Pipeline
NFL production
Signing classes 2016 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
No recruits from this era reached the NFL.
Program year analysis and class DNA metrics for Tulsa (2016).
2016 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 2016 · NFL signee counts by recruit position
No recruits from this era reached the NFL.
The 2016 recruiting class for Tulsa showcases a mix of positive outcomes and notable underperformances. With an original class rank of 117 and a subsequent S2S rerank of 98, the program demonstrated some ability to develop players beyond initial expectations. The presence of three "College Starter" outcomes from low-ranked recruits highlights successful player development efforts, particularly for positions like ATH and DL, which are critical for the team’s competitive edge.
However, the class also faced significant challenges, as evidenced by two highly-ranked recruits being labeled as "Busts." Deya Mhiesen and Jordan Brown, who were originally ranked 81 and 1468 respectively, did not fulfill the expectations that accompanied their recruitment. This juxtaposition of hits and misses illustrates a varied performance across the recruiting class, indicating that while some players thrived, others did not adapt or develop as anticipated.
Overall, the 2016 recruiting class for Tulsa met expectations to some extent, largely due to the contributions of unheralded recruits who became starters. The S2S rerank improved, suggesting a reassessment of the class's potential based on the performance of lower-ranked players. The presence of both hits and misses within the class emphasizes the unpredictability of recruiting outcomes. In conclusion, the class reflects a mixed bag of results, with several players exceeding initial projections while others fell short.