Top to Bottom Recruit Rankings

[Ipartiedwithhopgood_rivals307205]

Here's an interesting link, the data is a 5 year stretch 2013-2017.... shows HS top tier talent by state..... NC back end top 10... makes me think any coach with some chops should succeed there if this was a trend beyond just a 5 year look, yet other than Mack Brown, nobody really has gotten much going.

They did produce Lawrence Taylor!

https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...rankings-state-stars-florida-texas-california

 

[zipp_rivals]

Here's the five years of Carolina data that have the most relevance for me...

YEAR--RECORD--END OF SEASON RECRUITING RANKING (Rivals)
2013: 7-6 23rd
2014: 6-7 28th
2015: 11-3 22nd
2016: 8-5 30th
2017: 3-9 23rd

Same coach, same school, same recruiting base.

I guess numbers can tell you anything. But that data series--not surprisingly to me--says that seasonal performance may not significantly affect year-to-year recruiting results. As some think or try to argue...

 

[Thecycle27]

I think Lousville is the poster child for on field results not greatly impacting recruiting statement.

1) Multiple BCS appearances
2) A good history of players doing well in the NFL
3) Heisman Trophy.

This has been a good program for a long time yet recruiting has never matched its on field performance. It basically boils down to location. The state doesn't produce enough high level talent. Then you add in coaches have never stayed around. A program like Louisville is impacted tremendously when that occurs. The new staff has to start all over.

I don't think coaches are leaving Louisville per se, but they are leaving because they can't recruit at a high enough level to reach their goals. That is why Brohm was a kick in the nuts. He was going to stay and recruit really well. I like Satterfield, but if he is as good as we think North Carolina calls with a recruiting base like North Carolina he will go. They should win the Coastal on a consistent basis with those recruiting numbers.

 

[Rollem Cards]

For years it’s been argued that uk should be in the ACC.

Problem is, the ACC already has a “a uk”.

And it’s UNC.

They don’t give a rat about football either.

 

[zipp_rivals]

I think Lousville is the poster child for on field results not greatly impacting recruiting statement.

1) Multiple BCS appearances
2) A good history of players doing well in the NFL
3) Heisman Trophy.

This has been a good program for a long time yet recruiting has never matched its on field performance. It basically boils down to location. The state doesn't produce enough high level talent. Then you add in coaches have never stayed around. A program like Louisville is impacted tremendously when that occurs. The new staff has to start all over.

I don't think coaches are leaving Louisville per se, but they are leaving because they can't recruit at a high enough level to reach their goals. That is why Brohm was a kick in the nuts. He was going to stay and recruit really well. I like Satterfield, but if he is as good as we think North Carolina calls with a recruiting base like North Carolina he will go. They should win the Coastal on a consistent basis with those recruiting numbers.

I don't disagree with that. But I think the better explanation may be that it's a really long term process. You'll still see a kid commit to Nebraska or Notre Dame because of their "tradition"...

 

[Thecycle27]

I don't disagree with that. But I think the better explanation may be that it's a really long term process. You'll still see a kid commit to Nebraska or Notre Dame because of their "tradition"...

I think a bunch of national titles is why these 2 still have clout. Do you think Louisville basketball ever reaches it current status without Darryl Griffith and the national title? Titles matter.

Look at the last 20 years and who won the titles. All of them are tied to the recruiting hotbeds. Every single one is in or connected to a states that produced the most high end talent. Louisville has no shot to ever compete at that level because it is in a state and attached to states that don't produce enough elite talent. It is not surprising to me that Louisville's best team was when they had 2 elite players from Louisville. Florida produces a hundred kids a year like Brohm and Bush.

UK and Louisville have both really struggled when changing coaches because building recruiting relationships takes a long time. Neither has the clout to land elite kids when they are transitioning. I think Barnhart understands the college football reality which is why he has always been very patient with his football coaches. Both are in a impossible spot when you talking about competing for a title in football.

 

[jarheadky]

I think Lousville is the poster child for on field results not greatly impacting recruiting statement.

1) Multiple BCS appearances
2) A good history of players doing well in the NFL
3) Heisman Trophy.

This has been a good program for a long time yet recruiting has never matched its on field performance. It basically boils down to location. The state doesn't produce enough high level talent. Then you add in coaches have never stayed around. A program like Louisville is impacted tremendously when that occurs. The new staff has to start all over.

I don't think coaches are leaving Louisville per se, but they are leaving because they can't recruit at a high enough level to reach their goals. That is why Brohm was a kick in the nuts. He was going to stay and recruit really well. I like Satterfield, but if he is as good as we think North Carolina calls with a recruiting base like North Carolina he will go. They should win the Coastal on a consistent basis with those recruiting numbers.

Let me throw this at you, it’s not that there isn’t high level talent out in the state it’s that what’s here isn’t being developed. I’ve never lived in an area where nepotism is as bad as it is inside most the high school programs in this state. That’s why you see so many kids really shine when they get to College where they are developed by someone who knows what they are doing and that’s another story the incompetence that strolls the sidelines at most Kentucky high schools is almost criminal.

 

[Thecycle27]

I think the way the kids are being developed that is different. High schools don't develop the kids any more or at a least that was my experience with my kids. It is all about individual trainers or coaches or training facilities. That requires money and a genuine love of the sport by the kid. It think the is growth business but probably a real struggle in the more rural communities in Kentucky.

I think evaluating a kid from KY is real difficult because the kids aren't going up against many other Div 1 athletes. They get evaluated on their measurables and camp performances not necessarily on the on field performance. The reality is there just aren't enough of them to support either Louisville or Kentucky. The few 4 and 5 stars that are produced tend to leave the state or get divided up.

That is why Petrino failure to take advantage of the improving talent pool stung. Moore made no sense he played at Trinity which is the one school that does play against really good talent plus he was evaluated highly at camps but Petrino didn't want him. Louisville can't miss evaluate or ignore talented kids because the training facilities are going to push kids away from you which is exactly what happened the next year.

 

[nccardfan]

I don't disagree with that. But I think the better explanation may be that it's a really long term process. You'll still see a kid commit to Nebraska or Notre Dame because of their "tradition"...

Take Michigan baseball for example. Their 1st baseman, Kerr has a grandfather that played on one of their CWS teams. His dad played on 2 CWS teams, but hasn’t really been relevant since. Kerr could have played probably several of the baseball elite programs but chose Michigan. Why because of tradition.

 

[cardsfan1921]

NC has more talent then Ky. Its easier to recruit close to home even when you are bad. Its hard for us imo to go to Fla or Ga and convince someone to come all the way to Louisville to play on a 2-10 team. Miami is a great example of his. They have been bad for years but they still recruited well because they are in the best recruiting area in the country.

 

[nccardfan]

NC has more talent then Ky. Its easier to recruit close to home even when you are bad. Its hard for us imo to go to Fla or Ga and convince someone to come all the way to Louisville to play on a 2-10 team. Miami is a great example of his. They have been bad for years but they still recruited well because they are in the best recruiting area in the country.

Sure they do but they also have more college choices. I would dare say that ECU’s football has been better than UNC’s. Throw in NC State, Wake Forest, Duke (who’s been having recent success), App St. and even defections to Va Tech, Clemson and South Carolina.

 

[jarheadky]

I think the way the kids are being developed that is different. High schools don't develop the kids any more or at a least that was my experience with my kids. It is all about individual trainers or coaches or training facilities. That requires money and a genuine love of the sport by the kid. It think the is growth business but probably a real struggle in the more rural communities in Kentucky.

I think evaluating a kid from KY is real difficult because the kids aren't going up against many other Div 1 athletes. They get evaluated on their measurables and camp performances not necessarily on the on field performance. The reality is there just aren't enough of them to support either Louisville or Kentucky. The few 4 and 5 stars that are produced tend to leave the state or get divided up.

That is why Petrino failure to take advantage of the improving talent pool stung. Moore made no sense he played at Trinity which is the one school that does play against really good talent plus he was evaluated highly at camps but Petrino didn't want him. Louisville can't miss evaluate or ignore talented kids because the training facilities are going to push kids away from you which is exactly what happened the next year.

Not trying to be a wise *** but what you just said is exactly my point because there are coaches out there that are still developing kids, you just have to find them and stay away from Jo Bob and his assistant Jim Ed who played high school ball together and are hell bent on only seeing certain kids progress and excel. I do take my kid to a personal trainer to help with core work but the fundamental side is totally being taught by his high school staff. I think there’s more D1 talent in Kentucky than what people realize it’s just not being developed. Take Chuck Smith being back at Boyle Co for example they hadn’t produced kids in a few years after he left. He comes back after Stoops is hired at UK and now all the sudden there’s D1 kids back on the roster, it’s not something he’s pouring in the water...

 

[beantowncard]

Here's the five years of Carolina data that have the most relevance for me...

YEAR--RECORD--END OF SEASON RECRUITING RANKING (Rivals)
2013: 7-6 23rd
2014: 6-7 28th
2015: 11-3 22nd
2016: 8-5 30th
2017: 3-9 23rd

Same coach, same school, same recruiting base.

I guess numbers can tell you anything. But that data series--not surprisingly to me--says that seasonal performance may not significantly affect year-to-year recruiting results. As some think or try to argue...

If their recruiting rankings are so good and their on field performance so bad, why do recruiting rankings matter?

 

[Thecycle27]

Not trying to be a wise *** but what you just said is exactly my point because there are coaches out there that are still developing kids, you just have to find them and stay away from Jo Bob and his assistant Jim Ed who played high school ball together and are hell bent on only seeing certain kids progress and excel. I do take my kid to a personal trainer to help with core work but the fundamental side is totally being taught by his high school staff. I think there’s more D1 talent in Kentucky than what people realize it’s just not being developed. Take Chuck Smith being back at Boyle Co for example they hadn’t produced kids in a few years after he left. He comes back after Stoops is hired at UK and now all the sudden there’s D1 kids back on the roster, it’s not something he’s pouring in the water...

The bottom line is there aren't enough elite players in the state to carry Louisville or Kentucky. UGA never has to recruit outside their border in order to build a roster full of 4 and 5 star players. Kentucky nor Lousville has that luxury.

 

[zipp_rivals]

If their recruiting rankings are so good and their on field performance so bad, why do recruiting rankings matter?

You're somewhat preaching to the choir. I'm simply responding that "2-10" is not driving our recruiting this year.

Satterfield is presumably getting the kids he wants and thinks he can win with. And he should have that chance...

 

[Thecycle27]

It depends what you are using the rankings for, are you using to compare against your rivals or to determine if your program has a shot at a title?

The whole point of competing is to win a title. It is really not that hard if your program consistently has classes ranked in the top 10 they are a title contender. Not so much if the class recruiting rankings are always in the 20-40 range. Those programs are good programs, but they don't have the depth of talent to compete for titles or at least that is what history has proven.

Now if you are in a Power 5 conference in a weak division those programs consistently recruiting in the Top 20 have a shot as long as they don't lose and win their title game. Kentucky and Lousville were a great examples of this recently. UK was right there but then they played Georgia and got destroyed. Lousivlle stands toe to toe with Clemson then fades. There is a reason there haven't been any non blue blood program win a title in 20 years. They have more dudes and those dudes are better than your dudes.

College football is ridiculously uneven, but it always has been. I believe attendance will continue to decline because 95 percent of the programs have no shot every single year.