Pipeline
NFL production
Signing classes 2012 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
No recruits from this era reached the NFL.
Program year analysis and class DNA metrics for Kansas (2012).
2012 recruiting class — expectation versus Stars2Stats outcomes
Class medals
“Built on development, not recruiting rankings.”
S2S Class DNA
One-year metrics for this recruiting class
Recruits that contributed to program
Share who became impact players (starters, elite contributors, or NFL)
Based on only Low HS Projection → All-Conference or higher
Recruits that reached the NFL in any tier
Share with limited verified outcomes
Pipeline
Signing classes 2012 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
No recruits from this era reached the NFL.
The 2012 recruiting class for Kansas concluded with a mixed bag of outcomes. While the original class ranking was 72, the S2S rerank dropped to 111, indicating that the overall performance did not align with initial expectations. The blue chip percentage stood at 0, showing a reliance on under-the-radar recruits rather than elite talent.
Most of the class's success stemmed from lower-ranked recruits who became college starters, effectively exceeding their original recruiting expectations. The outcomes of Jordan Tavai, Keon Stowers, Jordan Shelley-Smith, Courtney Arnick, and Tre' Parmalee, all categorized as college starters, illustrate a positive trend in player development. This suggests that Kansas may have effectively identified talent that was undervalued in the recruiting process.
On the other hand, several higher-ranked recruits, including Taylor Cox, Charles Brooks, Turner Baty, and Neal Page, did not fulfill the potential expected of them, with two being classified as busts. This dichotomy highlights the unpredictability of recruiting outcomes and the challenges faced in talent evaluation.
Overall, the Kansas 2012 recruiting class met expectations based on the performance of many lower-ranked recruits who developed into college starters. However, the significant number of misses among higher-ranked players contributed to the class's lower S2S rerank. The class's mixed outcomes reflect the complexities of recruiting, where potential does not always translate into performance. A key takeaway is that Kansas successfully developed several undervalued players while struggling with higher-ranked recruits.