[...]Homepage | MrSEC.com[...]…

Please, just look at the facts of the last 2 UK recruiting classes, it will probably shock you that we did not sign 25 guys with O to 2 star ratings. We actually signed recruits who were better than inking a dead body, they were not zero stars! I guarantee you, I promise you, these 6 commits who are right now 0 star and thus in your eyes makes us a "disappointment" will mostly end up 3* prospects on Rivals.com. Again, check our 2010 and 2011 recruiting classes if you think I'm just being a blind homer, almost all 3* and above.

If we were using ESPN or Scout numbers, we'd care. But we aren't. We use Rivals. We've always used Rivals. Just a matter of preference.

As for Rivals, as Doc Johnson has stated, their site had UT's commits as a 3-star and a 0-star as of yesterday afternoon.

John

Wow. So ugly over a list. We go to Rivals, pool their information for the conference, and lay it out for you. And after three years, we're quite aware of what 0-stars mean. However, if you think those 0s will turn into 4s and 5s, you're kidding yourself. The best players in the country — at least those believed to be the best by their high school coaches — have all had miles of game tape sent out. That's why we assign one point for 0-stars at this point. In the end, they'll get something… most likely 2 stars. Maybe 3 if a kid has a super senior season. But we haven't seen a whole lot of guys who are 0s in July turn into 3s, 4s or 5s by the following February.

Of course, we don't believe recruiting rankings are infallible to begin with, but when we don't do our comparisons, readers complain. And as you and a few others have already proven, when we DO do the comparisons, other readers will complain.

One last note, you take to calling me a moron for apparently stating that UK would have to be considered a disappointment at this point due to six 0-star prospects on their list. But you yourself write that the 0 stars are given when Rivals doesn't "have the slightest friggin clue who the recruit is." I guess that means it's a good thing Kentucky is lining up guys that Rivals has never heard of.

In the end, this is free info. If you don't like it, you're free to go elsewhere.

John

As of posting time yesterday, these numbers were accurate according to Rivals.com, as we said in the piece.

John

"Players are also ranked on their quality with a star ranking. A five-star prospect is considered to be one of the nation's top 25-30 players, four star is a top 250-300 or so player, three-stars is a top 750 level player, two stars means the player is a mid-major prospect and one star means the player is not ranked."

Guess we will see (unless Vanderbilt wins its 4 OOC's and Ole Miss and picks off another SEC win, unlikely but possible).