

Washington State: average team points 1260; average star rating 2.69 - 2016 Sun Bowl

Oklahoma State: average team points 1545; average star rating 2.91 - 2016 Alamo Bowl

Washington: average team points 1562; average star rating 2.90 - 2016 Alamo Bowl



For Kentucky to become a top 20 recruiting program, they will have to average 1927 team points with an average star rating of 3.27. For Kentucky to become a top 15 recruiting program, they will have to average 1927 team points with an average star rating of 3.40. For Kentucky to become a top 10 recruiting program, they will have to average 2382 team points with an average star rating of 3.46. For Kentucky to become a top 5 recruiting program, they will have to average 2614 team points with an average star rating of 3.57. Just for the record, Alabama ranks first for the last three years with an average 3061 team points with an average star rating of 3.89.

My whole point here is to prove that Stoops and UK aren’t that far away from success as many believe. Considering the state of the program when Stoops came to UK, a little patience from the fans is warranted. Just keep in mind how long it took Rich Brooks to elevate the program.

 

[Bluetick2100]

Wrong Board for your 1st post

 

[Chico&TheMan]

You can't just look at the recruiting rankings between the two and compare them. Louisville accepts higher rated transfers that have been kicked off their former teams.

 

[cordialb]

Great insight and we'll thought out. Count me in as a believer.

 

[dorkmeister]

In the words of Ghandi "hell yeah abs pass the potatoes!!!!"

 

[BigBlueTuckian]

I would not equate the word "powerhouse" with top 20. More like consistent top 10 to top 5.

 

[DerVille]

You are basically basing everything in your premise on how players are "rated". You should know that, in and of itself, that isn't really proof of anything. I'd say you are putting too much faith in that system. Outside of the top ten and teams that just recruit entire rosters of the most coveted players in the country there is a big cluster of teams whose success comes down to coaching and talent evaluation. Louisville has never had highly rated classed but outside of the Kragthorpe years they've always put players in the NFL and had good teams.

Sites have even re-rated classed after the 4 years were up to rate classed based on how they performed rather than what was thought of them coming out of high school and UofL has even had a couple rated in the top ten. Once under Petrino and once under Strong. Many NFL guys weren't even rated that high coming out of high school. I'd say Petrino and Strong both had/have an eye for talent.

The quarterback position is the most important and I'd say Louisville has been blessed at usually always having some good QB's. Gruden, Nagle, Brohm (Jeff), Redman, Ragone, Lefors, Brohm (Brian), Bridgewater and now Jackson. UK's best years were when they had really good QB's Couch, Woodson (I'd throw Lorenzen in there too even though most of the teams he was on didn't have good W/L records outside of 2002). Louisville seems to have their QB situation set while UK is still unknown. Boyd, Newton, Towles and Barker were all "rated" high but so far none turned out to be really great college QB's. Barker is still unknown, he only played twice last year but didn't look great in the Louisville game.

One of your best players recently was only a 2-star recruit, Randal Cobb. I'd say it is too early to really make a final judgment either way about Stoop's talent evaluating abilities. More would need to be seen. But just because players high school rankings is slightly higher then previously isn't really proof of anything yet. We'll see once they start completing 4 years of college. Right now you are giving recruiting sites credit for perfect scores for predicting ability.

Strong's classes weren't top 15 classes either and outside of Bridgewater there were a lot of 3-star guys but lots of them went to the NFL, including 3-star Rankins last year and 3-star Brown is expected to go to the NFL this year. Strong's classes probably put more than 15 guys in the NFL (from his 4 years at UofL). However Louisville didn't have top 20 classes. It is obvious that he and Petrino can scout talent.

Can Stoops scout talent and develop talent? We'll see. This year and next should shed a lot more light on the situation. But back to your premise of just looking solely at recruiting rankings and expecting that to be some sort of decisive, absolute truth on how players and teams should be is completely flawed.

Anyone who thinks any success Louisville has had is based on controversial transfers would also be in error. If you look at the Louisville players in the NFL over the last ten years or so, hardly any are transfers. Christian (TE) transferred from UF under Strong. James Sample (DB) was JC transfer. Outside of that, off the top of my head I can't think of any NFL players that were some controversial transfer. Bridgewater, Rankins, Parker, Jamon Brown, Preston Brown, Marcus Smith, Calvin Pryor, Eric Wood, Charles Gaines, Gary Barnidge, James Burgess, Elvis Dumervil, William Gay, Breno Giacomini, Lorenzo Mauldin, John Miller, Dieontrez Mount, Devante Parker, Bilal Powell etc. were all high school players to come to Louisville. The RB from Auburn didn't really even do that well at Louisville. Fields and Clemons on this years Louisville squad should be the first transfer players that are stars for UofL and have NFL potential.

How many stars kids have out of high school can be an indicator but don't put all of your eggs in that basket, there is a lot more to it than that. This is year 4, you should really pay more attention to how they are developing in the program and performing on the field rather than obsess over star rankings.

 

[cardkilla_rivals379685]

The difference between some of those other programs and where ours is that those programs have been consistent for many years. UK has not been. If Stoops succeeds and stays here say 10 years, I could see UK winning 7-9 games a year and going to pretty good bowl games. He's getting some great talent here and with wins, I expect that to only get better. With new connections in FL, Cats could very well get top 10-20 classes on a consistent basis. But we need wins, and some big upsets, to shed the old thoughts about the football program.

 

[BigBlue8]

I personally believe that if Stoops starts winning 8 or more games a year, our recruiting will rise to the level of what Mississippi is doing. The only difference is that Mississippi is buying players and UK is doing it the right way. I think with our facilities and other things, UK has more to offer than Mississippi. If you don’t mind I would like to see the numbers for Mississippi and where they rank of the last 3 years.

 

[gobigblue812_rivals29381]

Ul only has 2 tough games per year in the ACC and so far they are 0-4. Not sure they would look as good in the SEC, and yes I know they beat a few SEC teams in the past but they were also destroyed by UGA if memory serves.

So development is important but so is your SOS plus rankings don't include transfers.

To answer the question, the answer is no. UK will never be a powerhouse but they can be consistent top 25 with a occasional top 15 class.

 

[JasonS.]

The only difference is that Mississippi is buying players and UK is doing it the right way.

The state of Mississippi also produces 3-4 times the number of high-level FBS recruits that Kentucky does.

Outside of Vanderbilt, we're the only SEC program without an SEC-caliber recruiting base ... that's never going to stop being a challenge.

 

[WildCard]

The state of Mississippi also produces 3-4 times the number of high-level FBS recruits that Kentucky does.

Outside of Vanderbilt, we're the only SEC program without an SEC-caliber recruiting base ... that's never going to stop being a challenge.

Great find Jason! That map pretty well answers the OP's question. It also implicitly supports my long time argument that the key characteristic for the UK football coach is to be a guy that has a knack for doing "more with less". Compared to their conference foes Kentucky will almost always have "less".

As mentioned many times, the "star accumulation" by Stoops and Co. has been the best any of us can remember. It is a big year in determining if the talent (and the coaching) truly is what it was thought to be.

Peace

 

[reflaine]

Miss st also has a lot of jucos on their roster. It helps bieng in one of the juco hotbeds in the country. And let's see what happens post Dak with them.

 

[theoledog]

They have blown opportunity away two season in a row by by failing to grab the brass ring.... This fact isn't the death knell for staff or program but I believe it resets the clock getting this programs mojo back... At this time, the 4th year of Stoops, we're still going to have to rely on a Frosh (or more) to come in and make stuff happen along the lines... That is never a good thing. We need to get to 6 wins to sell the vision but if it doesn't happen I still think Stoops is our man for 7-8 years.... If you don't have patience with UK football you might as well spend time @ CoachCal.com....

Many of us can speak with wisdom about that.

 

[Pike 96]

Great find Jason! That map pretty well answers the OP's question. It also implicitly supports my long time argument that the key characteristic for the UK football coach is to be a guy that has a knack for doing "more with less". Compared to their conference foes Kentucky will almost always have "less".

As mentioned many times, the "star accumulation" by Stoops and Co. has been the best any of us can remember. It is a big year in determining if the talent (and the coaching) truly is what it was thought to be.

Peace

Big big difference in doing more with less when you are getting very mediocre players the other SEC schools don't want verses players you've beat other SEC, BIG10, and ACC schools for.
You could make the same statement when it comes to Miss St, Ark, Mizzou, Vandy, and UL.

UL fans like to minimize the recruiting success UK is having with the overriding and self serving hope that things really haven't changed in Lexington. Clearly you need coachs that know what they are doing and you need to get lucky with a couple of difference makers. Especially at QB.

More with less or not, the foundation MUST be built on the Jimmies and the Joe's that most of your competition want as well.

That said, question for you Wildcard...are you content that UL can continue to do more with less with their current crop of recruits for this year? Pretty underwhelming offer sheets across your 18 commits. Around 45 P5 offers across that group compared to UK's class that has around 70ish P5 offers among its 12 recruits.
Pretty surprising UL isn't doing better to me given the last couple years success. What would you attribute the downturn too? Coaching turnover? UL seems content to have replaced Lamar Thomas, Buckley, other DB coach who went to Mizzou, and OC with Petrino jr, The GA, and guy from WVU...do you think it's h as Ving a negative recruiting effect? I'm sure the success this season will drive higher wanted recruits

 

[truebluewildcat_rivals34254]

There is no doubt the recruiting has improved under stoops and will continue to improve slightly...

the major football investments that have been made will no doubt nudge things a bit further, as will winning and getting to a bowl game...

however, there is a talent ceiling for UK that is lower than 8-10 teams in the SEC...and that will never change...meaning CMS can get more 4stars and 5stars than UK has had, but it still wont be as many has Fla, UGA, Bama, LSU, UT, and even ole miss, miss st most years...throw in a rising arkansas if they continue to improve under Bielema...

also, the reemergence of the Big 10 (mainly OSU and Michigan) is going to put a cap on what CMS can do in Ohio...yeah he's had some success there and will continue to...but OSU and Michigan are elite programs again, that rivalry will be huge again...Harbaugh and Meyer are two of the biggest names in coaching at any level in any sport...Ohio and kids from big 10 territory are going to want to be a part of that...

the success CMS has been able to have there is due in some part to the fact that the SEC has dominated for the past decade or so and both OSU and UM lost some of their shine as crown jewels in football...and the conference in general hadn't been what it was in glory years past...PSU going down also opened up a little bit of a window for UK to snatch some talent as well...

OSU has been back since meyer came into town, and now Michigan is back with harbaugh who is the Calipari of football...and PSU is slowly but surely improving with franklin who is a top recruiter and could out recruit uk among others at Vandy...

CMS also walked into an SEC east in which florida was relatively down, ut was down...that is not the case anymore...

Long story short...UK has improved in talent and still has a bit more room to continue...but after a certain point UK is going to have all the talent it can have and CMS n company are going to have to prove that they can win with it...

 

[Crootin]

More with less or not, the foundation MUST be built on the Jimmies and the Joe's that most of your competition want as well.

Isn't it a little disconcerting that in Year 4 we still don't have any real foundation to speak of? We're relying on true freshmen on the OL and our DL is so paper thin that people think we're in big trouble with the loss of one mediocre DT. Not to mention our less than ideal QB situation and complete lack of stability on the coaching staff.

That's my issue. All these stars don't add up to a hill of beans if the players can't catch, block, tackle or pass, and those are the things that build a foundation.

I can be patient in waiting for bowls and 7/8 win seasons but I don't think it's crazy to expect a little more than recruiting stars by Year 4.

 

[Pike 96]

Isn't it a little disconcerting that in Year 4 we still don't have any real foundation to speak of? We're relying on true freshmen on the OL and our DL is so paper thin that people think we're in big trouble with the loss of one mediocre DT. Not to mention our less than ideal QB situation and complete lack of stability on the coaching staff.

That's my issue. All these stars don't add up to a hill of beans if the players can't catch, block, tackle or pass, and those are the things that build a foundation.

I can be patient in waiting for bowls and 7/8 win seasons but I don't think it's crazy to expect a little more than recruiting stars by Year 4.

Year 4...sounds like a long time but in building a football program competing in the best league in college football it just isn't that long. Our back seven in the defense is made up of 4 Sophmores likely starting at corner and safety. The good news is that these guys are the most talented guys we have had in a long time. But consider they are the strength of our defense and have about 15 starts total for the group. What does that tell you?
Our "veteran" in the LBing group is a RS Soph who started 12 games last year. No other starts across the other 3.

All of these guys are talented and had good schools wanting them. But it just isn't basketball. It takes 5 years plus to start to see the physical maturity and depth across the team needed.
Just is what it is. The future is bright but we aren't close to a,finished product yet

 

[Pike 96]

Isn't it a little disconcerting that in Year 4 we still don't have any real foundation to speak of? We're relying on true freshmen on the OL and our DL is so paper thin that people think we're in big trouble with the loss of one mediocre DT. Not to mention our less than ideal QB situation and complete lack of stability on the coaching staff.

That's my issue. All these stars don't add up to a hill of beans if the players can't catch, block, tackle or pass, and those are the things that build a foundation.

I can be patient in waiting for bowls and 7/8 win seasons but I don't think it's crazy to expect a little more than recruiting stars by Year 4.

Good points on the Dline and OTackle...but those two positions also comprise just 5 of the 22 starters. So if you like your talent and depth at 17 of the 22 spots(albeit it young and inexperienced talent) and you are UK football coming off firing a coach who went 2-10 and lost like 20 straight SEC games...are we really in that bad of shape overall?? I would say No.

That said, the Dline and Tackle spots are thin and very questionable. Not overly surprising considering those are two of the most coveted positions on the field.

We've had to fill the gaps at Dline with jucos who have done well (Z, Johnson, Lewis, and Miggins). But UK isn't realistically going to bring guys in at this position that are elite enough to make a huge impact early. Have to get to the point where we are replacing RS Seniors and Seniors with RS juniors and RS Soph's. There just wasn't that veteran depth sitting around when Joker was shown the door. We had all of two players from the Joker years play on the Dline the last 3 YEARS...Douglass and Hugenin. And they were both decent players only in their RS Sr Years.
And the current depth has taken a hit from late defections in the 2015 class...Hamilton to OSU, strowbridge to UNC, Provitt didn't qualify, etc. We just weren't in a place to easily recover from those loses.

With Otackle...more of the same. No depth from Joker and some recruiting defections and attrition. Kelly went to FSU last minute in 2014. How nice would he have been to have around? Lost a kid year before last to Michigan. Several others went elsewhere. Everybody is recruiting the same 6'6 320Lb Tackles that can move. It's not really surprising that we have trouble recruiting that spot.

The big guys that can move are coveted. Stands to reason those positions take more time to develop and are the last trouble spots on the roster.

 

[DerVille]

That said, question for you Wildcard...are you content that UL can continue to do more with less with their current crop of recruits for this year? Pretty underwhelming offer sheets across your 18 commits. Around 45 P5 offers across that group compared to UK's class that has around 70ish P5 offers among its 12 recruits.
Pretty surprising UL isn't doing better to me given the last couple years success. What would you attribute the downturn too? Coaching turnover? UL seems content to have replaced Lamar Thomas, Buckley, other DB coach who went to Mizzou, and OC with Petrino jr, The GA, and guy from WVU...do you think it's h as Ving a negative recruiting effect? I'm sure the success this season will drive higher wanted recruits

I'm not Wildcard but I'll reply to this anyway. Once again this comment....somewhat of a criticism, makes a premise that Louisville's recruiting is down or won't measure up, is based solely on how they are ranked. I'll say first of all, signing day isn't until 6 months. There is a lot of moving and shaking that will take place between now and then. I don't even follow it too closely now because as soon as you get excited about someone they'll de-commit. So I'm content to look at it closer on signing day. Secondly I have a long track record of Petrino's recruiting to analyze. I have seen many, many players he's brought in that have performed superbly at Louisville, many going on to the NFL but weren't high, 4-star recruits coming in. Already, this past year he signed some nobody TE out of JC, a 2-star named Cole Hikutini and I think he played awesome. I'm so excited about him at TE. I can't believe he didn't have tons of big time offers. Even at Arkansas, they didn't have top 3-4 SEC recruiting classes but the last two years he was there he had them rolling, making the Sugar Bowl, knocking off LSU and primed for a big year before his departure. I'll be honest, sure I wish UofL signed a 5-star, and 14 4-stars with every class but based on all the experience I have with Petrino and his ability to scout talent and see guys that are budding stars but are just too raw or that don't have enough experience yet that have blossomed after a couple of years under his coaching that I don't get too bent out of shape after the "ranking" of classes. Louisville's always been around 28-45 in class rankings over the last few seasons. Every year other than the Krag years. As usual Louisville gets a lot of guys out of GA, FL and AL which is where we've always gotten players and we've had a lot of success with that. You're asking "what's wrong" with Louisville's recruiting, my reply would be nothing is wrong. They've always had around 2-4 4-stars per class and a bunch of 2-3 stars filling in the rest. I have a factual track record of player success to keep in mind with Petrino's recruiting. The most important position, quarterback has a player who appears to be very talented and there is another top QB, Pass that AU and Alabama wanted behind him so I have reason to expect success in the coming years. I'll wait until February to form a big opinion of recruiting and it will probably be 30-40 like it's always been.

I'd say you are putting too much stock in star ratings. It's one thing to have 4 straight top 10 recruiting classes (Alabama, Ohio State, FSU, Clemson, Oklahoma) but when you are dealing in the range of 20-40 recruiting classes things get a lot more iffy and there is a lot more that goes into it than just star rankings. I know Louisville has a top coach and he is very skilled at what he does and he has a proven track record of having a eye for talent and coaching it into NFL players.

 

[dallasg23]

win games, play post season. And progress into better bowls. Nobody expects UK win a NC anytime soon but in this day and ago of college football a competitive bowl against higher tier schools is going to greatly improve our recruiting. Developing player into draft picks always helps too.

 

[Strongtino]

@DerVille I agree with your assessment. If people think there's something "wrong" with Louisville's recruiting, they haven't been paying attention.

 

[WildCard]

Big big difference in doing more with less when you are getting very mediocre players the other SEC schools don't want verses players you've beat other SEC, BIG10, and ACC schools for.
You could make the same statement when it comes to Miss St, Ark, Mizzou, Vandy, and UL.

UL fans like to minimize the recruiting success UK is having with the overriding and self serving hope that things really haven't changed in Lexington. Clearly you need coachs that know what they are doing and you need to get lucky with a couple of difference makers. Especially at QB.

More with less or not, the foundation MUST be built on the Jimmies and the Joe's that most of your competition want as well.

That said, question for you Wildcard...(1) are you content that UL can continue to do more with less with their current crop of recruits for this year? Pretty underwhelming offer sheets across your 18 commits. (2) Around 45 P5 offers across that group compared to UK's class that has around 70ish P5 offers among its 12 recruits.
(3) Pretty surprising UL isn't doing better to me given the last couple years success. (4) What would you attribute the downturn too? Coaching turnover? UL seems content to have replaced Lamar Thomas, Buckley, other DB coach who went to Mizzou, and OC with Petrino jr, The GA, and guy from WVU...do you think it's h as Ving a negative recruiting effect? I'm sure the success this season will drive higher wanted recruits

I have long maintained that Performance is the product of Talent x Coaching. That is, Performance = Talent x Coaching. IOW, one affects the other. Naturally, it is very difficult to quantify "talent" and I'm not sure you can even quantify coaching. But that's the way it works, one affects the other in determining the product, i.e., Performance.

It is hard to describe and impossible to quantify but some guys just do "more with less". Now it is unlikely that such a person can win an NC because they will always be up against a number of guys who also can do more with less but are in the fortunate position of having "more". Clear as mud? [laughing]

I'm not calling anyone Bear Bryant but an opposing coach once said of the Bear: "He'll beat yours with his and his with yours". Anyway, you get the picture here. Some guys chronically overachieve.

I don't like to discuss UofL over here but since you asked...

(1) Yes, I think they can continue their "current success" (7, 8, 9 wins) with their "current recruiting". But they are not going to catch up to FSU and Clemson. That doesn't mean they cannot steal a win every now and then but, as I have said in other threads, in football, the "best" team usually wins even if it's ugly.

(2) Despite the problems in knowing if an offer has contingencies or not, I place more more stock in offers than on line star evaluations. Yes, I would like to see more recruits with better offer sheets. I am not too much on the "this staff knows talent" argument but, going back to my first remarks, some staff do seem to better than others as part of that "more with less" thing.

(3) IMO, a couple of years of success does not move the needle much when vying for top flight talent. It is more about the established history. For example, UofL has a lot better current history than TX or TN, but over the long haul it ain't close. Also, recruiters, to the man, have always claimed that establishing relationships is the #1 thing in recruiting. So relationships + traditions is a tough nut to crack. (FWIW, I have read a number of reports citing how excellent Saban is in the living room.)

(4) Still too early to call it a "downturn". The tendency under Petrino has been to pick up some higher rated guys later in the process. Even if not as successful as some years a"bad" year every 3 or 4 years will not sink the ship. I don't like it but I can't really complain until it doesn't work.

Regarding the new coaches, it remains to be seen how the recruiting thing goes as several of these guys have not been full time recruiters before. I think inexperience as an assistant hurts more in terms not having developed those aforementioned recruiting "relationships" from your previous job more than the on-field coaching aspect of the job.

All JMO.

Peace

 

[mrhotdice]

To me and I have said it for years, that it takes 10 years to develop a DL. Schools that move faster and in the case of Louisville they have had a much better QB that could score. Just think what a QB who has a few WR can do for an offense especially if he can move in the pocket.

Really football is a simple game that takes only a few key players at positions that score points to be competitive. Defense is a whole different matter. It basically takes two deep at all line positions to have just a decent defense. That's 9 players that can rotate in and out based on the on field situations. That takes years to develop and UK is close but not their yet.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

We all know that Stoops, Marrow and staff have improved our recruiting profile tremendously even though it hasn’t yet paid off in terms of wins. Some of my observations from looking at the Rivals rankings beginning with the 2014 class through the 2016 class:

Rivals rankings are based on the number of signed commitments plus their point system which is based on the top rated 22 players for each school even if they sign more. The NCAA allows 25 scholarships and a roster of 85 scholarship players – with adjustments for attrition. Teams such as Tennessee could sign 31 (2014) due to transfers, injuries, dismissals. In 2014, Kentucky signed 28. For me, I wonder why Rivals only counts 22? This isn’t my point of the post, just an observation.

Based on the Rivals point system for the last three years, Kentucky ranks 25th nationally with an average of 1749 team points. I was surprised at this. Over the 3 year period, UK has an average class size of 25. Compare that with Florida’s average of 23, Georgia’s average of 24.

When you compare Kentucky’s average star rating (3.09), the Cats still rank 25th. That’s something else that’s surprised me.

That begs the question: What does it take to get the wins?

Let’s look at Louisville over the same period. The Cardinals rank 37th based on an averaging star rating of 2.85. They also average 1549 points. Louisville has been to a bowl game over the three year period while UK hasn’t. How is that? It isn’t because Louisville develops players better. There is no evidence to support that. What Louisville has done is take very talented players who have transferred from other schools. Forget about the argument about Louisville taking players who have been dismissed from other programs for misbehavior. That is an entirely different argument and discussion. Let’s leave it to the simple fact that they have taken talented players who have transferred from other very good programs. They have relied on recruiting high school players. I will give up one point on their behalf. The kids from Louisville high schools have been under rated as a general rule and have been proven to be talented.

Louisville isn’t the only school that has gone to a a major and mid-major bowl game over the last three years that have averaged less team recruiting points than Kentucky. Here’s a list:

Mississippi State: average team points 1804; average star rating 3.04 – 2016 Birmingham Bowl

Arkansas: average team points 1715; average star rating 3.00 – 2016 Music City Bowl

Louisville: average team points 1549; average star rating 2.85 – 2016 Sun Bowl

Washington State: average team points 1260; average star rating 2.69 - 2016 Sun Bowl

Oklahoma State: average team points 1545; average star rating 2.91 - 2016 Alamo Bowl

Washington: average team points 1562; average star rating 2.90 - 2016 Alamo Bowl



For Kentucky to become a top 20 recruiting program, they will have to average 1927 team points with an average star rating of 3.27. For Kentucky to become a top 15 recruiting program, they will have to average 1927 team points with an average star rating of 3.40. For Kentucky to become a top 10 recruiting program, they will have to average 2382 team points with an average star rating of 3.46. For Kentucky to become a top 5 recruiting program, they will have to average 2614 team points with an average star rating of 3.57. Just for the record, Alabama ranks first for the last three years with an average 3061 team points with an average star rating of 3.89.

My whole point here is to prove that Stoops and UK aren’t that far away from success as many believe. Considering the state of the program when Stoops came to UK, a little patience from the fans is warranted. Just keep in mind how long it took Rich Brooks to elevate the program.

You bring up some interesting topics. But regardless of how many you sign on 20 counts towards you standing in team rankings. Signing 25+ would help your average and number of points because it means you can not count 5+ of your lowest ranked signees.

Some schools you are misled by their recruiting classes, schools like UL who accept a good many tranfers, many proven players who make big contributions, don't show in any class, you have 4-5 it could and has make a big difference in the team you put on the field.

This is just my opinion, but states in the north can't consistenly beat teams from the south without having a few players from the south on their roster, especially the D side.
Fast players are everywhere, but those 300+ DT and OLB types who can run, there just aren't enough in the north to beat the southern teams who have them. But a team from the south can beat a team from the north without a northern player on their team because of the above reason. Urban is going national and almost ignoring the state of Ohio for his recruiting because of this, Michigan is doing the same, Stanford and Cal have a big presence in the south too, those 4 and the surrounding schools of UT, USC, Clemson, AU, Bama, FSU, UF and now Miami all recruit Georgia very hard plus the other ACC and SEC teams who recruit the state but not as hard as the above group.

But the biggest thing about your points arguement is what are your opponents doing recruiting wise. UK will have a hard time out recruiting UF and UGA on a regular basis unless demographics make a big change, those 2 states just have so many more people than Kentucky does, Tennessee is starting to produce more, but like Georgia, some of the bigger cities are closer to other universities than UT.

MSST doesn't recruit at a high level, but they take a lot of JUCOs and they have a huge RS program, Stoops is trying to go this route, but he doesn't have any rs Sr yet, it takes 5 years for that to show up in your program. I think UK makes it to a bowl this year, they have a chance to be much better than 6-6, but there are some question marks, the DL, LB and QB are question marks right now. But every team in the division has them except maybe UT right now, if Dobbs goes down, they don't have anyone who has taken a snap that means anything, UK could finish anywhere from 2nd to 7th in the East this fall with all the question marks and new coache.

 

[gobigblue812_rivals29381]

Isn't it a little disconcerting that in Year 4 we still don't have any real foundation to speak of? We're relying on true freshmen on the OL and our DL is so paper thin that people think we're in big trouble with the loss of one mediocre DT. Not to mention our less than ideal QB situation and complete lack of stability on the coaching staff.

That's my issue. All these stars don't add up to a hill of beans if the players can't catch, block, tackle or pass, and those are the things that build a foundation.

I can be patient in waiting for bowls and 7/8 win seasons but I don't think it's crazy to expect a little more than recruiting stars by Year 4.

We are relying on true FR on the OL? Really? Who are all of these you speak of? Young may be the only FR to see any snaps this year.

 

[willievic]

We all know that Stoops, Marrow and staff have improved our recruiting profile tremendously even though it hasn’t yet paid off in terms of wins. Some of my observations from looking at the Rivals rankings beginning with the 2014 class through the 2016 class:

Rivals rankings are based on the number of signed commitments plus their point system which is based on the top rated 22 players for each school even if they sign more. The NCAA allows 25 scholarships and a roster of 85 scholarship players – with adjustments for attrition. Teams such as Tennessee could sign 31 (2014) due to transfers, injuries, dismissals. In 2014, Kentucky signed 28. For me, I wonder why Rivals only counts 22? This isn’t my point of the post, just an observation.

Based on the Rivals point system for the last three years, Kentucky ranks 25th nationally with an average of 1749 team points. I was surprised at this. Over the 3 year period, UK has an average class size of 25. Compare that with Florida’s average of 23, Georgia’s average of 24.

When you compare Kentucky’s average star rating (3.09), the Cats still rank 25th. That’s something else that’s surprised me.

That begs the question: What does it take to get the wins?

Let’s look at Louisville over the same period. The Cardinals rank 37th based on an averaging star rating of 2.85. They also average 1549 points. Louisville has been to a bowl game over the three year period while UK hasn’t. How is that? It isn’t because Louisville develops players better. There is no evidence to support that. What Louisville has done is take very talented players who have transferred from other schools. Forget about the argument about Louisville taking players who have been dismissed from other programs for misbehavior. That is an entirely different argument and discussion. Let’s leave it to the simple fact that they have taken talented players who have transferred from other very good programs. They have relied on recruiting high school players. I will give up one point on their behalf. The kids from Louisville high schools have been under rated as a general rule and have been proven to be talented.

Louisville isn’t the only school that has gone to a a major and mid-major bowl game over the last three years that have averaged less team recruiting points than Kentucky. Here’s a list:

Mississippi State: average team points 1804; average star rating 3.04 – 2016 Birmingham Bowl

Arkansas: average team points 1715; average star rating 3.00 – 2016 Music City Bowl

Louisville: average team points 1549; average star rating 2.85 – 2016 Sun Bowl

Washington State: average team points 1260; average star rating 2.69 - 2016 Sun Bowl

Oklahoma State: average team points 1545; average star rating 2.91 - 2016 Alamo Bowl

Washington: average team points 1562; average star rating 2.90 - 2016 Alamo Bowl



For Kentucky to become a top 20 recruiting program, they will have to average 1927 team points with an average star rating of 3.27. For Kentucky to become a top 15 recruiting program, they will have to average 1927 team points with an average star rating of 3.40. For Kentucky to become a top 10 recruiting program, they will have to average 2382 team points with an average star rating of 3.46. For Kentucky to become a top 5 recruiting program, they will have to average 2614 team points with an average star rating of 3.57. Just for the record, Alabama ranks first for the last three years with an average 3061 team points with an average star rating of 3.89.

My whole point here is to prove that Stoops and UK aren’t that far away from success as many believe. Considering the state of the program when Stoops came to UK, a little patience from the fans is warranted. Just keep in mind how long it took Rich Brooks to elevate the program.

Your going to confuse posters with facts!

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

 

[jauk11]

Big big difference in doing more with less when you are getting very mediocre players the other SEC schools don't want verses players you've beat other SEC, BIG10, and ACC schools for.
You could make the same statement when it comes to Miss St, Ark, Mizzou, Vandy, and UL.

UL fans like to minimize the recruiting success UK is having with the overriding and self serving hope that things really haven't changed in Lexington. Clearly you need coachs that know what they are doing and you need to get lucky with a couple of difference makers. Especially at QB.

More with less or not, the foundation MUST be built on the Jimmies and the Joe's that most of your competition want as well.

That said, question for you Wildcard...are you content that UL can continue to do more with less with their current crop of recruits for this year? Pretty underwhelming offer sheets across your 18 commits. Around 45 P5 offers across that group compared to UK's class that has around 70ish P5 offers among its 12 recruits.
Pretty surprising UL isn't doing better to me given the last couple years success. What would you attribute the downturn too? Coaching turnover? UL seems content to have replaced Lamar Thomas, Buckley, other DB coach who went to Mizzou, and OC with Petrino jr, The GA, and guy from WVU...do you think it's h as Ving a negative recruiting effect? I'm sure the success this season will drive higher wanted recruits

Almost all of this is excellent reasoning IMO.

 

[jauk11]

Isn't it a little disconcerting that in Year 4 we still don't have any real foundation to speak of? We're relying on true freshmen on the OL and our DL is so paper thin that people think we're in big trouble with the loss of one mediocre DT. Not to mention our less than ideal QB situation and complete lack of stability on the coaching staff.

That's my issue. All these stars don't add up to a hill of beans if the players can't catch, block, tackle or pass, and those are the things that build a foundation.

I can be patient in waiting for bowls and 7/8 win seasons but I don't think it's crazy to expect a little more than recruiting stars by Year 4.

Sorry, we do have the beginning of a foundation------the 14 class, still sophs and juniors (and thank God Stoops didn't play all of them that could have helped) is still coming into their own. Also in comparing our "good" standing vs some of the other schools, you should be including the much lower standings of the 12 and 13 classes, where MOST teams have their fourth and fifth year leaders while we have very few. That is very misleading, IMO. Also it is, as I have often argued. much less reliable to use the "star" ratings like the OP did when the MUCH more accurate numerical ratings are available, we used to get a lot of 5.5 three stars just removed from the two star rating and not many of the 5.7s just a step away from a four star rating. To throw them all in the same category is just wrong IMO, 5.5s on average may or may not pan out while 5.7s SHOULD almost all pan out, although as we all know lots of hits and misses in ratings, both high (would rather not mention names of under performers, I assume they tried) and low, Tre, a 5.3, Cobb a late 5.5, Gary Williams a 5.1, Lindley a 5.2, Locke a 5.2, Dickie Lyons Jr a FOUR POINT NINE for God's sake, just to mention a few------I would hate to think of UK's record without the MANY two stars that were a major part of what success we have had.

I also think our staff has done a GREAT job of finding under rated talent, several freshmen starting last year were very under rated, they did a marvelous job of replacing the mass defections in 15.

..

 

[jauk11]

@DerVille I agree with your assessment. If people think there's something "wrong" with Louisville's recruiting, they haven't been paying attention.

Nice!!!

DerVille got another troll to agree with him.

 

[DerVille]

To me and I have said it for years, that it takes 10 years to develop a DL.

10 years? How are you arriving at that number. How do you calculate anything longer than 5 years? If you bring in good defensive lineman every year, redshirt them all, you'll have redshirt seniors, followed up by redshirt juniors etc. after five years. After that they start graduating. At year six or seven every player you brought in year one and two has left the program.

How did you come up with ten years or was that sarcasm?

 

[BigBlue8]

The state of Mississippi also produces 3-4 times the number of high-level FBS recruits that Kentucky does.

Outside of Vanderbilt, we're the only SEC program without an SEC-caliber recruiting base ... that's never going to stop being a challenge.

Jason thanks for the information. While I was very aware that the state of Mississippi produces a lot of football talent, I was not aware of the numbers. The thing is that talent has always been there and Mississippi wasn’t signing top ten classes before Hugh Freeze got there. If you look at their 2013 class, they had 11 players that were either 4 or 5 star players. Six of those players were not from Mississippi. The three best players, Nkemdiche, Tunsil and Treadwell were not from Mississippi. Do I ever see UK signing four 5 star players in one class? The answer is no. However, I could see UK’s recruiting getting into the top half of the SEC and that will put UK in a pretty good place.

 

[WeepNoMore]

I have long maintained that Performance is the product of Talent x Coaching. That is, Performance = Talent x Coaching. IOW, one affects the other. Naturally, it is very difficult to quantify "talent" and I'm not sure you can even quantify coaching. But that's the way it works, one affects the other in determining the product, i.e., Performance.

It is hard to describe and impossible to quantify but some guys just do "more with less". Now it is unlikely that such a person can win an NC because they will always be up against a number of guys who also can do more with less but are in the fortunate position of having "more". Clear as mud? [laughing]

I'm not calling anyone Bear Bryant but an opposing coach once said of the Bear: "He'll beat yours with his and his with yours". Anyway, you get the picture here. Some guys chronically overachieve.

I don't like to discuss UofL over here but since you asked...

(1) Yes, I think they can continue their "current success" (7, 8, 9 wins) with their "current recruiting". But they are not going to catch up to FSU and Clemson. That doesn't mean they cannot steal a win every now and then but, as I have said in other threads, in football, the "best" team usually wins even if it's ugly.

(2) Despite the problems in knowing if an offer has contingencies or not, I place more more stock in offers than on line star evaluations. Yes, I would like to see more recruits with better offer sheets. I am not too much on the "this staff knows talent" argument but, going back to my first remarks, some staff do seem to better than others as part of that "more with less" thing.

(3) IMO, a couple of years of success does not move the needle much when vying for top flight talent. It is more about the established history. For example, UofL has a lot better current history than TX or TN, but over the long haul it ain't close. Also, recruiters, to the man, have always claimed that establishing relationships is the #1 thing in recruiting. So relationships + traditions is a tough nut to crack. (FWIW, I have read a number of reports citing how excellent Saban is in the living room.)

(4) Still too early to call it a "downturn". The tendency under Petrino has been to pick up some higher rated guys later in the process. Even if not as successful as some years a"bad" year every 3 or 4 years will not sink the ship. I don't like it but I can't really complain until it doesn't work.

Regarding the new coaches, it remains to be seen how the recruiting thing goes as several of these guys have not been full time recruiters before. I think inexperience as an assistant hurts more in terms not having developed those aforementioned recruiting "relationships" from your previous job more than the on-field coaching aspect of the job.

All JMO.

Peace

IMHO, the best, most accurate and, particularly as it applies to UK, the most telling post in this thread. TALENT + COACHING!!!!

We seem to have moved up the food chain in TALENT, at least on paper.

Where we seem to be lacking is in the area of COACHING.

Since Coach Phillips fired some truly exceptional coaches in terms of developing talent and teaching fundamentals, UK has fielded team after team that have been weak fundamentally (blocking, tackling, pass coverage, maintaining gap integrity, filling the gaps, looking passes and punts into your hands, precise route running, picking up the blitz, gaining separation, throwing motion, pocket presence, lining up properly, etc.).

On-field coaching (poor communication, abysmal half-time adjustments, questionable play calling, defensive schemes based on what the coaches want rather than using schemes that fit the talent on hand, etc.) hasn't been much better, perhaps even worse.

Maybe this is the year that TALENT + COACHING comes together for UK. I certainly hope so!!!

But to-date, with a very few notable exceptions in terms of TALENT, I simply have not seen demonstrated on-field performance from the TALENT or the COACHES.

 

[jauk11]

IMHO, the best, most accurate and, particularly as it applies to UK, the most telling post in this thread. TALENT + COACHING!!!!

We seem to have moved up the food chain in TALENT, at least on paper.

Where we seem to be lacking is in the area of COACHING.

Since Coach Phillips fired some truly exceptional coaches in terms of developing talent and teaching fundamentals, UK has fielded team after team that have been weak fundamentally (blocking, tackling, pass coverage, maintaining gap integrity, filling the gaps, looking passes and punts into your hands, precise route running, picking up the blitz, gaining separation, throwing motion, pocket presence, lining up properly, etc.).

On-field coaching (poor communication, abysmal half-time adjustments, questionable play calling, defensive schemes based on what the coaches want rather than using schemes that fit the talent on hand, etc.) hasn't been much better, perhaps even worse.

Maybe this is the year that TALENT + COACHING comes together for UK. I certainly hope so!!!

But to-date, with a very few notable exceptions in terms of TALENT, I simply have not seen demonstrated on-field performance from the TALENT or the COACHES.

Joker had a very good reason for firing some VERY GOOD coaches-------several didn't want to leave the city limits to recruit.

 

[WeepNoMore]

Joker had a very good reason for firing some VERY GOOD coaches-------several didn't want to leave the city limits to recruit.

I agree there is a tradeoff between recruiting skill and coaching skill.

But, I'll take coaching skill, particularly as it relates to the OL and DL, every time!!! Find a recruiting coordinator and a couple of other coaches who love to travel and turn them loose.

 

[jauk11]

I don't think UK will ever rival Bama, LSU. Florida, etc etc in recruiting BUT I think we can recruit well enough to compete AND win the SEC occasionally. But we will have to have very good coaching to do that. This staff has proven they can recruit, now they need to prove they can coach, and I think their talent will make them look much better this year, maybe great in 17. If they can put up wins on the field I think the recruiting will really take off.

UK now has the facilities and backing (finally) to become a factor, we do it in basketball with very little in state talent (maybe one real contributor each year) and one reason for our success in basketball is a great fan base, probably the biggest and best in the nation-------I think the football fan base is composed of a lot of the same fans and with winning seasons could become a much bigger factor in footbal.IF mitch can handle his part of it-------IF he is here should Stoops fail.

We only wasted about ten years (with probation on top of it) but we are making up ground very fast IMO. IF Stoops does fail he will still leave a talent base (along with the facilities and support) that will attract a very good coach IF mitch can handle his part of it-------IF he is here should Stoops fail.
.

 

[Gary4UK]

I would not equate the word "powerhouse" with top 20. More like consistent top 10 to top 5.

If we can recruit with our past record, imagine if we win 8, or 9 games a year... We could possibly be a power house....

 

[EdNygma]

Are the recruiting numbers being used from the players that committed or the players that actually make it to campus? How are transfers in and transfers out factored in?

I think it is very clear that Stoops has improved the recruiting from the standpoint of how well he and his staff are getting the Kentucky name out there and gaining initial commitments but many times (and this happens to most schools) the big boys swoop in and make their offers to many players with previous 'verbals' very late in the process and steal them away.

 

[jauk11]

IMHO, the best, most accurate and, particularly as it applies to UK, the most telling post in this thread. TALENT + COACHING!!!!

We seem to have moved up the food chain in TALENT, at least on paper.

Where we seem to be lacking is in the area of COACHING.

Since Coach Phillips fired some truly exceptional coaches in terms of developing talent and teaching fundamentals, UK has fielded team after team that have been weak fundamentally (blocking, tackling, pass coverage, maintaining gap integrity, filling the gaps, looking passes and punts into your hands, precise route running, picking up the blitz, gaining separation, throwing motion, pocket presence, lining up properly, etc.).

On-field coaching (poor communication, abysmal half-time adjustments, questionable play calling, defensive schemes based on what the coaches want rather than using schemes that fit the talent on hand, etc.) hasn't been much better, perhaps even worse.

Maybe this is the year that TALENT + COACHING comes together for UK. I certainly hope so!!!

But to-date, with a very few notable exceptions in terms of TALENT, I simply have not seen demonstrated on-field performance from the TALENT or the COACHES.

Inexperience and not working together long can be a big factor in player performance.

AND a coaching staff.

Hopefully BOTH improve this year.

 

[gene0001]

It doesn't matter how well you can recruit if your recruits leave after enrolling. It looks like UK has kept about 2/3 of its 2013 non-juco scholarhip recruits and about the same percentage of the 2014 recruits. I don't know how this relates to other SEC schools but I would think it is favorable. Does anyone have figures for other schools?