We know KY has recruited better since Stoops has arrived. Have got mostly 3* & some 4* players. Sometimes, these higher rated players do not pan out in college. Appears that We have more than our share of these type players. I know some have left, including the big 3 on defense, which sure does hurt. sometimes the 2* player with better coaching improves in college. we are all down on the staff, which I am also, but , just maybe a lot of these recruits, just are not able to adjust & grow when they play big time football. Appears we have several of those on our team.
One Issue that Has Not been discussed
- Thread starter frost1
- Start date
So why it is that it's just our 3 and 4 star recruits that aren't "panning"out. A miss here and there is going to happen to every program but when you miss them all perhaps they are not the issue.
U have a valid point. Just remember, Ky seem to always go against what the norm is In Football. Sure Coaching has a lot to do with a team getting better.
That's not true, UGA has had quite a few 4* players who haven't worked out, never play a snap, some 6.0 guys. We missed on 3 4* QBs in a row which led to us bringing in Grayson Lambert to play qb in 15. I can't tell you the number of 4* OL who haven't panned out. Just last year, we were starting a walkon over multiple 4* CBs. So it ish't just UK, I am sure Rammer the Bama poster can give you a list of Bama 4* who haven't panned out. Heck they had 3 RB in one class who didn't, and the Vol posters as well.
Yes I stated every program has their recruits that don't pan out but we presumably have about a 20% (and that's being generous) success rate. Most players need that development to continue when they get to college and obviously there will be some for every University that High School was their peak and just don't have the ability to be a successful D1 level talent regardless of coaching, BUT we have way too many recruits that just aren't getting it to pass the blame to all of the recruits and not call the coaching to task.
Its not just our 3 and four stars that don't pan out. Every school has that problem. Because most SEC teams have more of the high stars than Kentucky it hurts us more. Actually I'm not a fan of the star system. A good recruiter can tell more by seeing the player, look at his records and go from there.
Its been said UK has the money, maybe we need to pay the recruiters more
True, but not panning out at GA or AL is not the same as not panning out at UK. Competitive bar is higher at those places.
Peace
Possibly just a matter of numbers. It only takes 46 players to go two deep at every position, but a school can have 85 scholarships. If most of your players are 3-4 star, and several don't pan out at that level, you might still be 2 deep everywhere, or nearly everywhere, with players that did perform to expectations. But if - like at Kentucky - you have fewer players rated that highly, every one of them that doesn't perform is a hole in the roster you probably can't backfill.
http://www.armchairallamericans.com/state-program-kentucky/ If you could please give this a read it is my first ever article written. Stoops isn't a great developer of talent or a great coach I have had friends who have played for him and they all leave the program saying this.
Some of it is coaching. Some of it is that (almost) none of those 4 stars or high 3 stars are on either line, and our line play is atrocious on both sides of the ball. Doesn't matter what kind of athletes we have at RB, WR, DB if we're getting manhandled at the line every play on both sides.
If we have players calling other players out for quitting, maybe part of the problem with coaching is some of these kids are un-coachable. Which is why you see some kids excelling, others quitting. Now I am not giving Stoops and Co a free card, they are a big part of the problem, but not all.
Maybe we got the 4*s nobody else tried hard to get or a lot of bad apples. It is a lot harder to judge talent in football than basketball. Football recruits do not play as much for scouts to see them against other studs, usually they play against lesser talent in their area and blow up stats. Lots of whiffs and misses, so when we only get a few, it is easier to miss on them. If we got 10-15 per year, we could afford to miss half of them, still get 4-5 good ones, but when you only get 4, you had better nail it.
Maybe we got the 4*s nobody else tried hard to get or a lot of bad apples. It is a lot harder to judge talent in football than basketball. Football recruits do not play as much for scouts to see them against other studs, usually they play against lesser talent in their area and blow up stats. Lots of whiffs and misses, so when we only get a few, it is easier to miss on them. If we got 10-15 per year, we could afford to miss half of them, still get 4-5 good ones, but when you only get 4, you had better nail it.
This. ALL schools miss on a lot of football recruits. That's the nature of the beast. The successful schools just recruit so many possible good ones that the misses don't hurt as much or stand out as much.
The issue that is REALLY not discussed is star inflation depending on what school a kid goes to. I dare say that NMST hasn't got 1/1000ths of the subscribers to Rivals that UK, 'bama, or some of the other big fanbase colleges. You succeed in business by giving the customer what he wants and for Rivals that is "stars" and lots of them to the big paying fanbases.
Didn't all three of the Legends gain a star after committing to UK? If they had committed to EKU I seriously doubt that would have happened.
Didn't all three of the Legends gain a star after committing to UK? If they had committed to EKU I seriously doubt that would have happened.