Will the last of the 2024 recruiting class please turn out the lights

[Jaxcat]

If I haven't miscounted, we signed 26 HS recruits in the 2024 cycle. By my count, 6 (or 7) are all that remain. Really begs the question: why even bother?

Most of the '24 class either redshirted or were used very sparingly their first year. Judging by many of the names I saw as part of that class, most played very few significant snaps in 2025 (maybe some were ST players, but I'm more talking about offense and defense snaps). So, they were part of the team for 2 years although not significant contributors almost without exception. Now, 80% of them are gone before they really make any difference for UK.

Maybe what we should do (and, probably, a lot of other school, too) is recruit 10-15 who we think can play significant snaps in their 2nd year and are great matches for the schemes we want to play and fill in with transfers. If we could keep 80% of that much smaller class (8-10 players each year) into their 3rd year and beyond, we could presumably have a pretty solid core group who've been in the program for a while and fill out the remainder of the roster with 1 and 2-year mercenaries, i.e., transfers.

Recruiting 25+ every year and see <20% stick past their first 2 years is a waste of time and money, imo. Until the transfer rules get changed, I don't see those numbers changing much.

[bthaunert]

In theory, your premise is a good one. The problem is if you look at the top guys in that class (the ones that everyone thought would get significant snaps and were top 300 recruits), they were all busts:

Jerod Smith - 89th nationally - 22 tackles in 2 years (534th ranked player in the portal)
Brian Robinson - 96th nationally - I don't think he registered any stats
Cam Dooley - 125th nationally - 23 tackles in 2 years (574th ranked player in the portal)
Jacob Smith - 214th nationally - 1 tackle in 2 years (535th ranked player in portal)

The best players in that class in terms of performance so far are probably Cutter (38th ranked QB), Gilmore (89th ranked WR) and Rodriquez (47th ranked TE) and they weren't the big gets from that class.

But yes, if you can put a lot more focus on portal guys, I think it's the way to go. But, I'd really focus on the guys that have more than 1 year left.

BTW, it's amazing how different it all is now.

[Bereacat]

If I haven't miscounted, we signed 26 HS recruits in the 2024 cycle. By my count, 6 (or 7) are all that remain. Really begs the question: why even bother?

Most of the '24 class either redshirted or were used very sparingly their first year. Judging by many of the names I saw as part of that class, most played very few significant snaps in 2025 (maybe some were ST players, but I'm more talking about offense and defense snaps). So, they were part of the team for 2 years although not significant contributors almost without exception. Now, 80% of them are gone before they really make any difference for UK.

Maybe what we should do (and, probably, a lot of other school, too) is recruit 10-15 who we think can play significant snaps in their 2nd year and are great matches for the schemes we want to play and fill in with transfers. If we could keep 80% of that much smaller class (8-10 players each year) into their 3rd year and beyond, we could presumably have a pretty solid core group who've been in the program for a while and fill out the remainder of the roster with 1 and 2-year mercenaries, i.e., transfers.

Recruiting 25+ every year and see <20% stick past their first 2 years is a waste of time and money, imo. Until the transfer rules get changed, I don't see those numbers changing much.

They def have to evaluate that. I went through the commitment list and I think there is eleven left from ‘24 and 5 from ‘23. They leave quick, and most are not ready when they arrive so basically never make an impact. I think you still have to recruit HS kids and blend in the portal.

[UKfan215]

Not being able to recruit, redshirt, stockpile and develop talent over time has drastically changed college football. It is also why programs like Alabama and Georgia have fallen off a bit in recent years. This seems to be why the SEC was so dominant for so long. Most of the best SEC programs used the above strategy. Now NIL and the portal have made doing that impossible and it seems to have harmed SEC programs more than any of the major conferences. It is also why Nick Saban likely called it quits when he did. Saban didn't want any part of this new era and I can't say I blame him.