TerryBlue wrote: According to USA Today, U of L, Mizzo, So.Cal

Just another writer who looks at the team ranking and has no idea about what is really going on.

USC has a 4.42 star avg. The highest of any school. Yes they lost a couple of kids late including Hatcher but the reality they only had 15 scholarships to offer and they can use those 3 extra unused scholarships next year when they need them more.

As for UL the writer like you guys has no clue as to what the UL program has done and say we should have done better after the Sugar bowl win and he looks at the team rankings to come to this conclusion. The problem is the team ranking is more than 50% based upon quanity not quality. Teams who sign small classes are hammered in points. In additon transfers are never counted either. Here are the facts.

UL choose to accept 5 transfers since last May. Because of this they only had about 16-17 open scholarships and 10 of them were taken by commits before the Sugar Bowl. The reality is UL could add only 6-7 kids after the Bowl win and that group of 6 was over 3 star avg. Not to bad! 

Those transfers

Milton      4 star  # 17 WR  2010  UT
Clark       3 star  # 59 CB  2010  FL
Christian  4 star  #  3 TE   2010 FL
Baily       3 star   # 33 S    2012 FL
Pike        4 Star  # 16 QB  2012 Auburn ( TE or DE for UL)

If you add the points from these 5 guys to the UL class it is top 30 with a 3.14 star avg.
on Scout.

Chistian will start & Milton & Clark will play this year with 1 season of practice in the UL program and 3 years of BCS level workouts. They have 2 years of college left pretty much the same as the UK jucos. I will take them over extra JUCO or HS kids but we will see how it works out. 

Even if you don't count the transfers the UL per play Star avg is higher than UK according to Scout slightly behind on Rivals who has UK higher. I am saying player avg. not class rank which is all about total points.

If you use the Matt Jones best of theory where he says UK has 6 - kids who are 4 star on one of the 4 services UL has 6 as well so I guess we tie.

Finally the SUgar Bowl & ACC benifits for UL will kick in for next years class. Many of the top players were comitted long before the season was even over last year.

jvolk wrote:

Just another writer who looks at the team ranking and has no idea about what is really going on.

USC has a 4.42 star avg. The highest of any school. Yes they lost a couple of kids late including Hatcher but the reality they only had 15 scholarships to offer and they can use those 3 extra unused scholarships next year when they need them more.

As for UL the writer like you guys has no clue as to what the UL program has done and say we should have done better after the Sugar bowl win and he looks at the team rankings to come to this conclusion. The problem is the team ranking is more than 50% based upon quanity not quality. Teams who sign small classes are hammered in points. In additon transfers are never counted either. Here are the facts.

UL choose to accept 5 transfers since last May. Because of this they only had about 16-17 open scholarships and 10 of them were taken by commits before the Sugar Bowl. The reality is UL could add only 6-7 kids after the Bowl win and that group of 6 was over 3 star avg. Not to bad! 

Those transfers

Milton      4 star  # 17 WR  2010  UT
Clark       3 star  # 59 CB  2010  FL
Christian  4 star  #  3 TE   2010 FL
Baily       3 star   # 33 S    2012 FL
Pike        4 Star  # 16 QB  2012 Auburn ( TE or DE for UL)

If you add the points from these 5 guys to the UL class it is top 30 with a 3.14 star avg.
on Scout.

Chistian will start & Milton & Clark will play this year with 1 season of practice in the UL program and 3 years of BCS level workouts. They have 2 years of college left pretty much the same as the UK jucos. I will take them over extra JUCO or HS kids but we will see how it works out. 

Even if you don't count the transfers the UL per play Star avg is higher than UK according to Scout.

If you use the Matt Jones best of theory where he says UK has 6 - kids who are 4 star on one of the 4 services UL has 6 as well so I guess we tie.

Finally the SUgar Bowl & ACC benifits for UL will kick in for next years class. Many of the top players were comitted long before the season was even over last year.

jvolk wrote:

Those transfers

Milton      4 star  # 17 WR  2010  UT
Clark       3 star  # 59 CB  2010  FL
Christian  4 star  #  3 TE   2010 FL
Baily       3 star   # 33 S    2012 FL
Pike        4 Star  # 16 QB  2012 Auburn ( TE or DE for UL)

TerryBlue wrote: If we had a class ranked like UL's, then they'd be all over it. I think the writer analyzed things closely. UL-Coming off of a Sugar Bowl win with only what 2 four star signees was VERY disappointing, we had 8 ranked in one service or another. MIzzo-Well they finished last in the SEC So.Cal-Yes, by any standard they had a great recruiting year but they lost something like 5 committed players including Jason Hatcher, so it was diaappointing from that angle

jvolk wrote:

If you use the Matt Jones best of theory where he says UK has 6 - kids who are 4 star on one of the 4 services UL has 6 as well so I guess we tie.

Here's what Kentucky's class looks like:

I am sure these is lots of reasons some schools take more transfers. For UL Strong has alot of contacts. Christian & CLark were recruited by Strong when he was at the Florida. Usually kids transfer when they are not happy. I know in the case of Christian & Clark they were not happy at Florida when Urban left. Rumor was that MIlton was unhappy at UT because he was not playing enough. I am not saying they are all great players. We will see the next few years on the field.

All I was really saying is that the UL class is more than the 16 players listed by C-USA and all the web sites.

As for UK and transfers remember all 5 transfers UL has taken under Strong have been from SEC schools. UK  cannot take SEC transfers by league rule or altleast that is what I have read. There is probably not alot of players from outside of the SEC who are not playing that can play in the SEC or atleast that is a theory.

Catfran. I like your work.

Like I said throw the class rank out it is all based upon quanity of players. UK has 22 & UL has 16. Scout and 247 take your top 25 recruits and add the points. UL has on 16 so we they are losing oints for up to 9 players. UK is has 22. Rivals take only your top 20 recruits and throws the lowest over 20 out and that is why UK is higher in Rivals again UL loses points for 4 missing recruits. The truth is UK has a better class than many schools listed ahead of them on star avg. as well.

AVERAGE
UK  #34.75, 3.375
UL  #49.25, 3.275

 I said UL was the about the same for star avg. and I was close without doing all that work; but you are making my point. The star avg is about the same if you want to say the UK class is .10 higher so be it.

I know the transfers don't count in recruit rankings but they will be playing on the field and that is what is important.

One reason UK did so well this year is they had lots of playing time to sell. Many of your recruits said they like UK becasue they can play right away and they will. Hatcher expects to start though I think that is yet to be seen. Chalrie got alot of recruits his first  2 years selling playing time as well. Now all of those guys who played as Freshmen going to be upperclassmen and UL had no playing time to sell and Ul lost some recruits to schools who had playing time. Most of the UL 16 recruits will redshirt and QUick is probably the only lock to play though I am sure a few others might see the field at some point.

SQUASHBUGS wrote: That rag is weird. USC had more 5 star recruiits than any other school, yet they are disappointing. Because of size? Does size matter?

Nevermind.

CatFansince73 wrote: Since when are transfers counted as part of a recruiting class?  Just more rationalization and excuse making by UL fans.  When they get a highly rated player like Quick, then the stars mean everything.  Otherwise the recruiting services are a bunch of idiots apparently.

Just for fun, I looked up UK and UL on the four big recruiting sources, concentrating only on the top ten rated players for each school, since UL fans seem to think they have a higher average overall and they would be higher ranked with more recruits.  Which school actually recruiting more highly touted players?  Just looking at 10 of their 16 signees and 10 of UK's 22 signees, with class rank first followed by "average star rating" of those top 10 signees:

Scout
UK  #39, 3.3
UL  #55, 3.3

247
UK  #36, 3.3
UL  #42, 3.2

Rivals
UK  #28, 3.3
UL  #57, 3.1

ESPN
UK  #36, 3.6
UL  #43, 3.5

AVERAGE
UK  #34.75, 3.375
UL  #49.25, 3.275

All of the little brothers on here may feel free to take this back to their board and see how it's rationalized.  The recruiting services seem to be unanimous in their belief that UK not only beat UL overall, but also in average star ranking.

jvolk wrote:

I am sure these is lots of reasons some schools take more transfers. For UL Strong has alot of contacts. Christian & CLark were recruited by Strong when he was at the Florida. Usually kids transfer when they are not happy. I know in the case of Christian & Clark they were not happy at Florida when Urban left. Rumor was that MIlton was unhappy at UT because he was not playing enough. I am not saying they are all great players. We will see the next few years on the field.

All I was really saying is that the UL class is more than the 16 players listed by C-USA and all the web sites.

As for UK and transfers remember all 5 transfers UL has taken under Strong have been from SEC schools. UK  cannot take SEC transfers by league rule or altleast that is what I have read. There is probably not alot of players from outside of the SEC who are not playing that can play in the SEC or atleast that is a theory.

TerryBlue wrote: I'd like for someone to try to discuss "intelligently" how UL fans shouldn't be disappointed when we're even talking about comparing recruiting classes, they can't:UL went 10-2, won the Sugar Bowl, and has had a staff in place for 3 years. We went 2-10, haven't been to the Sugar Bowl in 60+ years, and have had a staff in place for 2 mos. Now, tell me again who overachieved and who underachieved in recruiting this year.