Am I wrong in feeling this?

[Kratz]

Predicting future success and rankings isn't a perfect science at any level. Never has been, never will be. If you want some prime NFL examples, look at the Peyton Manning/Ryan Leaf debate.

Just a year or two after that, somebody finally took that skinny kid from Michigan in the 6th round. Think his name was Tim Brady or something like that.

No, the system isn't perfect, but when you look at it as a whole, it reflects the nature of things. Look at the teams in the playoffs every year: Bama, OSU, FSU, Clemson, etc then check their recruiting rankings over the last 4-5 years and you'll see the correlation.

Go to ESPN website right now and look at the top 300 and see where the highest ranked players are committed. Then look at current rankings and bowl/playoff projections and rankings, and you'll see a whole lot of the same teams listed over and over again.

 

[watchem]

Would you take this OL player on your team:

• Relegated a former SEC signee 4 star top 15 at his position to backup role at the same position on the same team.
• High school coach "Had I had him and a former player (4 year P5 starter, NFL player) on the same team at the same time I would have started him over that player".
• Successfully repeatedly blocked the overall #1 defensive player (nationally) and others at a camp one on one. This camp was invite only on ESPN so these were not underrated players.
  
• Academic all region - with arguablly the most difficult major at that school
• Speed to outrun some WR
• Another high school coach "I had 3 players with his field vision in 30+ years, all played in NFL"

Do NOT read everything into the star system it is an indicator only. Not every player at every school is recruited equally nor evaluated equally. Not all teams develop players equally even at different positions. Read the star system as a "my best guess at this time" by someone - players develop and have differing talents including character, will, work ethic, intelligence, technique, physical prowess, athleticism, game knowledge, Not all of that plays into ratings.

Due to circumstance sometimes players get missed or underrated or under recruited and walk on to your team.

 

[beasleythecard]

The only real obstacle I see for Louisville becoming elite in terms of recruiting is geography.

Clemson came from high/middle of the road status to title contender (consistently over the last 5 years) because they recruit top Florida and Georgia (Watson) 4/5 stars well.

But the thing that puts them over the top is that their home turf, the Carolinas, are very fertile with talent (Watson, Feaster, Tank, Lawrence, Williams) so they have a nice base.

Louisville does ok now in GA and FL and I wouldn't be surprised if they do even better the next few years and start pulling the 4 stars they've missed on in the past. But Kentucky is pretty bare boned when it comes to P5 prospects. I really hope Louisville makes the playoffs this year and shifts the culture from basketball to football, at least in Jeffco. I see so many kids playing basketball over football down here because that's the culture. There are too many 6'0" point guards that should be playing WR and DB, 6'4" PF that should be playing TE and DE.

I would love to see the culture swing from hoops to football in KY because I think there will be an uptick in pee-wee and Middle school football participation, which will lead to more skilled players in HS, and ultimately better local recruits overall in the state.
Not saying that is going to happen over night, but if Louisville can ride this wave for 3 or four years I think we will start to see results.

If the tweener kids played their strongest sport, most would be playing football over basketball. You are 100% correct with this point.

 

[Rollem Cards]

I'm sorry, but this notion that star rating don't mean squat is silly. Of course it matters and how many great recruits you sign will reflect this. Alabama and Ohio State don't stay in the top 5 every year with a bunch of 3 star guys with a handful of 4 and 5 stars. Right now if the Cards got commitments from five 4 star linemen all Cards fans would be pumped..

I'm afraid you're destined for mostly disappointment.

Even if we win the NC our recruiting is not going to compare with the elites every year. Simple geography and history will continue to be the compelling factors.

I hope not, but the deck is stacked against us (and 90% of everybody else)

Playing close to family/friends, and growing up wanting to play for State U, will keep us searching for underrated gems to go with the few 4's and possible occasional 5.

 

[tluck28]

Bobby is recruiting guys that he wants for his system, or at least I hope that is the case and that is what I believe.

 

[Mike'sMarbles]

According to Rivals, Louisville has an offer in with #2 5-star prospect Marvin Wilson, DT.

If that kid comes here, are people really going to complain? More than likely we'll all be doing our own version of a touchdown celebration. Part of the reason for that epic celebration would be because he's a highly rated 5-star.

 

[Cue Card]

According to Rivals, Louisville has an offer in with #2 5-star prospect Marvin Wilson, DT.

If that kid comes here, are people really going to complain? More than likely we'll all be doing our own version of a touchdown celebration. Part of the reason for that epic celebration would be because he's a highly rated 5-star.

That would be great as long as the kid understands his star rating doesn't mean squat when it comes to earning playing time. I don't have a problem with the star rating system. I do have a problem with any kid who thinks he's arrived because he was rated as a 5 star recruit. Prove it on the field with the right attitude. That's all I ask.

 

[zipp]

Cherry picking a couple of random players here or there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove any trend at all...

I don't disagree, but that logic cuts both ways. When the OP mentions the most recent commitment, he's "cherry picking". Same as I was doing mentioning Quick.

No one is saying scientifically that you don't want high-rated players. Only that you can find PLENTY of examples where the star rating was not a good indicator of success. And if your coaches have a good track record of finding successful kids without the star ratings--like these coaches do--the issue is even less significant.

Enjoy the ride, and let the heavy lifters do the lifting...

 

[beasleythecard]

since it looks like we will take a full class of 25 kids, does anyone know if all 85 scholarships are accounted for? meaning the juco kids and the early arrivals may not count towards the class. If so, how many additional kids can we take on this year?

21 verbals so far leaving 4 spots left conventionally, but early arrivals and juco kids can be acquired without counting towards the 25 new signees, or are all new arrivals counted towards the 25 scholarships making us have to grey shirt?

 

[Kratz]

I don't disagree, but that logic cuts both ways. When the OP mentions the most recent commitment, he's "cherry picking". Same as I was doing mentioning Quick.

No one is saying scientifically that you don't want high-rated players. Only that you can find PLENTY of examples where the star rating was not a good indicator of success. And if your coaches have a good track record of finding successful kids without the star ratings--like these coaches do--the issue is even less significant.

Enjoy the ride, and let the heavy lifters do the lifting...

Not necessarily cherry picking. I mentioned him as ANOTHER 3 star. Wasn't singling him out per se'. If you look at our list, it's mostly 3 stars, even some 2 stars, and a couple of 4 stars. I was simply hoping that we could fill the few spots we have left with a few 4 stars given our recent success.

 

[Kratz]

According to Rivals, Louisville has an offer in with #2 5-star prospect Marvin Wilson, DT.

If that kid comes here, are people really going to complain? More than likely we'll all be doing our own version of a touchdown celebration. Part of the reason for that epic celebration would be because he's a highly rated 5-star.

UofL has an "offer" with tons of 4 and 5 stars, along with a hundred other schools. Don't look too deep into giving an offer. It doesn't get interesting until you get return interest and the possibility of a visit.

 

[zipp]

I've looked at historical class rankings, and there is flawed reasoning from fans based on events that you think intuitively should matter... Changes like conference upgrades, big bowl games, new stadiums/expansion, and other indicators of program success. You would think that stuff matters to recruits when it happens, but you'll find very little apparent correlation.

The best reasoning I can give for that is it (recruiting improvement) doesn't happen overnite. Look where we were 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. Every step in the process of elevating your program makes a slight improvement--imperceptible in the short run--in your recruiting. Would one kid bite on a big success, maybe. But in football, unless his initials are "LJ", one kid probably doesn't matter anyway.

And the correlation between recruiting and on-the-field success isn't exact anyway. Programs like Michigan State, Wisconsin, and TCU have been prime examples along with coaches like Petrino. We have this discussion periodically, but the narrative hardly changes...

 

[tkdcoach]

There's a time coming when our 3 stars will be 4 stars because they committed (or had offers). That's how it works. Star ratings are an inch deep and a mile wide. They don't signify as much as you'd think. Interestingly, you mentioned FSU: 63-20.

Just landed another 3 star commit to football. Feels kind of disappointing that one of the few spots we have left went to another 3 star. I was hoping that with recent momentum we would be in on some good 4 stars, maybe even snag a 5 star along the way.

Love what we're doing, but I look at all the recruiting lists (espn top 300, etc) and I see all kinds of FSU and Clemson and it does concern me a bit.

 

[cardinalrod]

I'd rather have a shooting 3 star than a falling 5 star.

 

[PushupMan]

since it looks like we will take a full class of 25 kids, does anyone know if all 85 scholarships are accounted for? meaning the juco kids and the early arrivals may not count towards the class. If so, how many additional kids can we take on this year?

21 verbals so far leaving 4 spots left conventionally, but early arrivals and juco kids can be acquired without counting towards the 25 new signees, or are all new arrivals counted towards the 25 scholarships making us have to grey shirt?

The program no longer releases information about who is on scholarship, so it's a guessing game at best. We have an "about average" size senior class and a very much bigger than average junior class, so I believe you can expect that we can take 25 without asking anybody to grayshirt.

You can expect some juniors to play their graduate year somewhere else, like Keith Brown, Nick Dawson-Brents (both at WKU), Skylar Lacy (San Jose State) and several others are this year.

 

[PushupMan]

Getting back to the OPs point, in recruiting the old adage "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" applies here. We may have interest from other 4 or 5 star defensive end/ outside linebackers, but Peppers is the one who wants to commit at this point. A 3-star prospect who wants to commit is 3-stars better than a 4 or 5 star who wants to visit, but is a heavy Florida lean (for example).

We are definitely losing Fields, likely losing Hearns, and the status of Treyvon Young is questionable at this point ... so even if two other higher rated DE/OLB prospects want to commit, we can likely take all three.

 

[Kratz]

There's a time coming when our 3 stars will be 4 stars because they committed (or had offers). That's how it works. Star ratings are an inch deep and a mile wide. They don't signify as much as you'd think. Interestingly, you mentioned FSU: 63-20.

And it was like the second time we've beaten FSU in how many attempts? They man handled us previous two games. Won a National Championship and made the playoffs another time. Don't base the whole of both programs on one game. I was at the FSU game this year and it was the perfect storm. But we won't do it every year. 0-3 against Clemson since joining the ACC. Is Dabo just better than Bobby, or did talent and talented depth play into it?

 

[zipp]

And it was like the second time we've beaten FSU in how many attempts? They man handled us previous two games. Won a National Championship and made the playoffs another time. Don't base the whole of both programs on one game. I was at the FSU game this year and it was the perfect storm. But we won't do it every year. 0-3 against Clemson since joining the ACC. Is Dabo just better than Bobby, or did talent and talented depth play into it?

Since the turn of the century, we're playing .500 ball against FSU. Going back to the prior century for data is pointless.

In the same time frame, we're 3-1 against Miami, and 1-0 against Florida. So since 2000, we are 5-3 against the three best football programs in the state of Florida. And all of them ELITE football names and programs that have won national championships.

High school seniors today were still in diapers prior to the year 2000...

 

[REDFISTFURY3]

Gottoo keep getting better players only way. I remember when Clemson was hammering at FL.St ,Miami, And Va Tech they finally broke through. .We just have to keep improving with recruiting bottom line just as Clemson did.Blue print is their Dabo has shown he is a pretty darn good coach, won't say either way if he or Bobby is the better id say about even. Dabo just has a few more bullets overall to work with this year.

 

[ImmaTiger]

Just landed another 3 star commit to football. Feels kind of disappointing that one of the few spots we have left went to another 3 star. I was hoping that with recent momentum we would be in on some good 4 stars, maybe even snag a 5 star along the way.

Love what we're doing, but I look at all the recruiting lists (espn top 300, etc) and I see all kinds of FSU and Clemson and it does concern me a bit.

You're not wrong to feel that way; in fact, it's probably instinctive in most of us.

I would, however, like to point out that it isn't necessarily the number of stars a player carries through the door when he comes in, it's how many stars he plays like during the game.

Let's make it more real: what do you think of Mr. Jackson?

If your staff keeps developing talent at that rate, you'll get to where you want to be - "stars" be damned.

 

[beasleythecard]

You're not wrong to feel that way; in fact, it's probably instinctive in most of us.

I would, however, like to point out that it isn't necessarily the number of stars a player carries through the door when he comes in, it's how many stars he plays like during the game.

Let's make it more real: what do you think of Mr. Jackson?

If your staff keeps developing talent at that rate, you'll get to where you want to be - "stars" be damned.

wish more card fans felt this way. thanks tiger

 

[Mike'sMarbles]

Zipp is right, historical series against teams are not indicative of where our program is today. Even if you look back just to the John L. Smith era, we are a much more talented, deep, and athletic program.

So I don't really consider our overall record against FSU to mean much. All that really matters is we've played them 3 times in the league and they've won 2. Going 1-2 against their program is pretty good, considering the level they've been at the past several years.

 

[Pervis_Griffith]

Just landed another 3 star commit to football. Feels kind of disappointing that one of the few spots we have left went to another 3 star. I was hoping that with recent momentum we would be in on some good 4 stars, maybe even snag a 5 star along the way.

Love what we're doing, but I look at all the recruiting lists (espn top 300, etc) and I see all kinds of FSU and Clemson and it does concern me a bit.

In short .. yeah, you're wrong in feeling this.

In time, we may get a highly touted 5 star straight out of high school. But we're doing pretty well without them right now. And a 5 star kid is no guarantee of anything.

I prefer finding kids who we can develop into 5 star players. First Round NFL Draft picks roughly translate into a 5 star player. There are 32 of those a year. And depending on the service, there are roughly 25 5-star kids. We've done pretty well with first round picks the last few years.

Notre Dame is LOADED with star power. In ALL their classes. Look where they are.
Texas is LOADED with star power. In ALL their classes. Look where they are.
Florida State is LOADED with star power, and we drilled them by 43, and it wasn't even that close.

Washington is NOT loaded with star power. Look where they are.
WE are NOT loaded with star power. Look where we are.

It takes more than a high recruiting ranking to win football games.

And in time, Bobby's reputation for developing talent, will help bump our commits a bit in these recruiting evaluations. The services will figure, well Bobby must see something, and our kids will get a bump.

 

[PushupMan]

And it was like the second time we've beaten FSU in how many attempts? They man handled us previous two games. Won a National Championship and made the playoffs another time. Don't base the whole of both programs on one game. I was at the FSU game this year and it was the perfect storm. But we won't do it every year. 0-3 against Clemson since joining the ACC. Is Dabo just better than Bobby, or did talent and talented depth play into it?

Clemson appears to be slightly better, but nowhere near as much better as the star ratings would indicate.

The corollary to that will be important for UofL fans to learn as our recruiting rankings receive the inevitable "credibility bump": just because our 2020-2024 recruiting classes are much higher rated than our 2012-2016 recruiting classes were, that does NOT mean that the 2024 team is going to be better than the 2016 Cardinals. They might be a lot better, they might be about the same, or they might be a lot worse.

 

[DerVille]

wish more card fans felt this way. thanks tiger

Really? I have one rational, real life question for you. Why do you care what ANYONE on a message board thinks? You "WISH" message board fans "felt" some way about star rankings? Why. Who cares if anyone worships star rankings or if they couldn't give a rats ass about star rankings. Why do you care one way or the other? The thing I'm finding most "perplexing" is your comment acting as if this seems to have some sort of emotional effect on you.

 

[REDFISTFURY3]

Sorry folks it's a fact over the long haul toget a football program too a sustained elite status you do need the 4/5 stars on your roster. All the National Championship teams are loaded with them. Name one champion that hasn't ??

 

[beasleythecard]

Really? I have one rational, real life question for you. Why do you care what ANYONE on a message board thinks? You "WISH" message board fans "felt" some way about star rankings? Why. Who cares if anyone worships star rankings or if they couldn't give a rats ass about star rankings. Why do you care one way or the other? The thing I'm finding most "perplexing" is your comment acting as if this seems to have some sort of emotional effect on you.

you seem triggered............
I dont care about star ratings.

We had several kids with no stars and they are now rated 3 star players
we had kids with 2 star ratings that are now 3 star rated players.

the ratings system is a joke. It is subjective to what a site says and most times it is beholden to what school the kid signs with.

I like the way Bobby and his staff evaluates kids and selects kids based on EVALUATING THEM, not on some ridiculous star system. so yes, I wish more Cardinal fans simply understood that evaluating players is more important than simply desiring a star rating.

hope this answers your triggered question kind sir.

 

[REDFISTFURY3]

'Big Six' Conference Teams by Recruiting Class
• FIVE-STAR: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas.


Note that, since 2003, the eleven teams in the "five-star" group have combined for 21 appearances in the BCS Championship game, compared to one appearance by any of the 64 teams listed below. (The lone exception in that span, Oregon, just barely missed the cut for five-star status.) The only "five-star" teams that never played for a title in the BCS era are Georgia and Michigan; among the rest, only Notre Dame failed to make a repeat trip.

• FOUR-STAR: Arkansas, California, Clemson, Miami, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ole Miss, Oregon, Penn State, South Carolina, Stanford, Tennessee, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington.

• THREE-STAR: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, TCU, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Virginia, West Virginia.

• TWO-STAR: BYU, Cincinnati, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, N.C. State, Northwestern, Purdue, South Florida, Utah, Washington State, Wisconsin.

• ONE-STAR: Boise State, Boston College, Central Florida, Connecticut, Duke, Iowa State, Kansas State, Memphis, SMU, Syracuse, Temple, Wake Forest.

Over the same four-year span, those 75 teams played head-to-head 1,488 times. Here are the results of those games, with winning records in black and losing records in red:

To describe those results as "compelling" would be selling them short. It's a landslide. On the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won roughly two-thirds of the time, and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it every single year. (The only exception came last year, when "three-star" teams came up short in head-to-head meetings with "one-star" teams. Otherwise, the hierarchy held across every line.) The gap on the field also widened with the gap in the recruiting scores: While "one-star" recruiting teams fared slightly better against blue-chip opponents than "two-star" teams, both groups combined managed a grand total of 19 wins over "five-star" opponents in 112 tries. Broadly speaking, the final results on the field broke along a straight line demarcated on signing day.

 

[REDFISTFURY3]

This is just plain and simple three years ago at the end of the BCS so the numbers don't lie better players equal champions in the end for the most part.

 

[PushupMan]

Sorry folks it's a fact over the long haul toget a football program too a sustained elite status you do need the 4/5 stars on your roster. All the National Championship teams are loaded with them. Name one champion that hasn't ??

Basically, every champion from before there was a 5-star rating system ....

Georgia Tech and Colorado (1990)
BYU (1984)
Plus about 60% of the mythical national champions before 1950....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS

There's no doubt that we WANT them. My point is that in some respects, it is a "chicken and egg" conundrum. The recruiting services are going to rate our verbal commits higher as our reputation as an elite program increases. So are we truly getting better players, or are we getting the same players we always got, and the recruiting services just respect our judgment more now than they used to?

 

[DerVille]

Sorry folks it's a fact over the long haul toget a football program too a sustained elite status you do need the 4/5 stars on your roster. All the National Championship teams are loaded with them. Name one champion that hasn't ??

I'll split it up. Petrino is an offensive genius. His knack for recruiting I would say specializes more towards the offensive side of the ball. My first comment on this thread was how Clemson won that game because their defense held UofL out of the end zone more and held us to 3 field goals when we had the ball inside the ten and they held us out of the end zone when we were trying to win the game with a last minute drive. Most of our defensive stars are 3-4-5 star guys. Brown and Kelsey are 3's, Wiggins, Hearns, Richardson and Thomas are 4's and Clemons and Fields are 5's. Grantham has been directly quoted that our D needs depth. That means that all of the other guys on the roster aren't as good or aren't ready to go. We've seen what happens when we wholesale sub at the end of games. The other team can't be stopped.

Louisville doesn't just sub constantly on D to keep everyone fresh because our starters are good but our backups are not. The talent isn't deep. It's consentrated in the starting unit. To have that depth of talent, talent to wear good teams down, to stay fresh in the 4th quarter Louisville needs more talent on the D. Louisville gets enough talent to form a formidable starting 11, Louisville can't form a formidable 22 on D or even a possible 33. Louisville plays its starters almost the entire game.

Louisville could use more talent on D. When OSU or Alabama are leading 38-3 and put in all their reserves in the 4th quarter, their reserves dominate and go up 45-3 and 52-3. When UofL puts in theirs the opposing team immediately scores 7-10 points.

Back to the Clemson game. I saw Clemson in our backfield constantly and causing Lamar to scramble or even getting to him for sacks. Only Lamars special abilities caused Louisville to get the yards and keep the drives going. A pocket passer would have been toast against their D. I didn't see our defensive front doing the same to Clemson. Their D made more red zone stops, and their D seemed the most fresh during the last 7 minutes. We gave up two TD's they held us to 0.

Louisville could always use more depth and talent on the D.

 

[REDFISTFURY3]

You see it all the time with the elite programs they have exceptional depth along their O and D lines . Back-ups are very highly rated guys.

 

[beasleythecard]

I'll split it up. Petrino is an offensive genius. His knack for recruiting I would say specializes more towards the offensive side of the ball. My first comment on this thread was how Clemson won that game because their defense held UofL out of the end zone more and held us to 3 field goals when we had the ball inside the ten and they held us out of the end zone when we were trying to win the game with a last minute drive. Most of our defensive stars are 3-4-5 star guys. Brown and Kelsey are 3's, Wiggins, Richardson and Thomas are 4's and Clemons and Fields are 5's. Grantham has been directly quoted that our D needs depth. That means that all of the other guys on the roster aren't as good or aren't ready to go. We've seen what happens when we wholesale sub at the end of games. The other team can't be stopped.

Louisville doesn't just sub constantly on D to keep everyone fresh because our starters are good but our backups are not. The talent isn't deep. It's consentrated in the starting unit. To have that depth of talent, talent to wear good teams down, to stay fresh in the 4th quarter Louisville needs more talent on the D. Louisville gets enough talent to form a formidable starting 11, Louisville can't form a formidable 22 on D or even a possible 33. Louisville plays its starters almost the entire game.

Louisville could use more talent on D. When OSU or Alabama are leading 38-3 and put in all their reserves in the 4th quarter, their reserves dominate and go up 45-3 and 52-3. When UofL puts in theirs the opposing team immediately scores 7-10 points.

Back to the Clemson game. I saw Clemson in our backfield constantly and causing Lamar to scramble or even getting to him for sacks. Only Lamars special abilities caused Louisville to get the yards and keep the drives going. A pocket passer would have been toast against their D. I didn't see our defensive front doing the same to Clemson. Their D made more red zone stops, and their D seemed the most fresh during the last 7 minutes. We gave up two TD's they held us to 0.

Louisville could always use more depth and talent on the D.

All of that is true, what we will learn is if having players like Lamar here lands us better players because quality players want to play with other quality players. We need good defensive tackles. We probably have 2 on the entire roster, that is where the difference is made because no matter how good your secondary performs, if the defensive interior is suspect, or weak, your defense is weak. Louisville needs to seriously beef up its interior to be a better team. How we find and develop those guys is the real question.

 

[DerVille]

Louisville could always use more depth and talent on the D.

Just to further emphasize a point I forget to include in this prior post. All of our programs can sign the same numbers of players. The reason one team has more depth than another, even though their numbers are the same, is that the teams with the depth are signing more talented players. Almost all of their players are legit while another team without as much depth signs and/or develops some legit players but there are still others that never develop to elite/legit status. Some of their players are good but others aren't so the team has to rely on the legit players while the others stay on the bench and if/when they are subbed in there is a big drop off.

 

[PushupMan]

Grantham plays a more complex scheme than most college defensive coordinators, so the notion that we are sitting players on defense because they are only inexperienced three stars is misguided. He plays the substitutes when the starters need a sub, and he plays the subs who understand their role in the defensive scheme, regardless of their star rating.

The only place where Grantham substitutes freely is in the defensive line, and we played DeAngelo Brown, Drew Bailey, D'Asian Richardson, Kyle Shortridge, Chris Williams, Devonte Fields and James Hearns at essentially four spots against Clemson, so it's not like the guys we had in there were not well-rested - especially since we dominated the number of offensive plays in the game 99 to 62.

 

[zipp]

Since the turn of the century, we're playing .500 ball against FSU. Going back to the prior century for data is pointless.

In the same time frame, we're 3-1 against Miami, and 1-0 against Florida. So since 2000, we are 5-3 against the three best football programs in the state of Florida. And all of them ELITE football names and programs that have won national championships.

High school seniors today were still in diapers prior to the year 2000...

Oops, I was wrong. (How many times have you heard 'zipp' admit that?) Looks like I made a math error. (And admit THAT!!!)

Our record against those schools and in that time frame has been 6-3.

Lately, we win two out of three games against the best teams from the Sunshine State. Life is good...

 

[DerVille]

Oops, I was wrong. (How many times have you heard 'zipp' admit that?) Looks like I made a math error. (And admit THAT!!!)

Our record against those schools and in that time frame has been 6-3.

Lately, we win two out of three games against the best teams from the Sunshine State. Life is good...

This reminds me of some uk fans going on and on about how pathetic Louisville has performed against the SEC. They were using all-time records which not only include results before 2000...but before Howard. Since other schools have piled up wins against Louisville in the 30's, 40's, 50's etc. they wanted to argue Louisville is trash against the SEC and no better than Kentucky.

 

[gocards1987]

Recruiting rankings have meaning but they are not anywhere close to perfect. A huge part in how good you team is going to be is how well you develop your talent. UK can get 4 stars but Stoops sucks so those guys will consistently underperform. Petrino will generally get the most our of his players. Also different schemes affect what you are looking for. Smaller guys tend to be rated lower but for an offense like Oregon it doesn't matter as much as most offenses. They want speed above all else. Us using a 3-4 affects the ranking of our defensive players. Undersized defensive ends make perfect 3-4 linebackers. They may be perfect for us but their size will lower their recruiting rankings.

I don't think you can look at recruiting rankings as set in stone. Meaning all 5 stars are better than 4 stars and so on. In my opinion you look at it like 5 stars are more than likely going to be good. 4 stars have an above avg. chance. 3 stars are 50/50 and 2 stars have a below avg. chance of being a great player.

We are never going to outrecruit schools like Bama or FSU. They have more history but more importantly they are in fertile recruiting areas. FSU can never get recruit a top 10 class with a single tank of gas. We don't have that ability in Kentucky. We will always have scout more and find guys who have not reached their full potential. I think there is floor that you have to be at to be a top team recruiting wise but you can make a top 10 program with mostly 3 star players. There are enough of them that turn into stars that someone who can identify talent can build a great team. Coaches like Saban go after 5 star guys because they don't have to find underrated guys. We do.

 

[beantowncard]

again, Lamar is a 2/3 star player.
it is about player development. period.

Jackson was a four star

 

[PushupMan]

Jackson was a four star

Correct - Lamar was no big secret to people in the southeast. He could have gone to a lot of different places. UofL was the top P5 school who wanted him as a QB. FSU for instance already had two 5-star QBs in Lamar's class, so they wanted him as a wide receiver.