FREE: Stoops can change UK football

[JRowland]

If you read one thing I write this week, read this. Not saying it's great, but it's important.

It's not all about beating Florida. But UK does, sooner rather than later, have to beat Florida and win games 'like this'.

Games like this give Stoops a chance to become the biggest figure in modern UK history.

Stoops can change UK football

 

[BlueRaider22]

Well done.

 

[jayhovah]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I do not think the staff believes circumstances will limit them to top 25 classes every year, with an occasional class in the top 15 range.

I think the staff expects top 15-20 classes in an average to off year, with occasional classes in the top 10-15 range. I do not think the UKAA would have invested so heavily in the stadium, recruiting room, and practice facility unless Mark Stoops cast a grander vision than top 25 recruiting classes.

 

[JRowland]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I do not think the staff believes circumstances will limit them to top 25 classes every year, with an occasional class in the top 15 range.

I think the staff expects top 15-20 classes in an average to off year, with occasional classes in the top 10-15 range. I do not think the UKAA would have invested so heavily in the stadium, recruiting room, and practice facility unless Mark Stoops cast a grander vision than top 25 recruiting classes.

I hope this is a free content item, if not I'll make if free. Just to illustrate my point, here's what Director of Recruiting Dan Berezowitz told me in our multi-part interview with him after Signing Day.

"We'll look at early lists (of players on websites) but we don't recruit a guy because he's a four-star guy or a three-star guy. We have different views on where guys are ranked. In the end none of that really matters. The day after Signing Day nothing really matters. Obviously you want to recruit really good players but a lot of that stuff -- only so many teams can be in the top 20. There are a lot of teams that recruit at a high level. You've got really good players (available). It's (about), where do they fit? Do they fit what we want?"

From: Part III with Berezowitz

In short:

1. I don't necessarily disagree that they go into it "expecting" less than Top 15-20.
2. I do think there's an implicit admission there.
3. He's saying it's not all about rankings for them.

If you consider Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Georgia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon, Stanford, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, not to mention UCLA, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Notre Dame, etc -- and you start counting the schools out there that pull in monster classes every year, then I don't think the expectation of Top 15-20 is really justified. It's a goal, but the 2014 class was the product of, "Hitting on almost all (their) major targets," one person told me. They understood they batted way above Hall of Fame level in that class.

I've long believed, since Stoops got here, that UK needs to be at the top of the next tier of schools after the above groups I listed. If UK recruits comparably to Arizona State, North Carolina, Michigan State, etc., everybody will be thrilled with the talent level.

 

[Parabolicsecan]

Was a pretty interesting read, then it took a turn at trying to correlate Rivals rankings to Kentucky's success. Don't think Westry was highly ranked.

 

[JRowland]

Was a pretty interesting read, then it took a turn at trying to correlate Rivals rankings to Kentucky's success. Don't think Westry was highly ranked.

There are exceptions.

There are 14 teams in the SEC. I ran the numbers by three-, five-, and ten-year increments. 12 of the 14 SEC teams correlated EXACTLY in the standings to their rankings. Only Mizzou and Tennessee -- 2 of the 14 -- are exceptions. So in the SEC using different time measurements the odds of really defying your rankings over years is 1/7. Not good odds. (yes, I factored Mizzou's overall and Big XII record, same with A&M).

 

[BlueRaider22]

As of right now we have a HC who has a losing record of 9-17 and we are currently pulling classes within the top 40.....and as high as cracking the top 25. We really don't know what to expect when/if we start to win decently. It is logical to assume that rankings would go up.

I understand and agree that rankings don't necessarily matter as much to the staff, however if they are able to attract bigger fish in the future they'd likely jump all over it. Example being Damien Harris. Can't deny how talented guys like Boom/Horton/King are, but given the preference they'd rather have Harris over King. And perhaps a bigger fish like Harris would give us more attention when we start winning......and thus rankings would go up.

So, it's logical to assume that recruiting rankings would rise, we just don't know how much?

 

[Parabolicsecan]

Hopefully the investment in facilities, staff that has a track record for player development and coaching, elements that the other SEC schools have had in place, will lead to more wins and a greater level of attractiveness for highly ranked high school athletes. Curious, how can a recruiting service keep a football program down? I've never read anything from Rivals, 247 etc.. that suggests one program may be better than another for a prospective athlete.

 

[BlueRaider22]

I think also, college football programs (for the most part) ride in cycles/tides.
-Programs like Bama can recruit so well that they can win 10-11+ regular season games just about every yr. Their tides can be sky high and are rarely low.
-UK likely won't be a program like this. Their tides are likely going to a bit more volatile......probably running in 2-4 yr spans. For example, during a 4 yr span they may go as low as 6-7 wins and as high as 9-10+ wins......but then they'd likely start waning again.

This will be both because of recruiting and will also impact recruiting.

 

[hmt5000]

if we are ranked in the top 30 in recruiting and hit homruns on a few kids each class and have better than average qb play then we'll be fine. the sec is usually loaded at rb and on defense but we dont always go up against polished wr's and good qb's week to week. they usually have all the measurables but aren't great players. A great qb and playmakers at wr will even out a lot of other talent advantages that the rest of league has.

the 2007 team losing to uf after beating lsu i think had more to do with lack of depth than anything. we had really good starters but almost nothing behind them. we gave everything in that lsu game and just had nothing in the tank against uf. i like our chances this year cause we are not wore down or injured or untested. we have good depth at every position and we can win this game even if uf plays well.

 

[TotesMcGotes]

how in the hell is Woodson not on your Mt. Rushmore? stayed all 4 years. statistical leader in nearly every all time category. beat the #1 team in the nation. led team to 8 wins (including bowl) 2 straight years. cobb was a dynamic player, but he didn't have an impact on the program like woodson did. woodson helped the brooks era turn the corner. if brooks didn't rattle off 5 of 6 wins to close 2006 then he may have been fired

otherwise a good article... but not even a mention of Woodson. the best qb and most impactful player at this school since couch

 

[JRowland]

how in the hell is Woodson not on your Mt. Rushmore? stayed all 4 years. statistical leader in nearly every all time category. beat the #1 team in the nation. led team to 8 wins (including bowl) 2 straight years. cobb was a dynamic player, but he didn't have an impact on the program like woodson did. woodson helped the brooks era turn the corner. if brooks didn't rattle off 5 of 6 wins to close 2006 then he may have been fired

otherwise a good article... but not even a mention of Woodson. the best qb and most impactful player at this school since couch

I'm defining modern football as a pretty long time period. Really, since UK's success in the late 1970's. Only four spots, I can't give more than one spot to the Rich Brooks era for a couple of reasons -- mainly, that the success was not sustained, nor did it reach to one season above .500 in the SEC. Andre Woodson was a great, truly underrated player at Kentucky (his TD-INT ratio, leadership, poise, growth, the way he represented the program, etc). But I decided that Rich Brooks had to be there. Tim Couch and Randall Cobb did.

And Mark Stoops is really the answer to the timeless question, among Kentucky fans, "Can we recruit like that? And what if we do?" For good or for bad, he's a decisive figure in UK history and history will judge him to be that. Because succeed or fail, he's going to shape how Kentucky moves forward even well after him. He's telling the school and its fans a lot about itself and a lot of things that used to just be hypotheticals.

 

[WildcatDJ]

^Good points.

He may not be here for the next 20 years, maybe just the next few, but he is setting a precedent and raising fan expectations by showing what can be done here.

 

[JRowland]

^Good points.

He may not be here for the next 20 years, maybe just the next few, but he is setting a precedent and raising fan expectations by showing what can be done here.

Great point about expectations. Coaches after Stoops, no matter when that happens -- 2019 or 2039, who knows? -- won't be able to easily justify those low recruiting rankings especially if coupled with a slow start on the field.

Here's the other great thing about Stoops. I know I'd get in trouble with some if I didn't clarify this, but think worst case scenario, other than probation, motorcycle accident or something (which isn't going to happen) -- he can be UK's Ed Orgeron. Orgeron failed at Ole Miss, but subsequently left Houston Nutt the talent to win back-to-back Cotton Bowls. He's pumping talent into the program. Most fans and certainly everyone in the program believe Stoops will be the one to reap the benefits of that, but that's something else to consider in situations like this where a coach is really improving the recruiting. What really kills you is the coaching experiment with a guy that hasn't proven he can recruit, because he could possibly set you back his term and then another by leaving the cupboard bare.

 

[TotesMcGotes]

I'm defining modern football as a pretty long time period. Really, since UK's success in the late 1970's. Only four spots, I can't give more than one spot to the Rich Brooks era for a couple of reasons -- mainly, that the success was not sustained, nor did it reach to one season above .500 in the SEC. Andre Woodson was a great, truly underrated player at Kentucky (his TD-INT ratio, leadership, poise, growth, the way he represented the program, etc). But I decided that Rich Brooks had to be there. Tim Couch and Randall Cobb did.

And Mark Stoops is really the answer to the timeless question, among Kentucky fans, "Can we recruit like that? And what if we do?" For good or for bad, he's a decisive figure in UK history and history will judge him to be that. Because succeed or fail, he's going to shape how Kentucky moves forward even well after him. He's telling the school and its fans a lot about itself and a lot of things that used to just be hypotheticals.

I agree with Couch, Stoops and Brooks. i understand your reasoning that "you didn't want to put 2 players from the Brooks era". all i guess im saying is that you could replace Cobb with Woodson.

technically Cobb played in the Brooks era as well... he was a transcendent talent... but i don't think he is above Woodson in the UK all time pecking order... and let's be honest... some of the bias toward Cobb may be because he is a successful NFLer and Woodson never made it in the pros.

At UK... Woodson was more impactful and overall better.

but overall i agree. you know your stuff...

 

[jayhovah]

If you consider Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Georgia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon, Stanford, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, not to mention UCLA, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Notre Dame, etc -- and you start counting the schools out there that pull in monster classes every year, then I don't think the expectation of Top 15-20 is really justified. It's a goal, but the 2014 class was the product of, "Hitting on almost all (their) major targets," one person told me. They understood they batted way above Hall of Fame level in that class.

You are the expert and I fully concede that (without cynicism), but I don't see all those schools mentioned above as "automatically" bringing in top classes each year. I'd say the schools that UK is very unlikely to out recruit in any given year are limited to (from your list) OSU, Michigan, Florida, Fl St, Miami, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon (only because of the Nike connection) Auburn, Alabama, LSU, UT, and Notre Dame. I might also add Texas A&M off the top of my head. That's 16, so I don't think an expectation of being in the next 5 on an annual basis (as far as talent level, not necessarily the same as rankings each year) is unwarranted.

There is no reason a Kentucky, with brand new outstanding facilities, the SEC ties (money), and a top tier coach (not saying we have one, but Stoops could develop into that) cannot supplant a school such as South Carolina, Ole Miss, or even a Penn State on an annual basis. Not saying it will happen, but if I was coaching UK that would be my goal and I think it is realistic.

 

[JRowland]

I agree with Couch, Stoops and Brooks. i understand your reasoning that "you didn't want to put 2 players from the Brooks era". all i guess im saying is that you could replace Cobb with Woodson.

technically Cobb played in the Brooks era as well... he was a transcendent talent... but i don't think he is above Woodson in the UK all time pecking order... and let's be honest... some of the bias toward Cobb may be because he is a successful NFLer and Woodson never made it in the pros.

At UK... Woodson was more impactful and overall better.

but overall i agree. you know your stuff...

I understand your point, valid point indeed. Legitimate, well-reasoned take.

I do believe that history will judge Randall Cobb to be above Andre Woodson in the eyes of most Kentucky fans. Partly that's due to his NFL success and Woodson's lacking that. Partly that's due to Cobb's transcendent talent, which I do believe was better than Woodson's (tough to compare positions). But I will also add that Woodson, and every UK quarterback, is judged harshly. For a program that hasn't had much success, UK has had some darn good quarterbacks, and the best UK quarterbacks find themselves in the chilly shadows of Tim Couch and to a lesser extent Jared Lorenzen and some really old names from the past.

 

[JRowland]

You are the expert and I fully concede that (without cynicism), but I don't see all those schools mentioned above as "automatically" bringing in top classes each year. I'd say the schools that UK is very unlikely to out recruit in any given year are limited to (from your list) OSU, Michigan, Florida, Fl St, Miami, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon (only because of the Nike connection) Auburn, Alabama, LSU, UT, and Notre Dame. I might also add Texas A&M off the top of my head. That's 16, so I don't think an expectation of being in the next 5 on an annual basis (as far as talent level, not necessarily the same as rankings each year) is unwarranted.

There is no reason a Kentucky, with brand new outstanding facilities, the SEC ties (money), and a top tier coach (not saying we have one, but Stoops could develop into that) cannot supplant a school such as South Carolina, Ole Miss, or even a Penn State on an annual basis. Not saying it will happen, but if I was coaching UK that would be my goal and I think it is realistic.

You don't have to concede anything to me, I like the back and forth and we both have things to offer.

I don't think those schools automatically do a great job of recruiting each year, but I think most of those schools are pretty well locked into highly ranked classes barring a very small class and/or weird occurrences. Demographics, history, the fact of status as a consideration for recruits, etc., all playing a role there.

I like your singling out 16 schools as being pretty fixed high in the rankings. I have agreed with your take that UK needs to be near the top of the 'rest' beyond that list. The slight difference for me is the expectation that Kentucky be in the top five of the next tier. There is not much in history for me to say that's a reasonable expectation. I think it also takes a little something away from the other-worldly job Stoops & Co., have done, to say that UK should be expected to recruit THAT well, even given the fact that UK was recruiting on par with Kansas and Washington State for probably the better part of three decades before him. He is exceeding expectations and I think UK fans should enjoy that, come to expect it from Stoops, but also appreciate that he's going above and beyond what history says should be allowed.

You're right that UK has facilities, support, coaches -- to climb past South Carolina, Ole Miss or Penn State from one year to the next. I'm just saying that those schools have top-dollar recruiting gurus, ace recruiters, advantages and their own plans that look equally or (certainly in the case of Penn State and probably South Carolina) more 'objectively' likely to sustain the recruiting success, absent Mark Stoops' fantastic efort.

 

[screwduke]

Very good read. So pumped for this game. If Stoops beats Florida and we go on to 7+ wins Stoops will become a rockstar in KY.

 

[UKWinsAgainYep]

I hope this is a free content item, if not I'll make if free. Just to illustrate my point, here's what Director of Recruiting Dan Berezowitz told me in our multi-part interview with him after Signing Day.

"We'll look at early lists (of players on websites) but we don't recruit a guy because he's a four-star guy or a three-star guy. We have different views on where guys are ranked. In the end none of that really matters. The day after Signing Day nothing really matters. Obviously you want to recruit really good players but a lot of that stuff -- only so many teams can be in the top 20. There are a lot of teams that recruit at a high level. You've got really good players (available). It's (about), where do they fit? Do they fit what we want?"

From: Part III with Berezowitz

In short:

1. I don't necessarily disagree that they go into it "expecting" less than Top 15-20.
2. I do think there's an implicit admission there.
3. He's saying it's not all about rankings for them.

If you consider Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Georgia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon, Stanford, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, not to mention UCLA, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Notre Dame, etc -- and you start counting the schools out there that pull in monster classes every year, then I don't think the expectation of Top 15-20 is really justified. It's a goal, but the 2014 class was the product of, "Hitting on almost all (their) major targets," one person told me. They understood they batted way above Hall of Fame level in that class.

I've long believed, since Stoops got here, that UK needs to be at the top of the next tier of schools after the above groups I listed. If UK recruits comparably to Arizona State, North Carolina, Michigan State, etc., everybody will be thrilled with the talent level.

Good article, I read it. I do think you shortchange UK's potential on recruiting a little bit. Simply put, if UK starts contending for SEC East titles, there is no reason we can't start getting top 10 classes every year. It is all about wins and being in the SEC. If we can start winning big in the SEC, we can recruit with anyone in the country. I really believe that.

 

[JHB4UK]

Top 10 classes usually contain multiple 5 star athletes. Just cant see that happening at UK anytime soon, unless a couple of them are homegrown like Mr Wills.

 

[hmt5000]

Clemson has been recruiting like gang busters and they look very average. Other than the few absolute studs they've had the last few years they haven't done much with all that talent

Developing said talent is the key. We are getting guys with good frames and speed. We just need to not miss on any groups going forward and develop these kids right. We can't not get a lber like we did the first class when we really needed a good one...

It was the first year and stoops didn't have time so that happened but going forward if we have a year that we need an OT then we need to sign a good one that year so we aren't razor thin at a position.

 

[JRowland]

They have completely changed their perception, IMO. They used to fold right away when things went south. Recently Clemson has changed the trajectory of their series against South Carolina, they've played (usually) respectably against Georgia (winning a game), they beat Ohio State -- they are clearly #2 in the ACC with FSU as a strong recent #1. IMO, Clemson's got a lot better.

But you're right -- developing is key. Great point. They are in the conversation talent-wise. They have enough.

 

[vhcat70]

Thank you.

I'll take top 30 classes. Those average level players are more likely to hang around 4-5 years & develop. Top 5 classes often lose the 5 stars after three years such the 4-5 year Top 30 teams' players really aren't at the disadvantage you might expect against teams with Top 5 classes when a lot of young players who could blow up in a given game.

 

[UKWinsAgainYep]

Thank you.

I'll take top 30 classes. Those average level players are more likely to hang around 4-5 years & develop. Top 5 classes often lose the 5 stars after three years such the 4-5 year Top 30 teams' players really aren't at the disadvantage you might expect against teams with Top 5 classes when a lot of young players who could blow up in a given game.

Good point, I'd rather have a program like Mizzou that develops their players and redshirts most of them. If we can do that with good coaching and top 30 classes, we will be fine.

 

[Blue Decade]

If you read one thing I write this week, read this. Not saying it's great, but it's important.

It's not all about beating Florida. But UK does, sooner rather than later, have to beat Florida and win games 'like this'.

Games like this give Stoops a chance to become the biggest figure in modern UK history.

Stoops can change UK football

This article is well written. Thank you for sharing. Something needs to be clarified. It's a given that Kentucky will never be as rich of a recruiting state as Florida. That doesn't mean Kentucky can't have as much football talent as the Gators. Right now, Kentucky is probably the 2nd or 3rd most successful recruiting program in Ohio, among the 6 or 8 most successful recruiting programs in Georgia, and among the 10 most successful programs recruiting the state of Florida. McElwain will struggle to sign the top players in Florida because of Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Alabama, and Auburn. I believe McElwain is a better hire than Muschamp was, but Florida's football program has lost all the momentum Steve Spurrier and Urban Meyer built up. Florida's last 4 recruiting classes (2012-15) were rated #3, 4, 8, and 23 by Rivals. That means the Gators have a talented roster, but their 2015 class was a dropoff. Their 2016 class looks like a mild improvement so far, but it could fall apart if they can't win football games. I don't see more than 6 wins on Florida's 2015 schedule. If the Gators lose to Kentucky today, the wheels could fall off. Right now, Rivals has Florida's 2016 class ranked #13, just ahead of Kentucky at #15. If Kentucky wins today, I could see that flipflopping. By the time Florida visits Kentucky in Lexington again in 2017, I could easily see Kentucky having more overall talent up and down the roster than Florida. Ironically, some of Kentucky's best 2017 players like Ware, Westry, Baity, Randolph, Walker, Meant, Firios, Johnson, Badet, Montgomery, Meyers, Haynes are from Florida. With Jermaine Eskridge and Mac Jones on the way. Stoops' 2017 class is off to a great start too.