February 8, 200719 yr According to the Courier today. Rivals has UK's class at #54. What would concern me more is they have UK's Class ranked 11th in the 12 team SEC Conference. However, Rankings make for good discussions. It really doesnt matter until 3 or 4 years down the line. UK Signing 28 kids, more than likely half will never make it 4 years. The same at UL and other schools.
February 8, 200719 yr Author What would concern me more is they have UK's Class ranked 11th in the 12 team SEC Conference. What's new? :lol: UK could've had the 11th best class in the nation and still been 8th in the SEC, the bottom half of the conference. :eek:
February 8, 200719 yr With a good recruting class and the returning players I look for UK to have a big season next year.
February 8, 200719 yr So back to the topic of the thread: ESPN Recruiting Class Rankings 41. UK 46. UL Is this correct? ----------------------- What say you, fans? Who did better? Would you trade recruiting classes straight up?
February 8, 200719 yr Go Cats! Even if Louisville did have a slightly better class, its nice to see UK be basically in line with a top 10 program.
February 8, 200719 yr So back to the topic of the thread: ESPN Recruiting Class Rankings 41. UK 46. UL Is this correct? ----------------------- What say you, fans? Who did better? Would you trade recruiting classes straight up? It's not accurate...ESPN has messed up their rankings...go with Scout and Rivals...in that they are the recruiting staples.
February 8, 200719 yr Go Cats! Even if Louisville did have a slightly better class, its nice to see UK be basically in line with a top 10 program. But they aren't. In reality they are more than 10 spots below UofL.
February 8, 200719 yr So back to the topic of the thread: ESPN Recruiting Class Rankings 41. UK 46. UL Is this correct? ----------------------- What say you, fans? Who did better? Would you trade recruiting classes straight up? Louisville's class has a higher per player rating. UK has more numbers. Each class fits each team's needs. UofL is a very good team that needed some specific players, they addressed that. UK has had limited numbers the past few years, they needed numbers and that was addressed. One downer for UK is that their highest ranked kid will likely never play a down of football for the Cats (against maybe). I'm sure both programs would stick with the class they signed. FYI, it isn't correct.
February 8, 200719 yr Do these rankings go strictly by on the field performance and numbers at combines, or is the character of the player figured in. If not, I believe I would rather have a 2 or 3 star with no problems who will work his tale off as opposed to a 4 or 5 who's a head case.
February 8, 200719 yr 10 spots of 119 is fairly "in line"Considering UK is always "Bigger, faster, stronger" than UofL I think being simply "in line" should be a scary sign.
February 9, 200719 yr ESPN Recruiting Class Rankings 41. UK 46. UL Is this correct? http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/recruiting/tracker/rankings?season=2007&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncf%2frecruiting%2ftracker%2frankings%3fseason%3d2007 Only time will tell! Both schools are skilled at finding talent that are overlooked by the big established programs.
February 9, 200719 yr UK is bigger, faster, stronger in football than Louisville? I don't see where you get that from. I just think the fact that they are PRETTY CLOSE in recruiting speaks well of UK considering UoL's success over the past season. Is that unreasonable?
February 9, 200719 yr Maybe I am supposed to read into the fact that UoL was ranked roughly 10 spots ahead of UK in a couple and recruiting rankings and behind UK in another, as being a negative thing for the UK football program. Should I hang my head over the clear destruction that the Cards put on the Cats this past signing day? :cry:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.