Recruiting Re-ranked 2019 classes (UF #17)

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,420
59,319
We can have the pissing contest later about 247 vs. Rivals, but 247 re-ranked the 2019 class after transfers and non-qualifiers w/ UF coming in at #17. Alabama, UGA, Texas A&M, LSU are 1, 2, 3, and 4....Auburn 10, Tennessee 12. 4 other SEC teams are just behind us in the top 25, plus FSU.


Pretty good eval on their part:

Enrolled rankings: Transfers change everything

Enrolled rankings: Transfers change everything

Now that the signees from the Class of 2019 have arrived at their destinations and some of the lingering eligibility issues are being sorted out, we’ve recalculated the final team recruiting rankings for the class to account for prospects that didn’t make it to campus.

While the official 2019 247Sports Enrolled Team Recruiting Rankings include all players that enrolled at a school, in many cases in January, the transfer portal wasted no time sucking in and spitting out a few high-profile freshmen at new destinations.

The transfer trend’s infection of the freshman class resulted in an enrolled ranking that was already outdated, so with the list below we decided to take it a step further and use the 247Sports Class Calculator to include only the players from each 2019 class that are enrolled and on the team heading into Week 1 of the season.

With the summer addition of five-star athlete Bru McCoy from Texas and four-star cornerback Chris Steele from Florida, USC is the big winner and moves up seven spots to No. 13 in the transfer-assisted enrolled rankings.

17. FLORIDA (252.45 points)

Signing Day Rank: 9

Biggest Loss: 4-star CB Chris Steele (transfer to USC)

Top Transfer Addition: LB Jonathan Greenard (Louisville)

Buzz: The Florida class took one hit after another with four four-stars not making it to campus and two more transferring out before the season.
 

neteng

Fuga!
Lifetime Member
Oct 15, 2018
6,085
16,195
This is a brand new article....as you (unsurprisingly) continue to whistle past the graveyard.

New article about old news. Couldn't care less about what we actually ended up in the recruiting rankings .. its old news. Everyone knows our class went from pretty good to sh!te. You trigger so easily. The class pretty much sucked. But thanks for confirming it ... over and over.

Here is a new article about us putting a Man on the Moon. Its new!!!!

July 20, 1969: One Giant Leap For Mankind
 
Last edited:

Chomper

Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 5, 2014
1,314
35
The State of Florida is a gold mine of high school football talent. Our recruiting should always at least be in the top 10 and usually in the top 5. No doubt the brand took a major hit during the 7 long miserable years under wannabe coaches Mush-for-brains and Shark Boy, but 17th is ridiculous.
 

GatorJB

Founding Member
Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
3,459
6,139
Founding Member
so between the recruiting class and the performance during our first game, i'd say its butters 2.0 so far.

I wouldn't go that far. At least these guys do something in the weight room other than eat pb&j. But I do agree that recruiting results have not changed much since Mullen's arrival. We needed significant recruiting improvements, and it hasn't happened yet.
 

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,420
59,319
New article about old news. Couldn't care less about what we actually ended up in the recruiting rankings .. its old news. Everyone knows our class went from pretty good to sh!te. You trigger so easily. The class pretty much sucked. But thanks for confirming it ... over and over.

Here is a new article about us putting a Man on the Moon. Its new!!!!

July 20, 1969: One Giant Leap For Mankind

Perfect response from a homer!!
 

maheo30

WiLLLLLLLie! WiLLLLLLLie!
Lifetime Member
Jul 24, 2014
9,174
22,861
My understanding is that Mullen took chances with the 2019 class because he felt he needed to. The UF brand isn't what it used to be. The recruiting guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to have corrected that this year. From what I have read, the only guy he is taking a chance on is Leonard Manuel who is unlikely to quality.
 

InstiGATOR1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Mar 27, 2016
4,890
3,201
Pretty good eval on their part:

Actually this is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. (It is my fault not yours as I read it before you posted it here and I would try to blame you for me looking at anything you posted anyway.) I think the 247 roster talent exercise is at least interesting and possibly indicative.

This foolish piece of garbage treats guys who enrolled as if they did not enroll. The fact that someone enrolled at UF and immediately was seen not to have the talent to play at UF and left is a good thing not a bad thing. It frees up roster spots to try to get another player who does have the talent to play at UF.
 

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,420
59,319
Actually this is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. (It is my fault not yours as I read it before you posted it here and I would try to blame you for me looking at anything you posted anyway.) I think the 247 roster talent exercise is at least interesting and possibly indicative.

This foolish piece of garbage treats guys who enrolled as if they did not enroll. The fact that someone enrolled at UF and immediately was seen not to have the talent to play at UF and left is a good thing not a bad thing. It frees up roster spots to try to get another player who does have the talent to play at UF.

Disagree completely. The only thing I questioned was if it Greenard or Cox was the better transfer. Having a player enroll and leave is very rare - very. They had to do some sort of eval. The fact they took the time to assess and re-rank gives value - because we all know we didn't have "the 9th ranked class". It allows us to actually see where this class falls, even if the kid enrolled or not. I kept hearing, 'now our class is 12th.." (or 14th, or 15th...or whatever). This actually gives it a solid ranking and we can see where it actually ranks vs. speculation.
 

NOLAGATOR

God uses the unlikely to accomplish the impossible
Lifetime Member
Aug 20, 2018
16,979
21,201
I'll be the Pumper...Mullen will turn the recruiting around BUT many will always want something different.

I have one very serious question…I am not trying to be an ARSE:

What determines if Mullen is a success, failure, or just okay?

What if we recruit well but still are a 9-10 win team?

Or we are a Top 10-15 recruiting team but win?
 

Sec14Gator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Oct 8, 2017
2,165
5,576
It frees up roster spots to try to get another player

This is such nonsense. I don’t know how you follow us, read/comment on recruiting and don’t realize we have around 10 extra spots already. So, losing this guy just adds more to our unused scholarship list, it doesn’t free up a spot we would otherwise not be able to use.

It’s just one less scholarship athlete (a 5 star) that could have developed (savage and all that) into a real player and who was running with the 1’s occasionally.

He only sucked per those on here after he left. The same who say he sucks now we’re almost certainly touting “who’s criticizing Mullen about CA now that we have this guy killing it in practice.” Either then or now, it’s not an honest take. This type of position makes it impossible to take these views seriously in other instances as a result.
 

NOLAGATOR

God uses the unlikely to accomplish the impossible
Lifetime Member
Aug 20, 2018
16,979
21,201
I hear tell around these parts that you need talent to win. I for one say we should get some of it.

Matrix:

What constitutes talent? …Seriously

Do we need to average 4 stars? And does a 5 make up for a 3?

How high of a rank is enough to have continued success? 5, 10, 15…not below….?

And if you have a lot of 4-5 stars but some lowly back-ups?

I say this because Muschamp had talent BUT…

Zook had talent but…
 

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,420
59,319
I'll be the Pumper...Mullen will turn the recruiting around BUT many will always want something different.

I have one very serious question…I am not trying to be an ARSE:

What determines if Mullen is a success, failure, or just okay?

What if we recruit well but still are a 9-10 win team?

Or we are a Top 10-15 recruiting team but win?

About 99% of this board wants Mullen to succeed, but he's going to need talent to do it. If he keeps finishing outside of the top 10 in recruiting rankings (and 5th or 6th overall in the SEC) we can pretty much expect that's where we'll finish the year w/ the occasional higher (or lower) final ranking. These recruiting results point towards 3 to 4 loss seasons, especially when you lose to a Kentucky and/or Missouri. Is that success? At Florida? No, it's not. A 9/10 win team is basically what got Richt fired from UGA (although he did win 2 SEC titles).
 

Sec14Gator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Oct 8, 2017
2,165
5,576
Or we are a Top 10-15 recruiting team but win?

This is the issue: win what? 10-11 games most years, an SEC Championship every 6 or so years, and no national title, with very few years of playoff contention?

I’d say not a success. Perhaps not a “failure” but not the long term answer either. Could he be right for right now? Sure, so might Suzy be at 1:45 a.m., but . . .
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.