My prediction on how the Mark Stoops situation ends for Kentucky and who’s to blame

[EKYCat]

My belief is that, regardless of when Stoops leaves, the football team will take a pretty big step back and need someone to inject some life and enthusiasm back into the program. I don't see an IU situation where a coach brings in enough talent to immediately get us back to mid-SEC or above.

My wish list for the new coach/staff:
1. Reverts back to relying heavily on HS recruits and development within our system
2. Has an identity on both offense and defense: a) on offense, utilizes a varied system that emphasizes a DT QB; b) on defense, a more aggressive, attacking scheme vs bend-don't-break
3. Uses the transfer portal sparingly and for specific needs, not wholesale roster turnover and mercenaries
4. Is so good and successful that we have to worry about another program poaching him every year after his 2nd year
5. The team plays hard, disciplined, smart football with smart time management, play calling, situational decisions by the staff

I have no problem with relying on HS recruiting to eventually get UK competitive again. But I think it's a mix that will make this happen. Early on, it'll have to be through the portal.

[Matt Dillon]

My belief is that, regardless of when Stoops leaves, the football team will take a pretty big step back and need someone to inject some life and enthusiasm back into the program. I don't see an IU situation where a coach brings in enough talent to immediately get us back to mid-SEC or above.

My wish list for the new coach/staff:
1. Reverts back to relying heavily on HS recruits and development within our system
2. Has an identity on both offense and defense: a) on offense, utilizes a varied system that emphasizes a DT QB; b) on defense, a more aggressive, attacking scheme vs bend-don't-break
3. Uses the transfer portal sparingly and for specific needs, not wholesale roster turnover and mercenaries
4. Is so good and successful that we have to worry about another program poaching him every year after his 2nd year
5. The team plays hard, disciplined, smart football with smart time management, play calling, situational decisions by the staff

Great points all. If patience is needed, and it probably will be, I hope the fans are patient and supportive. Regardless of the record, initially, I hope for a stout def. and an exciting off.

[bthaunert]

My belief is that, regardless of when Stoops leaves, the football team will take a pretty big step back and need someone to inject some life and enthusiasm back into the program. I don't see an IU situation where a coach brings in enough talent to immediately get us back to mid-SEC or above.

My wish list for the new coach/staff:
1. Reverts back to relying heavily on HS recruits and development within our system
2. Has an identity on both offense and defense: a) on offense, utilizes a varied system that emphasizes a DT QB; b) on defense, a more aggressive, attacking scheme vs bend-don't-break
3. Uses the transfer portal sparingly and for specific needs, not wholesale roster turnover and mercenaries
4. Is so good and successful that we have to worry about another program poaching him every year after his 2nd year
5. The team plays hard, disciplined, smart football with smart time management, play calling, situational decisions by the staff

I agree mostly, but not necessarily on the transfer portal. Here is a look at the top 10 and how many transfers they brought in this year:

1. Ohio State - 10
2. Indiana - 23
3. Texas A&M - 14
4. Alabama - 11
5. Georgia - 10
6. Oregon - 11
7. Georgia Tech - 24
8. Ole Miss - 32
9. Miami - 20
10. Vandy - 20

Your 4 powers in that group are OSU, Bama, Georgia and Oregon. They all took in 10 or 11 transfers.
Your next tier is A&M, Ole Miss and Miami - they took in 14, 32 and 20 respectively
Your last tier is IU, Ga Tech and Vandy - they took in 23, 24 and 20 respectively.

In order for a school like Kentucky to be competitive, they are going to have to hit the portal pretty hard. They will need at least 20 guys a year most likely. The days of non-traditional powers relying heavily on HS recruits is over.

[Catsrock]

I agree mostly, but not necessarily on the transfer portal. Here is a look at the top 10 and how many transfers they brought in this year:

1. Ohio State - 10
2. Indiana - 23
3. Texas A&M - 14
4. Alabama - 11
5. Georgia - 10
6. Oregon - 11
7. Georgia Tech - 24
8. Ole Miss - 32
9. Miami - 20
10. Vandy - 20

Your 4 powers in that group are OSU, Bama, Georgia and Oregon. They all took in 10 or 11 transfers.
Your next tier is A&M, Ole Miss and Miami - they took in 14, 32 and 20 respectively
Your last tier is IU, Ga Tech and Vandy - they took in 23, 24 and 20 respectively.

In order for a school like Kentucky to be competitive, they are going to have to hit the portal pretty hard. They will need at least 20 guys a year most likely. The days of non-traditional powers relying heavily on HS recruits is over.

Agreed. I was going to post a similar point. But you getting the actual numbers is better than I would have done here at work.

Until there are rule changes again—eventually there will be—to NOT use the enormous pool of proven talent in the portal to better yourself will get you left in the dust. We’re already in the dust, but it could get thicker.

[Jaxcat]

I'd be OK with 10 transfers. But rebuilding most of the OL and WR corps through transfers is an indictment of our recruiting and development shortcomings, imo. Transfers that are, at best, depth pieces are pretty worthless in my estimation. Backup OL, WRs, CBs, etc - why go to the transfer portal vs internal development?

A team like KY is most likely not going to land the big, can't-miss, uber talented transfer that is an instant star. Certainly not 20 or more every year. We need better recruiting and recruiting every year for the same systems. With so many teams opting to run NFL offenses, I believe we should run something different. And I also believe there are many really good football players who don't fit an NFL system and KY might be a big name that runs a system they'll thrive in.

I do agree that a mixture will be SOP going forward. I'd like to see us less dependent on transfers in the future.

[EKYCat]

I'd be OK with 10 transfers. But rebuilding most of the OL and WR corps through transfers is an indictment of our recruiting and development shortcomings, imo. Transfers that are, at best, depth pieces are pretty worthless in my estimation. Backup OL, WRs, CBs, etc - why go to the transfer portal vs internal development?

A team like KY is most likely not going to land the big, can't-miss, uber talented transfer that is an instant star. Certainly not 20 or more every year. We need better recruiting and recruiting every year for the same systems. With so many teams opting to run NFL offenses, I believe we should run something different. And I also believe there are many really good football players who don't fit an NFL system and KY might be a big name that runs a system they'll thrive in.

I do agree that a mixture will be SOP going forward. I'd like to see us less dependent on transfers in the future.

This is the problem with UK football. Not going to attract or keep top HS talent. Never have, never will.

[Jaxcat]

^EKY,
I tend to agree with a caveat. Many ratings are based on 'projected' success at the next level as I understand it. But, imo, systems can make players. Mike Leach didn't get the 5* NFL-ready QB, but his QBs always lit up the scoreboard. Manziel was certainly not an ideal size for the NFL, nor is Pavia. I'm guessing we'd all agree that, playing in a system that takes advantage of their talents, both would be >>>> that what we've seen for the most part under Stoops.

Maybe UK doesn't NEED 5* OL, WRs, QB, RBs, etc. to be very competitive (see: IU, Vandy, Iowa, Georgia Tech, et al). What those teams seem to have is a staff that either recruits for or designs systems that fit their players' skillset, thus getting more out of them than their HS Rivals rating might suggest. So, yes, I agree that UK will not be able to land and keep those 4+* HS players. But, I'm of the opinion that, with the right systems and coaching, we can thrive at the next level of recruiting, picking up players who the won't fit into the style the elite programs play, i.e. NFL, and do a lot better than trying to beat those teams at their own game with inferior talent. Just my $0.02.

[Los Gatos]

^EKY,
I tend to agree with a caveat. Many ratings are based on 'projected' success at the next level as I understand it. But, imo, systems can make players. Mike Leach didn't get the 5* NFL-ready QB, but his QBs always lit up the scoreboard. Manziel was certainly not an ideal size for the NFL, nor is Pavia. I'm guessing we'd all agree that, playing in a system that takes advantage of their talents, both would be >>>> that what we've seen for the most part under Stoops.

Maybe UK doesn't NEED 5* OL, WRs, QB, RBs, etc. to be very competitive (see: IU, Vandy, Iowa, Georgia Tech, et al). What those teams seem to have is a staff that either recruits for or designs systems that fit their players' skillset, thus getting more out of them than their HS Rivals rating might suggest. So, yes, I agree that UK will not be able to land and keep those 4+* HS players. But, I'm of the opinion that, with the right systems and coaching, we can thrive at the next level of recruiting, picking up players who the won't fit into the style the elite programs play, i.e. NFL, and do a lot better than trying to beat those teams at their own game with inferior talent. Just my $0.02.

Absolutely agree with the added caveat that we are more likely to succeed if we utilize a scheme that is somewhat different from what the big boys are running.

Unfortunately, Stoops can't keep an OC for long enough to him to install a system and assemble players that fit the system.

[EKYCat]

^EKY,
I tend to agree with a caveat. Many ratings are based on 'projected' success at the next level as I understand it. But, imo, systems can make players. Mike Leach didn't get the 5* NFL-ready QB, but his QBs always lit up the scoreboard. Manziel was certainly not an ideal size for the NFL, nor is Pavia. I'm guessing we'd all agree that, playing in a system that takes advantage of their talents, both would be >>>> that what we've seen for the most part under Stoops.

Maybe UK doesn't NEED 5* OL, WRs, QB, RBs, etc. to be very competitive (see: IU, Vandy, Iowa, Georgia Tech, et al). What those teams seem to have is a staff that either recruits for or designs systems that fit their players' skillset, thus getting more out of them than their HS Rivals rating might suggest. So, yes, I agree that UK will not be able to land and keep those 4+* HS players. But, I'm of the opinion that, with the right systems and coaching, we can thrive at the next level of recruiting, picking up players who the won't fit into the style the elite programs play, i.e. NFL, and do a lot better than trying to beat those teams at their own game with inferior talent. Just my $0.02.

I understand. And I agree with the premise. Vandy and Georgia Tech, for what it's worth, absolutely utilized the transfer portal to become competitive.