If you trust the recruiting gurus, the slow steady climb in recruiting at Louisville championed by John L. Smith and Bobby Petrino has not only stagnated but has steadily declined in the wrong direction under Kragthorpe's watch. But before we at Card Chronicle jump to any rash Kragclusions about recruiting, let's see if we can handle the truth:

The Pipeline

What can I say about Louisville's recruiting pipeline that hasn't already been said about Afghanistan--bombed out and depleted. There's been a significant drop-off in recruiting an NFL caliber player--a "gamebreaker" if you will--over an SEC school, including guys like Brandon Heath, Peanut Whitehead and Elvis Dumervil. And speaking of Peanut, what happened to the Alabama pipeline that produced recruits like him and Kerry Rhodes? In 5 minutes of research, it appears that we've recruited exactly ZERO players from Alabama high schools since Kragthorpe took over. Why?

JUCO

When a decent chunk of your 3 and 4 star recruits has only 1 or 2 years of eligibility left along with academic or other D1 eligibility problems in their past, you're doing it wrong. And what does this say about the pipeline for high school recruiting? Not good things, methinks.

In-State Recruiting

Landing Brian Brohm and Michael Bush in back-to-back years is akin to winning the World Series of Poker Main Event...twice...in a row. But it's not that outlandish to think UofL can consistenly land some of the 3 and 4 star guys that have spurned Kragthorpe, including recent Louisville-area recruits like DT Brandon Newman (Notre Dame), LB Jordan Whiting (Ohio State), Kentucky's "Mr. Football" RB Rolandan Finch (Boston College) and CB Justin Green (Illinois). 

However, compare last year's Top 10 Kentucky High School recruits on Rivals.com with this year's and the in-state recruiting situation does appear to be improving in Louisville's favor. For the 2009 class, Louisville only had one top 10 in-state recruit (#10, RB Shenard Holton) while UK had four and even Western Kentucky (!) landed a higher-rated in-state recruit than UofL. 2010 is a good news story so far though with three Top 10 in-state recruits committed to play for Louisville next season and a few other offers still on the table. Fantasy Golf clap. But what were you guys doing the last 2 years?

Question Marks

Is initial improvement of in-state recruiting this year enough on its own to say that recruiting at UofL is "on the rise" again? Or has the recruiting dropped off so much since Petrino left that there's no other direction but up? What is the program telling the current recruits with regard to the head coaching situation? Seriously, I'd love to know what the recruits are being told about whose coaching next year. Are these guys signing with full expectation that Louisville will have a different, therefore better coach?

What's the biggest difference in terms of talent the last few years? Did John L. Smith and Petrino get lucky finding "diamond in the rough" guys like Lefors, Giacomini and Eric Wood who developed 5-star work ethics and became NFL draft picks? Or did JLS and BP hire and direct a better coaching staff who were able to develop the average 2 star guy into NFL material via 5-star training sessions, strength coaching, film study and game planning?

So, back to the point of this rant: Is recruiting getting better? I'll concede that recruiting rankings are often popularity contests only if you'll concede that 70% of the past 15 National Champions have had Top 10 Recruiting Classes.

Let's start by breaking this down in terms of the BCS teams and team recruiting rankings. There's currently 66 BCS teams which provides a pretty good target of where a BCS team needs to be in terms of talent. In 2007, according to Rivals.com, Louisville had the 41st best class with a 3.06 stars average. In 2008, the Cardinal's class was ranked 55th with a 2.59 stars average. The 2009 class was tied with Louisiana Tech for 76th with a 2.31 star average, and Louisville's 2010 class is currently ranked 61st  with a 2.33 star average, behind Temple, Indiana and Southern Miss. The point system for recruiting websites can be argued in terms of accuracy but I think anyone whose been watching the actual games would agree that the "eye test" proves the dropoff in talent that these Rivals.com rankings imply.

Louisville doesn't need a Top 10 class loaded with talent to compete for the Big East title and a BCS bowl game. The Cardinals do need a few good men, starting with the coaching staff. They need a gamebreaker on offense and defense and I don't see that on this team. Vic Anderson is a legit gamebreaker-in-waiting but with a struggling defense and increasingly porous offensive line, we have yet to tap into his full potential. Scott Long...we all love him but Kragthorpe doesn't have the arms or the schemes to test Long's gamebreaker mettle.

Code Red

Someone said on a Louisville blog (can't remember where) recently that if moral victories counted as normal victories, we'd be playing for the National Championship every year with Kragthorpe. Sadly, the NCAA does not recognize moral victories. At Card Chronicle, we use words like winning streaks, offensive proficiency and home field advantage. We use these words as the backbone of a football program on a collision course toward something. Our rivals now use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain my frustrations to a head coach who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very financial revenue I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I prefer he just said thank you, and went on his way. Either way, I don't give a damn how many seasons Tom Jurich thinks Kragthorpe's entitled to.

Recruiting isn't the only solution to winning more games. I would argue however that noticeable rises or dropoffs in recruiting are a reflection and predictor of your team's success over a period of time and when you compare Louisville's win-loss record with the declining recruiting rankings, it paints a pretty clear picture. And clearly, someone needs to order the Code Red on Kragthorpe. I think we're entitled.