Boom up to 69 in recruiting rankings.

[SCKnight]

4 star at UCF is different than 4 star at Alabama. 4 star at UCF is the top dog and expects to start right away and to play. See Richardson last year. If they don't play they are gone. Hence why many 4 stars at UCF will have little impact. Not as big of a chip on the shoulder to go out and compete for playing time as the 2 and 3 stars have. This isn't the case at top programs that consistently pull in 4 and 5 star recruits. Not saying that a 4 star can't reign it in and be a role player (see Josh Reese), but many times a 4* recruit comes with a 4* ego as well.

I think this is true in most programs. For us success has not been linked to star ratings. There is no doubt that getting the top talent is meaningful in terms of the ability to compete year in year out. But for UCF it has not been an indicator of who will a meaningful contributor. If your class is comprised mostly of 3 star talent then we have done well. If Frost had stayed we would likely have seen a small bump, but I don't think it would have been much more than in the 50s

 

[hardcoreknight]

Tell me where they made a difference for us...ever

It's hard to just use us as the barometer when we don't get very many of them. Are you really having this hard of trouble understanding the concept. That would be like saying if one year we got a 5 star and he didn't pan out. You then saying 5 stars are over rated and I don't want them. When you have a small sample size you cant do that.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

UCF signed 2 4*s this year (Gilyard and Ahmad). I think both have a potential to be impact players as early as next year, but I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't and others in this class are the standouts. It is a numbers game to an extent, but unlike Cordarrian Richardson who was flip flopping until the last day in 2017, both the 4 stars this year seem like they genuinely want to be at UCF. Gilyard was an early enrollee too.

 

[Poolside Knight]

It's hard to just use us as the barometer when we don't get very many of them. Are you really having this hard of trouble understanding the concept. That would be like saying if one year we got a 5 star and he didn't pan out. You then saying 5 stars are over rated and I don't want them. When you have a small sample size you cant do that.

+1


The other thing is I'm seeing a lot of UCF fans use 'but _____ was a 2 star' in a lot of these recruiting arguments while completely ignoring how recent 0-12 was. They don't realize it takes more than bad coaching to drop off a cliff? Maybe the reason UCF has never been consistent is bc the Program doesn't consistently recruit at a higher level. Power 5 Affiliation would help with this but that's a whole other argument.

 

[JAFFX2]

It looks like our final ranking is 67th on Rivals with 19 comittments. USF was 56th with 26. The Speedy WR from Texas was a great last minute get.

It looks like after the early signing period there are very few remaining recruits left and last minute flips were amongst the P5 schools mostly. We obviously lost a few to Nebraska and Heupel and staff did the best they could

Overall, it’s a good class considering the complete turnover in the coaching staff, but there were no last minute surprises in Heupels back pocket.

I’m expecting much better recruiting classes
moving forward, but I’m glad we addressed the offensive and defensive lines. Wish we could have recruited another LB or 2 and a tight end.

Agree on most counts except the USF comparison.
I know it has been discussed at length but those Rival rankings are BS. UCFs 247Sports Composite Avg of 83.69 is slightly better than USFs. IMO a better metric for comparison purposes. The bottom line, yes we will certainly get better classes going forward!

 

[Mikesi]

Agree on most counts except the USF comparison.
I know it has been discussed at length but those Rival rankings are BS. UCFs 247Sports Composite Avg of 83.69 is slightly better than USFs. IMO a better metric for comparison purposes. The bottom line, yes we will certainly get better classes going forward!

Agree. It appears Rivals relies on total recruits too much

 

[Poolside Knight]

Agree. It appears Rivals relies on total recruits too much

247 has a bigger database and is just better at rating than Rivals

 

[hemightbejeremy]

247 has a bigger database and is just better at rating than Rivals

Isn't rivals a component of 247 composite? maybe along with espn and 247?

 

[NU_FTW]

Isn't rivals a component of 247 composite? maybe along with espn and 247?

pretty much
https://247sports.com/college/appalachian-state/Article/247Sports-Rating-Explanation-81574

 

[Poolside Knight]

Isn't rivals a component of 247 composite? maybe along with espn and 247?

the Composite I think does but 247 has their own individual rating. And I think they bought Scout.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

the Composite I think does but 247 has their own individual rating. And I think they bought Scout.

Yeah I haven't found a ranking from 247, only the composite. I know you can go to the individual player on 247 and see their 247 rating which differs from the composite.

 

[SCKnight]

It's hard to just use us as the barometer when we don't get very many of them. Are you really having this hard of trouble understanding the concept. That would be like saying if one year we got a 5 star and he didn't pan out. You then saying 5 stars are over rated and I don't want them. When you have a small sample size you cant do that.

It is you that does not understand the concept. Nobody has ever said we don't want 4 and 5 star talent. What is said is that for UCF, star rating has not ever been a barometer for on field talent. So to get bent out of shape or judge a class or a coach based on a star rating is just getting worked up over nothing. When we start getting 4 and 5 star talent that actually perform for us maybe I will worry about it. Nothing has changed that expectation. If you think 13-0 has changed it guess again. We are still considered second class citizens.

+1


The other thing is I'm seeing a lot of UCF fans use 'but _____ was a 2 star' in a lot of these recruiting arguments while completely ignoring how recent 0-12 was. They don't realize it takes more than bad coaching to drop off a cliff? Maybe the reason UCF has never been consistent is bc the Program doesn't consistently recruit at a higher level. Power 5 Affiliation would help with this but that's a whole other argument.

So tell me then where is the big 4 star talent that was necessary for us go 13-1 (just 4 seasons ago) and 13-0 (last season) which is the reverse of your argument. Seems like a huge number of our national championship team was recruited before and during 0-12. Don't you know it takes more than just talent to to win? It takes coaching too. Maybe UCF is like every other G5 program that recruits 2 and three star players for the most part because the reality is that the 4 and 5 star want to go to a P5 program? Maybe we have inconsistent because that is the way 90% of ALL of the college football programs in the nation are. Just maybe a program that had beating just one P-5 program until 2007 is not going to be able to recruit solely based upon palm trees and coeds.

0-12 was a fluke and a blessing for UCF. There was no way that was an 0-12 talent team and that season was a wake up call for UCF administration. It brought us Scott Frost and Danny White. I think even an 5 win season and we would have been stuck with Brent Key and GOL.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

The recruiting bump from the 2014 Fiesta bowl gave us many of the impact players on the 13-0 team. Neal, Pittman, Gibson, Tre'quan Smith, Wyatt Miller, Connors, Franks were all in the 2014 class. If you can get 6-8 solid players a class you are going to be in pretty good shape.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

Josh Robinson was a 4 star

 

[ucfversusbcs]

and Storm

 

[Stormthecourt?]

and Storm

If we are including transfers in this discussion as well then can we go ahead and start trashing our only 5* recruit?