Become a Stars2Stats Insider
Follow your teams. Get player reranks and program updates. Vote in fan polls and see what's new on Stars2Stats.
COLLEGE FOOTBALL RECRUITING OUTCOMES
See what happened after signing day.
Explore how college football programs and recruiting classes performed after the rankings — from player development to NFL outcomes.
Stars2Stats compares signing-day recruiting rankings with verified college and NFL outcomes across published classes. How we measure it
FEATURED RECRUITING CLASS
Boise State · 2007 Class
A class that finished differently than it began — see how development changed the ranking.
Boise State2007
#104#4100 places better than recruiting expectation
- Original rank
- #104
- Stars2Stats rerank
- #4
- Recruits
- 24
- Blue-chip rate
- 0%
- NFL players
- 8
- Public NFL earnings
- $53.6M
EXPLORE RECRUITING HISTORY
Explore recruiting class history
See how recruiting classes changed after signing day — from original rankings to player development and NFL outcomes.
Browse a program's class history
Open any program hub to walk its recruiting classes from signing day through verified outcomes.
Browse all programsClasses that exceeded expectations
Boise State’s 2007 class finished far ahead of its original recruiting rank — see how development changed the story.
Explore Boise State 2007Classes that fell below expectations
Auburn’s 2008 class shows how a strong signing-day rank can finish differently after player development.
Explore Auburn 2008
NATIONAL RECRUITING RANKINGS
See how the class finished
Compare the original recruiting rankings with Stars2Stats outcomes after player development, transfers, draft results, and NFL production.
- 1.Notre Dame
Original
#16
Rerank
#1
Movement
15 places better than recruiting expectation. Improved
- 2.Florida
Original
#20
Rerank
#2
Movement
18 places better than recruiting expectation. Improved
- 3.Alabama
Original
#2
Rerank
#3
Movement
1 place below recruiting expectation. Declined
- 4.Clemson
Original
#4
Rerank
#4
Movement
Matched recruiting expectation. Matched
- 5.Michigan
Original
#14
Rerank
#5
Movement
9 places better than recruiting expectation. Improved
WR POSITION-U PILOT
Wide Receiver Position-U
The first public Position-U pilot ranks 119 programs on wide receiver outcomes from 2004–2016 signing classes.
Production + development beyond expectations
- #1Ohio StateScore 2.1High confidence
- #2ClemsonScore 1.8High confidence
- #3WashingtonScore 1.5High confidence
- #4Fresno StateScore 1.2High confidence
- #5FloridaScore 1.1High confidence
MORE POSITION-U RANKINGS
- Quarterback#1 Oklahoma
- Running Back#1 LSU
- Tight End#1 Stanford
- Offensive Line#1 Iowa
- Edge#1 Florida
- Defensive Line#1 Clemson
- Linebacker#1 LSU
- Cornerback#1 Mississippi State
- Safety#1 LSU
NFL OUTCOMES
NFL outcomes
See which programs turned recruiting classes into NFL players and public career earnings.
Leading programs by public NFL career earnings in the 2004–2016 published coverage window. Figures are public career earnings in this dataset — not current salary or complete lifetime wealth.
#1
Alabama
- Public NFL career earnings
- $2.5B
- NFL players
- 111
#2
Ohio State
- Public NFL career earnings
- $2B
- NFL players
- 106
#3
LSU
- Public NFL career earnings
- $1.8B
- NFL players
- 104
#4
Georgia
- Public NFL career earnings
- $1.7B
- NFL players
- 89
#5
Oklahoma
- Public NFL career earnings
- $1.6B
- NFL players
- 83
FAN VOTING
Who was this class's greatest recruit?
Cast your vote for an authorized Greatest Recruit class poll — then explore the class outcomes.
Auburn · 2010
Poll status: Open for voting
Candidate preview: Brandon Mosley · Chad Slade · Corey Lemonier · +2 more
FOLLOW YOUR TEAM
Follow Your Team
Save your program for faster access to its recruiting history, class outcomes and fan features.
The truth in 3 stats
Era-wide aggregates from published 2004–2016 signing classes — where recruiting rankings matched outcomes and where they did not.
Top-10 recruiting classes
42%
Share of top-10 recruiting classes that finished outside the top 10 in S2S outcome rank for that signing year.
NFL outcomes by star rating
50%
Share of tracked NFL outcomes in our dataset attributed to recruits who were not five-star prospects at signing.
Development vs recruiting rank
+119 spots
Largest single-year gap between recruiting rank and S2S outcome rank in the published era.
These figures come from published 2004–2016 S2S rerank data. See how Stars2Stats calculates recruiting expectations, outcome rank, and development value in our Methodology, Data Sources, and Corrections.
What the rankings missed
Three entry points into the same argument: hype vs what actually happened.
Biggest recruiting misses
The classes and programs that were overrated by the star system.
Michigan 2016 — 0 NFL outcomes from 30 recruits
See the misses
Fresh insights
Outcomes-driven stories from the Stars2Stats data.
Class spotlight
The class whose outcomes rewrote the signing-day story.
Read the breakdown
Biggest miss
The clearest gap between recruiting reputation and what actually happened.
See why it missed
NFL pipeline
A program that sent more league value than the rankings implied.
Open NFL pipelines
Want more? Latest insights →
How to read Stars2Stats
Every rerank table compares expectation at signing to verified outcomes afterward.
Step 1
Recruiting rank
Where a signing class stood nationally on signing day — the industry expectation before anyone played a down.
Step 2
S2S rank
Our outcome-based rerank after careers are scored: college production, honors, NFL draft and roster results, and class-level value.
Step 3
The difference
The gap between those two ranks — development that beat the hype, a miss that underperformed, or hidden value the composites missed.
Stars2Stats compares original recruiting expectations against verified college and NFL outcomes. Our rerankings are based on an original S2S scoring model that weighs production, development, NFL results, and class-level value.
Current data coverage
Current S2S coverage includes published recruiting classes from 2004–2016. Additional years are added after scoring review, source checks, and methodology QA.