Mark Stoops

[Sbee]

has anyone paid attention to what he's done at UK? they are getting a ton of talent now, Rivals has them ranked #3 overall in the country, ahead of a lot of big names. he's getting a lot of highly rated Ohio guys that OSU isn't recruiting that hard, a lot of the guys we used to get. we've lost a few to them recently, namely darius west. this may be a one year thing since they'll get destroyed in the SEC next year but interesting development. the one good thing is that if Stoops happens to do well, then he'll jump for a better program. if he does poorly, he'll get fired. it's a lose/lose for kids going to UK

 

[Spartanmack]

depends on which brother he is more like - Bob or Mike. But are you surprised we're losing out to someone else for Midwest talent? Things don't appear to be changing for the better and with the way the conference has rigged the divisions, it's going to get harder not easier to recruit...

 

[Sbee]

depends on which brother he is more like - Bob or Mike. But are you surprised we're losing out to someone else for Midwest talent? Things don't appear to be changing for the better and with the way the conference has rigged the divisions, it's going to get harder not easier to recruit...

Ohio is a football hotbed and the top players are going to pick OSU, we've had a lot of success getting guys to perform and get to the NFL with the guys that OSU hasn't offered. Worthy, Bell, Ringer, and others have been all American type players from OH. the lure of SEC football is tough to turn down for these kids and stoops brings some excitement to the UK program, we're not the only people losing to them right now. we used to compete with Pitt and WVA for those under the radar Ohio kids but now the competition is a little tougher.

as far as recruiting, overall, stars do matter. a 5 star has a 50/50 chance of making the NFL, much better than a 3 star but that doesn't apply to every kid. recruiting is a lot more than just looking at rivals rankings, we've done very well getting the kids ranked between 5.6 and 5.8 on rivals and adding a red shirt year.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

It's good, but right now it's over-ranked in the rankings simply because of the # of recruits they have committed so early. Most of their class is done. They'll likely only drop in the rankings from now on and probably end somewhere in the 20-25 range when it's all said and done. I guess that's great for UK but not nearly as hyped as they currently are - sitting at #3. For instance, Michigan has just as many 4 star players and a five star player. The difference right now? Michigan has 8 three star commits, UK has 13.

 

[Sbee]

It's good, but right now it's over-ranked in the rankings simply because of the # of recruits they have committed so early. Most of their class is done. They'll likely only drop in the rankings from now on and probably end somewhere in the 20-25 range when it's all said and done. I guess that's great for UK but not nearly as hyped as they currently are - sitting at #3. For instance, Michigan has just as many 4 star players and a five star player. The difference right now? Michigan has 8 three star commits, UK has 13.

of course they are more likely to go down than up, they're #3 in the country. Rivals is actually doing a good job in their rankings system, they are rating a class based on the top 20 players. if you're short 20 they fill it in with 2 star ratings. that prevents the texas A&M's of the world from dominating because they take 33 kids while MSU or Wisconsin take 17

 

[Sbee]

It's good, but right now it's over-ranked in the rankings simply because of the # of recruits they have committed so early. Most of their class is done. They'll likely only drop in the rankings from now on and probably end somewhere in the 20-25 range when it's all said and done. I guess that's great for UK but not nearly as hyped as they currently are - sitting at #3. For instance, Michigan has just as many 4 star players and a five star player. The difference right now? Michigan has 8 three star commits, UK has 13.

also, let's not hijack this thread and make it about Michigan

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

also, let's not hijack this thread and make it about Michigan

I only brought up Michigan because the point was made that their class was ranked higher than many big name teams.

 

[Sbee]

I only brought up Michigan because the point was made that their class was ranked higher than many big name teams.

it's worth noting how well UK is recruiting but I don't see it lasting. there's no way they compete in the SEC, winning 8 games would be huge. kind of a catch 22 though because it's totally a stepping stone job

 

[Green and White 95]

It does worry me that he is dipping into Ohio's talent, but really, all he has done is convince a few kids that he is going to change Kentucky football and compete in the SEC. After 1 or 2 more years of losing to everyone but Vandy, things will get back to normal. Stoops sudden twinkle will fade with loses.

 

[Sbee]

It does worry me that he is dipping into Ohio's talent, but really, all he has done is convince a few kids that he is going to change Kentucky football and compete in the SEC. After 1 or 2 more years of losing to everyone but Vandy, things will get back to normal. Stoops sudden twinkle will fade with loses.

Right but those kids could really help us. Most Ohio kids that dont go to osu stay in the big ten.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Spartanmack]

Of course we're not the only ones losing kids to Kentucky but its another sign that we're not making strides in recruiting. I get your point about the diamonds in the rough but the B1G is coming back - at least the traditional B1G powers are - and I don't think this model of relying on 3 star over-achieves is a sustainable model for a consistently competitive team.

As for UK's class falling to the top 25 - we should be so lucky. I dont think MSU has had a class ranked higher than mid to high 30s nationally and 5th in the B1G under Dantonio.

 

[Green and White 95]

Of course we're not the only ones losing kids to Kentucky but its another sign that we're not making strides in recruiting. I get your point about the diamonds in the rough but the B1G is coming back - at least the traditional B1G powers are - and I don't think this model of relying on 3 star over-achieves is a sustainable model for a consistently competitive team.

As for UK's class falling to the top 25 - we should be so lucky. I dont think MSU has had a class ranked higher than mid to high 30s nationally and 5th in the B1G under Dantonio.

2009 MSU was #17 per rivals. We were 30-31 the next couple and have been #40-41 the last two. Before 2009 we were in the upper 40's. We are going to have our ups and downs, and also, some of our classes have only had 18 or so kids, so you don't get as many recruiting points. I think this years class will end up around 30 again. Not bad, but not great. We have a great coaching staff that does wonders with the talent we get. The amount of RS that happens is great, giving us more experienced players when they are ready.

Obviously I would like to see us get higher rated recruits, but when I see players we get that are 2* rated, and they get drafted in the NFL, I know we are doing something right.

 

[Sbee]

2009 MSU was #17 per rivals. We were 30-31 the next couple and have been #40-41 the last two. Before 2009 we were in the upper 40's. We are going to have our ups and downs, and also, some of our classes have only had 18 or so kids, so you don't get as many recruiting points. I think this years class will end up around 30 again. Not bad, but not great. We have a great coaching staff that does wonders with the talent we get. The amount of RS that happens is great, giving us more experienced players when they are ready.

Obviously I would like to see us get higher rated recruits, but when I see players we get that are 2* rated, and they get drafted in the NFL, I know we are doing something right.

Wisconsin has been the second best team in the big ten over the last decade and they never rank high in recruiting rankings. OSU gets the talent and lives up to expectations, no other programs really do that.

we need to land some more of these blue chip guys if we want to compete with OSU. yes we can catch them on a down year here and there but we need a little better if we want to take it to the next level

 

[Green and White 95]

Yeah, OSU has been tough and will remain tough, as long as they have Meyer. They're going to be a thorn in the heel for many years to come. Hell, our best year and their worst year, we still barely beat them. As much as I can't stand them, they're IMO, the best team in the B1G, and we will need better talent to beat them in the future.

 

[Spartanmack]

Rivals is on crack in 2009. Scout has MSU at 56, 37, 27, 32, 37 and 45 for 2008-13 and ESPN only has the top 25 and MSU isn't on it in any year 2008-13' the rivals numbers are 47, 17, 30, 31, 41 & 40 for those years. And per Rivals we've ranked 7, 3, 4, 5, 5 & 5 in the B1G during that same time - that is AWFUL esp considering what osu, mich and PSU went through during the last 5 years.

2010 and 2011 were fun seasons but the B1G was bottoming during that period. ill wait to see what the staff does with these classes when the B1G more competitive nationally before I say they do great things with the talent we get.

 

[Spartanmack]

Sbee - mich does it too. They have a longer history than the rich rod years and they are rebuilding/rebounding quickly.

As for your second paragraph - that sounds very familiar, where have I heard that before? You feeling the pull? Sbee, come to the dark side my friend. Together we can rule the blogosphere. Ha!

 

[Sbee]

Sbee - mich does it too. They have a longer history than the rich rod years and they are rebuilding/rebounding quickly.

As for your second paragraph - that sounds very familiar, where have I heard that before? You feeling the pull? Sbee, come to the dark side my friend. Together we can rule the blogosphere. Ha!

Michigan does get highly rated recruits but they haven't won a conference title since 2004. they are a great program historically but their reputation is much, much better than their record. no outright NC since 1947. they're living off a reputation as an elite team but the results say something different. OSU is the gold standard of the big ten.

Michigan is better than the RR years, but they still had highly ranked recruiting classes back then. also, we're better than the JLS/BW years.

 

[Spartanmack]

the whole outright NC argument is silly because the NC itself has been a joke forever. and they may not have won a CC since '04 but that's because only 1 team can win the title - they were competing for it pretty consistently against the corrupt football factory in columbus before the RR years and are looking more and more like they will be competing for it consistently again. There is no real reason to give those punks the satisfaction of hating them. I know you always will but you're doing yourself a disservice and harming your own credibility by nit-picking their history and record - it's impressive and they earned it.

Yes, we're better than we were in the JLS/BW eras - for sure. But as I said repeatedly on ESPN boards, that's not the bar we should be using to measure the program or draw conclusions about our coach. Until we're consistent contenders (top third of the league year in and year out) we're not a great team and our coach is not a great coach.

 

[Sbee]

the whole outright NC argument is silly because the NC itself has been a joke forever. and they may not have won a CC since '04 but that's because only 1 team can win the title - they were competing for it pretty consistently against the corrupt football factory in columbus before the RR years and are looking more and more like they will be competing for it consistently again. There is no real reason to give those punks the satisfaction of hating them. I know you always will but you're doing yourself a disservice and harming your own credibility by nit-picking their history and record - it's impressive and they earned it.

Yes, we're better than we were in the JLS/BW eras - for sure. But as I said repeatedly on ESPN boards, that's not the bar we should be using to measure the program or draw conclusions about our coach. Until we're consistent contenders (top third of the league year in and year out) we're not a great team and our coach is not a great coach.

what I am saying is that their reputation is better than their record. if you're elite, you win your conference more than once in a decade. OSU is an elite program, they're the only elite one in the big ten. in the last 10 years or more, Wisconsin has been much better than Michigan. it's not the big two and little 10 as they like to think.

 

[Spartanmack]

I understand but I'm saying it's not. Lloyd Carr finished 1st or 2nd in the B1G 9 times in 13 seasons (5 firsts and 4 seconds) and finished worse than 3rd only once. Since their last title in 2004 he went 3rd, 2nd, 2nd and then RR happened and Mich had 3 straight losing seasons. Since then, Hoke has already gone 6-2 in back-to-back seasons. If you want to say they're not elite because of what RR did in 3 years, ok but to me that is disingenuous.