UK football recruiting class is not flashy, but it's solid, coordinator says

[WildcatRick]

by Chip Cosby

University of Kentucky recruiting coordinator Randy Sanders doesn't put a lot of stock in the star system.

He didn't make much of it during his 17-year stint at the University of Tennessee, when the Vols were accustomed to four- and five-star recruits who were considered to be the pick of the litter.

And he's not making much of it at UK, which has historically had a hard time getting such prospects.

National signing day is Wednesday, and UK currently doesn't have any four or five-star prospects among its 18 verbal commitments.

They are awaiting a decision from Henry Clay's Aaron Boyd, a four-star receiver who will pick either Kentucky or Oregon at a press conference on Wednesday morning.

http://www.kentucky.com/232/story/309045.html

[gerntz]

From the article:

"At Tennessee, there were a lot of years we'd maybe sign a four- or five-star guy, but yet in our minds a lot of times we felt the two- or three-star guy was probably the best player," he said."

Huh? Why would you sign a higher star player if you thought the lower star one was better?

"The star measures how good they were in high school, but it doesn't measure what their potential is or how good they can become. You look at the NFL Draft last year, there was probably as many two-star guys drafted as four-star guys."

Well, stars aren't perfect, but there's what, 5X as many 2* as 4*, so to me this says # of *'s is a decent indicator.

[RV]

"At Tennessee, there were a lot of years we'd maybe sign a four- or five-star guy, but yet in our minds a lot of times we felt the two- or three-star guy was probably the best player," he said."

All the players he was referring to were UT signees. What he's saying is in his opinion a lot of the 2 star guys they signed were better than another kid they would sign who was rated by the 'experts' as a four star.

[sardiscat]

"The star measures how good they were in high school, but it doesn't measure what their potential is or how good they can become."

This is Sanders's way of saying the same thing that Pitino always said when fans called his radio show to complain that one of his signees wasn't rated very high: "The object in recruiting is not to sign the guys who were high school all-Americans. The object in recruiting is to sign the guys who are going to be college all-Americans."

[MojoCat21]

I still don't understand how we're getting crushed in recruiting, even within our own state. Rivals has us as the 58th best class right now with such "powerhouses" as Fresno State, Baylor, Syracuse, and Southern Miss ahead of us. I'm not saying we'll ever be consistent top 10, but with all the offensive fireworks we put up this year, shouldn't we at least get a couple big time (4 or 5 star) guys?

[RV]

I still don't understand how we're getting crushed in recruiting, even within our own state. Rivals has us as the 58th best class right now with such "powerhouses" as Fresno State, Baylor, Syracuse, and Southern Miss ahead of us. I'm not saying we'll ever be consistent top 10, but with all the offensive fireworks we put up this year, shouldn't we at least get a couple big time (4 or 5 star) guys?

Sanders plainly said you can't go by the recruiting rankings. Why do you continue to put so much emphasis on them?

[gerntz]

I still don't understand how we're getting crushed in recruiting, even within our own state. Rivals has us as the 58th best class right now with such "powerhouses" as Fresno State, Baylor, Syracuse, and Southern Miss ahead of us. I'm not saying we'll ever be consistent top 10, but with all the offensive fireworks we put up this year, shouldn't we at least get a couple big time (4 or 5 star) guys?

Number signed has a big impact on those ratings. And we'll probably sign as few as anyone in the country due to so many returning scholarship players, like 70 out of 85 total allowed. Add about five of our RS FR for next season to our signees this year & see how we'd rate. Dang high IMO.

[Poetax]

Doesn't beating the big boys(LSU) show a glimpse that just maybe two & three stars recruits can have their day? I will admit we need to KEEP our top instate recruits, PLUS we need a big dog or two(a four or five star) but like Sanders, recognizing TALENT maybe the better way of recruiting instead of looking in a magazine and seeing what star is behind a recruit's name.

[gerntz]

Hey, RV, can you say Adeyemi and Osaze Idumwonyi yet?

[RV]

Hey, RV, can you say Adeyemi and Osaze Idumwonyi yet?

Adayemi - Add a yummy
Osaze Idumwonyi - O say I don't want ya
Ukwu - Yukky
:big_grin:

[katmanblue]

I agree that the star system is overrated. There are many examples of guys who were rated two stars or lower and went on to become great players in college and in the pros. We have examples of many of those one or two star players on our team.

Consider Wes Welker of the Patriots for example. As i recall, he very lightly recruited out of high school and was the last player signed in his freshman class at Texas Tech. He became a great player for them and probably would have been the MVP for the super bowl had the pats won.

[I. Melvin]

Yeah, but Welker benefits immensely from the fact that Randy Moss takes 2 or 3 defenders with him wherever he goes.

Need a few 4 or 5's in every class.

[RV]

Yeah, but Welker benefits immensely from the fact that Randy Moss takes 2 or 3 defenders with him wherever he goes.

Need a few 4 or 5's in every class.

You keep falling back into the same assumption/argument that the ratings/rankings are correct. Everyone keeps pointing out examples that they are far from perfect/correct. Sanders even stated as much. What more proof do you need?

The point in all this is that given the fact that the rankings are done by amateurs (ie not coaches) and the fact that numerous examples can be shown how they are flawed, then, who can say that we didn't sign 3 or 4 of the '4 or 5 stars' in actual ability even though they are not rated as such?

Our on field performance has to show you that we are playing above our previously stated recruiting status.

[billoliver40]

The recruiting rankings are difficult to understand at times. If a team signs three 5 star quarterbacks every year, they get credit for a super class. How many will play?
Same question at every position. How many 5 star players will live up to their hype and play? How many can play at the same time?
Yes, it's great to have a large stable of athletes....Kentucky has that now at running back...and guess what? The back all of us fans think might be the best of the crew was on scholarship for track. Go figure the stars system.
We were concerned about wide receiver. We not only have some coming back, we have WR coming off redshirt and looks like we recruited 3 definite WR along with possibly 4 others that could turn into WR. (The extra QBs). That's going to be a lot of depth.
The staff has done a SUPER job of developing players...many times at new
positions.

Looking at the speed of the class coming in, it sounds good. Looking at the potential, it looks even better. I'm really looking forward to the next
couple of years of Kentucky football.

[boomdaddy]

Check the Sanders' article, it states that Lindley was a 2 star out of high school. That Kid is all SEC! I'll take a 2 star any day that turns out like him.

[Blue Heaven]

Yeah, but Welker benefits immensely from the fact that Randy Moss takes 2 or 3 defenders with him wherever he goes.

Need a few 4 or 5's in every class.
He did pretty darn well last year in Miami's anemic offense.