Finally, recruiting rankings aren't everything, but they play a huge factor in a team's success.
It more than likely matters most at the very top.
But once you venture outside of the top 5/10, whatever range, the classes become very similar for the next large group of teams. And even in the top 5/10 there will be multiple programs that don't come close to living up to that rating.
If you look @ the Rivals 2013 ratings, you'll find half the Recruiting Top 25 programs didn't finish ranked this year.
UCLA, Auburn, A&M, UGA, Southern Cal, South Carolina, Nebraska, Washington, Vandy, Miami FL, Va Tech, Texas, and WVU.
If you look @ the Rivals 2012 ratings, you'll find nearly half the Recruiting Top 25 programs didn't finish ranked this year.
Texas, Southern Cal, Auburn, Miami FL, UGA, UCLA, A&M, South Carolina, Washington, Va Tech, Cal, Rutgers, Nebraska
Some repeat offenders there.
So using recruiting rankings for the upperclassmen (Jrs/Srs) for 2015 season indicate it's 50/50 in terms of finishing ranked. And even some of the teams that finish ranked will say there seasons were disappointing! It seems like roughly 70-80% of the top 10 does indeed get ranked a couple years later, which is good, but once you exit the top 10, the % drops significantly. I realize this is a very broad view of recruiting.
There's a bias involved in those rating systems, and when half the top 25 recruiting classes end up outside of the rankings at the end of the year most years, that doesn't point to a major determinant of team success, at least not if you're outside the top 10 - which UK always is.
You're using inconsequential data to boost up your mindset about the UK program instead of meaningful data when you bring recruiting class rankings for UK into these discussions. If UK ever lands a top 5 or top 10 football recruiting class then you have something to get excited about.
