More than you would think. I don’t think you can just go by offers because some kids have offers that aren’t committable. I see people say Bama offered him. Then his only OVs are to small P5 schools and though they have offers the schools aren’t even recruiting them
State of 2025 Recruiting
- Thread starter Rembrandt90
- Start date
Virtually every prospect regardless of rating has uncommittable offers reported online. But the discussion of a verbal offer is an expression of interest by the staff. The fact that the offer was put out there means that staff was interested enough to evaluate the athlete and fish for a campus visit at some point. Judging a prospect by reported offers may be flawed in some cases, but not as flawed as online prospect ratings by mostly unknown gurus whose evaluation qualifications are usually far below those of a college football coach. There is no perfect way for a fan with a computer to know how good a prospect really is. But his reported offers are a clue. If the prospect plays for a successful hs program, that's a clue. If the prospect plays football in a competitive class within a competitive state, that's a clue. If the prospect is a multisport athlete, that's a clue. His film is a clue for people (like you) who know what to look for.
I def don’t know what to look for. lol. I agree offers are better than online rankings. There is no way Rivals can properly evaluate 1500 kids in every class. There will always be kids they are way off on. At the same time there will always be the ones that coaches evaluate that don’t perform at the next level. Whether they peak early, injuries, or the coaches flat miss on their evals. There are so many variables
Very true. But I think you do know what to look for.
At this point, I believe some people are locked in as firm believers in online player ratings and online class rankings. This is a so-called "confirmation bias". If a person has paid money to subscribe to a website pushing online player ratings, it can be hard to acknowledge they need to be taken with a grain of salt (or two). If a person's favorite team generally gets excellent class rankings, there is an incentive to believe in them (and the websites understand this from a marketing standpoint). If a person has gone out on a limb and defended player ratings in the past, it can be hard to walk that back. It can be as simple as believing in player ratings because one just wants to.
Sometimes players with high player ratings have strong careers. Darian Kinnard, Drake Jackson, Landon Young, Josh Paschal, Lynn Bowden, Barion Brown, Trevin Wallace, Deone Walker, for example. If one is laboring under the confirmation bias of faith in player ratings, this is perceived as positive evidence (but it is incomplete and a SSS statistically speaking). Conversely, players with low player ratings sometimes become stars. Dickie Lyons Jr, Randall Cobb, Josh Allen (both of them), Benny Snell, CRod, Bunchy Stallings, Luke Fortner, Kenneth Horsey, D'Eryk Jackson, Carrington Valentine, Max Hairston, for example. If one is a believer in the online player ratings, these guys are "outliers". Sometimes, players with high online player ratings turn out to be busts. Kiyaunta Goodwin, Jared Casey, Moses Douglass, Michael Drennen, Dekel Crowdus, Grant Bingham, for example. If one is a believer in online player ratings, it's the coach's fault, or they are "exceptions".
The truth is that a complex grouping of factors contribute to success or lack thereof, and most of those cannot be evaluated simply by watching film or talking with an athlete. Size and speed count, but they are worthless if the player can't stay eligible, or can't stay healthy, or isn't very smart, or is impaired for some reason, or doesn't have a "motor". Nobody knows for sure how each and every athlete will respond to an opportunity under competitive conditions. Some people are better at evaluation than others are, and I am a believer in Coach Marrow.
The best way to think about recruit star rankings is they are predictions, not certifications. The analyst is simply projecting the success level the player might reach in college.
The easiest way to understand what star rankings are is to imagine a bell curve of let's say 3 stars. 70% or so of those players will fall at or close to the middle and perform at or slightly above or below a 3 star projection but if you go out further in one direction or another you will find a much smaller number that either over or underperform and at the extremes you will find just a hand full that reach elite or total failure.
The easiest way to understand what star rankings are is to imagine a bell curve of let's say 3 stars. 70% or so of those players will fall at or close to the middle and perform at or slightly above or below a 3 star projection but if you go out further in one direction or another you will find a much smaller number that either over or underperform and at the extremes you will find just a hand full that reach elite or total failure.
Last edited:
This is a very interesting point.The best way to think about recruit star rankings is they are predictions, not certifications. The analyst is simply projecting the success level the player might reach in college.
The easiest way to understand what star rankings are is to imagine a bell curve of let's say 3 stars. 70% or so of those players will fall at or close to the middle and perform at our slightly above or below a 3 star projection but if you go out further in one direction or another you will find a much smaller number that either over or underperform and at the extremes you will find just a hand full that reach elite or total failure.
What do we expect out of 3⭐️ vs 4⭐️?
Also program/positional fit” have to be factored in.
I’m of th opinion that UK needs to recruit bigger RBs. The system almost demands it. We don’t have that many explosive plays in the run game but live and die with workhorse 5-8 yard gains.
The best way to think about recruit star rankings is they are predictions, not certifications. The analyst is simply projecting the success level the player might reach in college.
The easiest way to understand what star rankings are is to imagine a bell curve of let's say 3 stars. 70% or so of those players will fall at or close to the middle and perform at our slightly above or below a 3 star projection but if you go out further in one direction or another you will find a much smaller number that either over or underperform and at the extremes you will find just a hand full that reach elite or total failure.
That's fine. But just so no one is confused, the bell shaped curve you presented does not accurately represent the outcome of the "player rating predictions". I think you are using the bell shaped curve to describe the basic concept of predictions and possible outcomes. The problem is that online player ratings are often wildly wrong about the prospects' college careers. I have presented a large number of examples, and there are many others.
People believe what they want to believe. It still boils down to this. People either believe in these online ratings, or else they don't. The decision to believe, or not, is subjective. Some people on either side of the debate may feel they have seen enough to be sure they are right. But that decision is subjective. There was even a "study" that is still cited by some. But scientists and statisticians understand that you can't have a valid study without standardization and a power calculation to determine statistical significance. Prospect evaluations are not standardized. Online evaluators are hired by their websites and are of variable skill and experience. Their qualifications and methods are not standardized. Definitions or "3 star", "4 star", and "5 star" are subjectively judged through the eyes of the various evaluators. So the study was what we would typically call "junk science". It is not valid. Researchers have a saying: "garbage in, garbage out". It is just another illogical reason for people to believe what readers already believed anyway.
You can measure a hs player's height and weight. You can electronically time his 40 yard dash. But you cannot predict if he will be healthy, or if he can learn what his college coaches will try to teach him. You cannot predict if he will maintain his eligibility, or if he can mentally stand up to the elevated level of competition at his chosen college. Most of all, you cannot predict his level of motivation 4 years in advance. That's why 2 star Josh Allen won the Bronko Nagurski Award and 5 star Kiyaunta Goodwin never made the playing rotation as an OT at two different programs. Those are just two examples. There are thousands more.
Call it what you want. Rating, prediction, guess, voodoo, whatever. Sometimes they are more or less accurate, sometimes they aren't. It's worse than predicting the weather, because weather radar is a real thing.
no doubt players list schools that they do not have a committable offer from
most top 100 players have offers from almost all of the big boys with most being committable offers
there is a reason the top ranked recruiting classes are playing for titles and not just 10 win seasons
Okay. What are the variables? Money, facilities, quality of coaching, quality of practice, quality of tutorial support, player retention, health, luck. All of these and many more. Sometimes high class rankings are associated with success. Sometimes not. In 2022, TX A&M had the nation's #1 recruiting class.
Every year, FL wildly outrecruits UK according to online class rankings. Every year, UK beats FL. This is just one example. Many more examples are available for open minded fans to consider. But many people believe what they want to believe.
philosiblog.com/2015/12/14/everything-we-hear-is-an-opinion-not-a-fact-everything-we-see-is-a-perspective-not-the-truth/
There are 3-400 kids that are 4 stars or higher every year. Not all have great offer sheets. Top 100 is different thing and not what you said. Even with that most top 100 kids aren’t playing for title or competing in the playoffs. There maybe 25 a class that will be on the those type teams. The other 75 are the 10 win teams or less you mention. There are a lot of kids of the top ranked teams that not top 100 guys actually most of them
Everything you said is dead on, all of us sign kids who were low ranked but ended up playing lights out, and have signed highly rated kids who couldn't see the field. It all comes down to no matter how good at evaluations a staff is, no one hits 100%. Some positions are harder to predict than others too, I personally think OL is the toughest.
11 five star recruits went in the first round last year, so there is your starting point
Another uncommitted 2025 prospect we know UK's coaches are actively recruiting, because he UVed UK in the last several days.
Cortez Thomas, DB, Lexington, MS
Thomas is a long athlete who plays CB at Holmes Co hs. He is being recruited by Coach Collins. He reportedly holds at least 4 SEC offers. The instate schools, MS St and OM, are believed to be his leaders. But he is still relatively early in his recruitment and UK is in it. Another good prospect.
Coach Collins was recently promoted to co-DC. He has developed a huge recruiting role on our staff, coveringor sharing multiple states including FL, SC, GA, AL, and MS.
Cortez Thomas, DB, Lexington, MS
Thomas is a long athlete who plays CB at Holmes Co hs. He is being recruited by Coach Collins. He reportedly holds at least 4 SEC offers. The instate schools, MS St and OM, are believed to be his leaders. But he is still relatively early in his recruitment and UK is in it. Another good prospect.
Coach Collins was recently promoted to co-DC. He has developed a huge recruiting role on our staff, coveringor sharing multiple states including FL, SC, GA, AL, and MS.
No doubt about that. The positions that typically require the longest period of development are understandably the toughest to predict, and OL is very high on that list. The interior DL positions can be, too, but Deone Walker shows that isn't always the case. Deone was huge when he got here, but it was mostly good weight on a very long frame. ILB can be another.
Another position that doesn't get enough recognition for being a developmental position is S. I have a friend who briefly played S in the NFL before entering the business world. He says S is one of the most physical positions on the field because of run support responsibilities. The S often collides with a downhill runner or a crossing pattern. Occasionally a younger S is physically ready. But most Power 5 athletes are not ready to play a lot of S snaps until they add good weight and strength. There is a certain combination of physical build and speed that lends itself to S, and the good ones are rarer than one might expect..
Except that is not what happens every year. I can point out many other drafts that have not upheld your belief, but you already know that.
We can go back and forth, but this boils down to what you want to believe. There is no standardization in star ratings or in the loose process that leads to their publication. Evidence that star ratings are reliable predictors of the college career is thin. I can point out example after example after example. But if you want to believe in them, you will.
Jim Harris, OL, Muskegon, MI
Harris is being recruited by Coach Wolford and reportedly holds at least three SEC offers plus PA St. 6'5" 300#. He UVed UK earlier this week and says he will return to Lexington for our spring game.
Harris is being recruited by Coach Wolford and reportedly holds at least three SEC offers plus PA St. 6'5" 300#. He UVed UK earlier this week and says he will return to Lexington for our spring game.
Harris's teammate, N'Kye Wynn, a similar sized OT, apparently also holds a UK offer.
Dalen Penson crystal ball'd to UK. Top 200 recruit
Super quick, played all over the field for HS. Looks like a slotWR if he can catch.
Talib Graham, LB, Daphne, AL
Graham is being recruited by Coach White. Reportedly holds at least 4 SEC offers plus FL St. UK visit not scheduled yet but is in the works.
Romero Ison, slotR, Baltimore, MD
Ison is being recruited by Coach Shorts. UVing UK next weekend. Reportedly holds at least 3 SEC and 3 B10 offers plus SoCal. PA St may be his current leader and he is scheduled to OV PA St on May 31. Excellent speed.
Mark Manfred, DB, Marietta, GA
Manfred is being recruited by Coach Collins and Coach Stewart. Multisport athlete with excellent length. Reportedly holds at least 7 SEC offers plus SoCal, Clemson, and Miami. Clemson, Miami, and Cincinnati may be his early favorites. Coach Collins is attempting to work out a visit by Manfred to UK. Could become a very important UK recruit.
Graham is being recruited by Coach White. Reportedly holds at least 4 SEC offers plus FL St. UK visit not scheduled yet but is in the works.
Romero Ison, slotR, Baltimore, MD
Ison is being recruited by Coach Shorts. UVing UK next weekend. Reportedly holds at least 3 SEC and 3 B10 offers plus SoCal. PA St may be his current leader and he is scheduled to OV PA St on May 31. Excellent speed.
Mark Manfred, DB, Marietta, GA
Manfred is being recruited by Coach Collins and Coach Stewart. Multisport athlete with excellent length. Reportedly holds at least 7 SEC offers plus SoCal, Clemson, and Miami. Clemson, Miami, and Cincinnati may be his early favorites. Coach Collins is attempting to work out a visit by Manfred to UK. Could become a very important UK recruit.
Coach Collins is recruiting Penson as a CB. He has been a QB at Sandy Creek hs. He is GA's 5-AAA second team all state QB. Also a track star in the triple jump, 100m dash, 110m hurdles, and 300m hurdles.
Kids can claim offers from anyone they want because coaches can't comment one way or the other on them. So lots of reported offers aren't there. UGA will not offer a kid who hasn't worked out for the coaches, that offends some and some jump at the challenge.
Thanks for the recruiting news. It's always great to read, but we're in the middle of U & O visits, so it's exciting to see how our staff are recruiting.
I'm going to throw out some statistical info that helps me understand a player's ranking -vs- his performance. (Statistical lingo can sound nerdy, so hold on!)
There is a difference between Correlation and Causative. Ex - Is there a correlation between both parents being tall and their biological children being tall? Answer - Yes, there is a significant statistical correlation.
Does both parents being tall CAUSE all their biological children to be tall? NO!
Regarding football rankings. Is there a correlation between teams with higher recruiting rankings having a higher winning percentage? Yes, there is a statistical correlation. (There is an even more significant correlation between teams that stack multiple years of highly ranked recruits and their winning percentage!)
Does having highly ranked players CAUSE a higher winning percentage? NO!. (Look at Rembrandt's example of TAm.)
Some fans look at recruiting rankings as CAUSATIVE, which statistics do not support.
Other fans view recruiting rankings as being CORRELATED to winning percentage.
We will never see how coaches rank the top 500 recruits. However, I feel certain there would be an even higher correlation between a coach getting EVERY player he wanted and their winning percentage. Having said that, I do believe Stoops and Co are getting a few players every cycle that are at the TOP of their wish list. We'll never know which players were not at the top of their wish list and no coach is going to say, "This recruit was our 5th choice for the scholarship."
Player development is a huge part of the equation, and this is an area where our staff excels!
Regardless of your thoughts on recruiting rankings, I have a 50/50 shot at being correct ;- )
I'm going to throw out some statistical info that helps me understand a player's ranking -vs- his performance. (Statistical lingo can sound nerdy, so hold on!)
There is a difference between Correlation and Causative. Ex - Is there a correlation between both parents being tall and their biological children being tall? Answer - Yes, there is a significant statistical correlation.
Does both parents being tall CAUSE all their biological children to be tall? NO!
Regarding football rankings. Is there a correlation between teams with higher recruiting rankings having a higher winning percentage? Yes, there is a statistical correlation. (There is an even more significant correlation between teams that stack multiple years of highly ranked recruits and their winning percentage!)
Does having highly ranked players CAUSE a higher winning percentage? NO!. (Look at Rembrandt's example of TAm.)
Some fans look at recruiting rankings as CAUSATIVE, which statistics do not support.
Other fans view recruiting rankings as being CORRELATED to winning percentage.
We will never see how coaches rank the top 500 recruits. However, I feel certain there would be an even higher correlation between a coach getting EVERY player he wanted and their winning percentage. Having said that, I do believe Stoops and Co are getting a few players every cycle that are at the TOP of their wish list. We'll never know which players were not at the top of their wish list and no coach is going to say, "This recruit was our 5th choice for the scholarship."
Player development is a huge part of the equation, and this is an area where our staff excels!
Regardless of your thoughts on recruiting rankings, I have a 50/50 shot at being correct ;- )
Great post. You describe and differentiate the subject(s) as well as I have seen. I do pay attention to rankings and stars, but with a healthy dose of skepticism, both with individual and team rankings.
Yes, there is a provable correlation between rankings and team/individual, success, but that correlation is not as pronounced as many with which people are familiar, ie, cigarette smoking and lung cancer, for example . . . a correlation far greater than 90 percent.
I’m 61, so I envision a recruiting “war room,” somewhere in the bowels of the football office complex, with a huge board with a list of five hundred names, ranked in order of perceived quality. If extant, I’m certain it would now be computer based.
I would give $20.00 to have Stoops/Marrow/White/Bush to tell me the truth, and let me know how the Coaching staff would measure each SEC class, each year. I would bet their rankings would exceed any commercial service.
And along with Class rankings, we have to acknowledge the primacy of some positions. Quarterbacks, Cornerbacks Defensive linemen, Offensive tackles and Wide Receivers seem to be the most critical positions. If you do not have dudes at these spots, or any one of them, you’ll likely pitch a .500 season, at best in the SEC.
Offensive guards, centers, running backs, safeties, tight ends and linebackers all trend closer to the middle of the bell curve of human size and athleticism, and most of these positions can be filled with more modestly athletically talented humans with great dedication to detail.
Some positions can be filled with the simply dedicated. But some positions are simply by the Grace of God.
If you ran into most of our former centers, linebackers, safeties and tight ends in the Mall, they would not immediately stand out from the crowd.
Run into Landon Young or Deone Walker at the Mall and you know it.
Really great Q-backs and Corners and Wide Receivers might physically blend in at the Mall, until you measure the freakish talent they possess. Good corners and WR in the SEC are just a tic or two away from Olympic participation. . . and some do the Olympics.
In short, give me the talent freaks at those most critical spots, and dedicated journeymen at the rest, and I think I could roll!!
Last edited:
Saban and Urban are retired. I’d like for them to drink “truth serum” (or enough drink of their choice) until they rated each position’s impact on winning.
No position can be rated the same number, and each position is ranked between 1 and 25. (11 offense, 11 defense, and we give them 3 special team players.)
I’m guessing both coaches rank QB as #1 and a special pass rusher as #2. I have no clue how they rate each position’s impact on winning after the top 2. Style of play obviously influences a position’s importance.
I’d like to hear that conversation!
One of the more unusual statistics that jumps out confirming the correlation is the success/failure of BCS and Playoff teams since 1998.
Until TCU won, year-before-last, no team with fewer than 50 per cent former 4 or 5 Stars had won a BCS or playoff game. TCU had a scant 18 former blue chip recruits when they upset . . . Michigan IIRC.
And they then got pounded by Georgia by more than 50 points in the Title game.
Even if the football playoffs expanded to 32 or 64, I would never think any seed below 3rd or 4th could make a Final Four, and the 3rd and 4th seeds would be rare, and likely beaten soundly in the final rounds.
With the transfer portal and a steadily increasing recruiting profile, Kentucky is knocking on the door of 50 percent former blue chips . . . with about 35 former Rivals 4 and 5 Stars next season, unless my math is way off.
Last edited:
I'm convinced that the combo of a special QB and pass rusher will win you alot of college f'ball games.
Another part of the recruiting question is, "What positions are easiest and most difficult to fill with players that can win in the SEC?" My guess (and it's a very amateur guess) is that RBs are important for winning, but lots of players can do the job well. I'd probably say the same thing about OG. However, there are not as many players who can do an elite job at LT or edge rusher.
These are just thoughts from an armchair GM.
30 years ago, I heard an announcer say that the SEC “sets itself apart from other conferences at three positions: Quarterback, Cornerback and Defensive Tackle.”
. . . . And the player on the field likeliest to frustrate a great Quarterback: a great edge rusher . . . .
. . . . And the player on the field most likely to frustrate a great edge rusher: a great Offensive Tackle . . . .
Sure, you need players with work ethic, competence and desire at all positions. But the same positions that garner the top 10 NFL draft selections possess the same relative high value in the college game.
And those are QB’s, dominant D-linemen/Edge rushers, Offensive Tackles and Cornerbacks.
Every year Cat fans are treated to the same discussions/speculation regarding proper playing positions. If Bubba can’t cut it at Corner, he can find a place at safety, or Nickle. If “the biggun’”can’t play OT, he will end up at guard, or center if he can snap the ball. If the defensive lineman/ is a step slow, he can move to offensive guard. And if the edge rusher is a tad slow, he might make the move to Tight End, if he can catch the ball.
I suspect these discussions/decisions occupy the Coaches and fans of 95 percent of college football.
Hearken back to previous years prior to Stoops, if we got ONE 4 star recruit that was a big deal. Now if we recruit someone that isn't a 4 or at least a high 3 we are disappointed.
Been 20+ years since I was coaching and a different game today. But I always felt good about a team with good OTs. I liked running off tackle and you can control an edge rusher. Of course QB was probably 1, but I would have OT at 2.
Did the services doing the ratings change their systems to include more 4 stars than previously? I don't really follow recruiting much but it seems I read that somewhere.
Hey grumpy. I thought you had said you were a track coach or judge of the track meets or something. May have misread it I suppose. So where did you coach bud and did you win anything state titles or anything like that? Thanks.
These was a significant increase in Rivals 3 Star and 4 Star players beginning in 2009.
Not much change since then.
Go back to the early 2000’s and Rivals ranked Rafael Little as the 9th best running back, nationally, but also as a 5.7 Three Star.
Since 2009, he would be a 5.8 Four Star at a minimum, if the 9th best back in America.
Last edited:
Good point. BTW, Little who was under appreciated in my view, had 4000+ yards total offense in his UK career....remarkable.
I have edited me post, above. RL was rated a 5.7 3 Star player in 2004, but the point remains: Rivals considered him the 9th best back in the US, and that would make him a 4 Star, today.
Examples: the 15th best 2024 RB in Rivals, from Meridian, Mississippi was a 5.8, 4 Star:
As was the 13th ranked running back in the 2023 Class:
As was the 16th best running back in the 2022 Class:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As was the 23rd best running back in the 2009 Class:
Examples: the 15th best 2024 RB in Rivals, from Meridian, Mississippi was a 5.8, 4 Star:
As was the 16th best running back in the 2022 Class:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As was the 23rd best running back in the 2009 Class:
Last edited:
OL is probably the hardest position group to evaluate. You can look at guys like Young, Goodwin, and a handful of 5.7’s that never panned out while guys like Toth and Stallings (2*), Stenburg, Swindle, Cox, Horsey were all low rated guys with few offers that have turned out to be some of the better linemen to pass through here. Have to give Schlarman tons of credit for development but all those guys had a mean streak that you can’t teach.
Similar threads
