Table of Contents
In the world of college football, the anticipation surrounding National Signing Day for the Class of 2024 was met with limited drama. Many of the top prospects had already committed to their respective teams, setting the stage for an exciting season ahead. In this article, we’ll delve into the top recruiting classes of 2024, highlighting the game-changing talent acquisitions that have the potential to reshape the gridiron landscape.
Georgia’s Dominance
Despite a minor setback, losing five-star quarterback Dylan Raiola to Nebraska, Georgia managed to secure the coveted No. 1 ranking in recruiting classes. They achieved this feat by successfully flipping five-star defensive back KJ Bolden from Florida State. This accomplishment marks Georgia’s return to the top spot since 2020, reaffirming their commitment to building a powerhouse team.
The Elite Five
While Georgia leads the pack, other notable programs like Alabama, Ohio State, Florida State, and Texas round out the top five in the recruiting class rankings. These programs have consistently demonstrated their ability to attract top-tier talent and maintain their competitive edge. However, it’s essential to note that these rankings may change as programs finalize their recruiting classes, keeping fans on their toes and the college football landscape ever-evolving.
How do recruiting classes impact a college football team’s performance?
Recruiting classes play a pivotal role in shaping a college football team’s performance. They bring in talented players who have the potential to influence a team’s overall skill, depth, and competitiveness in the upcoming seasons. The quality of recruits can make or break a team’s success, and coaches invest significant time and resources in securing top talent.
Were there any surprises or unexpected rankings in the 2024 recruiting classes?
Yes, there were a few surprises in the 2024 recruiting classes. Some teams managed to outperform expectations, securing higher-ranked recruiting classes than initially anticipated. These surprise rankings often create buzz in the college football community and highlight the unpredictable nature of the recruiting process.
How does a strong recruiting class contribute to a college football program’s long-term success?
A strong recruiting class is the foundation for a college football program’s long-term success. It not only provides immediate talent but also cultivates future stars. Skilled players from these classes can make immediate contributions on the field and develop into key assets for the team. Coaches aim to build a pipeline of talent to sustain success year after year.
Did any underdog or less-recognized football programs make a significant impact with their recruiting efforts in 2024?
Yes, several underdog programs made waves with their impressive recruiting efforts in 2024. This trend showcases the evolving landscape of college football, where lesser-known programs are becoming increasingly competitive in recruiting. These underdogs are proving that determination, strategic recruiting, and a compelling vision can attract top-notch talent to unexpected places.
Rank |
Team |
Total Commits |
Avg Rating |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
Points |
| 1 | Georgia | 28 | 93.58 | 4 | 20 | 4 | 315.22 |
| 2 | Alabama | 25 | 92.82 | 3 | 17 | 5 | 300.75 |
| 3 | Miami | 27 | 90.78 | 2 | 11 | 14 | 289.44 |
| 4 | Ohio State | 21 | 92.92 | 5 | 12 | 3 | 288.81 |
| 5 | Texas | 22 | 92.24 | 4 | 15 | 3 | 287.27 |
| 6 | Oregon | 25 | 91.91 | 0 | 20 | 5 | 285.80 |
| 7 | Auburn | 21 | 91.99 | 2 | 13 | 6 | 278.87 |
| 8 | Oklahoma | 28 | 90.81 | 1 | 18 | 9 | 276.39 |
| 9 | Florida State | 22 | 91.07 | 0 | 15 | 7 | 274.63 |
| 10 | Notre Dame | 23 | 91.41 | 1 | 15 | 7 | 274.44 |
| 11 | LSU | 27 | 90.49 | 0 | 18 | 9 | 270.31 |
| 12 | Clemson | 22 | 90.37 | 2 | 11 | 9 | 269.09 |
| 13 | Tennessee | 21 | 91.07 | 2 | 11 | 8 | 265.87 |
| 14 | Penn State | 25 | 90.63 | 0 | 17 | 8 | 265.46 |
| 15 | Michigan | 27 | 90.22 | 0 | 18 | 9 | 261.14 |
| 16 | Florida | 18 | 91.31 | 2 | 9 | 7 | 258.37 |
| 17 | Texas A&M | 16 | 92.25 | 2 | 13 | 1 | 252.01 |
| 18 | USC | 20 | 90.38 | 0 | 11 | 9 | 250.76 |
| 19 | Nebraska | 29 | 88.25 | 1 | 7 | 21 | 247.15 |
| 20 | South Carolina | 16 | 90.89 | 2 | 9 | 4 | 242.84 |
Rank |
Team |
Total Commits |
Avg Rating |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
Points |
| 21 | Ole Miss | 21 | 89.58 | 0 | 11 | 10 | 242.56 |
| 22 | Wisconsin | 22 | 89.13 | 0 | 9 | 13 | 235.98 |
| 23 | Texas Tech | 22 | 89.17 | 1 | 5 | 14 | 234.47 |
| 24 | Missouri | 20 | 88.83 | 1 | 5 | 14 | 230.74 |
| 25 | Kentucky | 21 | 88.92 | 0 | 6 | 14 | 228.77 |
| 26 | North Carolina | 27 | 87.76 | 0 | 7 | 20 | 227.03 |
| 27 | Arkansas | 17 | 89.09 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 221.70 |
| 28 | NC State | 24 | 87.48 | 0 | 5 | 19 | 221.65 |
| 29 | Purdue | 25 | 86.94 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 216.26 |
| 30 | Stanford | 23 | 87.09 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 214.85 |
| 31 | TCU | 21 | 87.45 | 0 | 4 | 16 | 214.24 |
| 32 | UCF | 18 | 88.21 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 214.00 |
| 33 | Iowa | 21 | 87.92 | 0 | 5 | 15 | 213.76 |
| 34 | Georgia Tech | 24 | 87.20 | 0 | 3 | 21 | 212.59 |
| 35 | Mississippi State | 22 | 87.73 | 0 | 5 | 14 | 211.72 |
| 36 | Washington | 16 | 88.82 | 0 | 7 | 9 | 211.31 |
| 37 | Rutgers | 24 | 86.96 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 209.10 |
| 38 | Minnesota | 19 | 87.45 | 0 | 2 | 17 | 207.28 |
| 39 | Maryland | 22 | 86.64 | 0 | 2 | 20 | 204.68 |
| 40 | Vanderbilt | 20 | 86.97 | 0 | 2 | 18 | 204.10 |
Rank |
Team |
Total Commits |
Avg Rating |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
Points |
| 41 | Pittsburgh | 20 | 86.95 | 0 | 2 | 18 | 202.27 |
| 42 | Virginia Tech | 16 | 87.99 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 200.97 |
| 43 | Illinois | 19 | 86.78 | 0 | 2 | 17 | 199.96 |
| 44 | Kansas | 17 | 87.35 | 0 | 3 | 14 | 199.77 |
| 45 | Arizona State | 19 | 86.57 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 198.28 |
| 46 | Syracuse | 18 | 86.67 | 0 | 3 | 15 | 198.25 |
| 47 | West Virginia | 22 | 86.44 | 0 | 1 | 20 | 197.41 |
| 48 | Michigan State | 19 | 86.60 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 197.38 |
| 49 | USF | 27 | 85.06 | 0 | 1 | 26 | 196.43 |
| 50 | Arizona | 19 | 86.35 | 0 | 2 | 17 | 195.86 |
| 51 | Wake Forest | 21 | 86.18 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 195.70 |
| 52 | Cincinnati | 21 | 86.29 | 0 | 1 | 20 | 195.53 |
| 53 | Duke | 18 | 86.55 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 191.78 |
| 54 | Brigham Young | 23 | 85.48 | 0 | 1 | 21 | 190.38 |
| 55 | Iowa State | 22 | 85.72 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 189.75 |
| 56 | Louisville | 15 | 87.24 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 187.76 |
| 57 | Oklahoma State | 17 | 86.71 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 184.55 |
| 58 | California | 17 | 86.57 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 184.28 |
| 59 | Indiana | 17 | 85.86 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 183.81 |
| 60 | Tulsa | 25 | 85.63 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 179.96 |
Rank |
Team |
Total Commits |
Avg Rating |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
Points |
| 61 | Kansas State | 15 | 86.98 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 179.17 |
| 62 | Utah | 15 | 87.54 | 0 | 2 | 11 | 178.54 |
| 63 | Washington State | 24 | 84.84 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 177.54 |
| 64 | Toledo | 24 | 84.34 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 176.13 |
| 65 | East Carolina | 21 | 84.63 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 174.81 |
| 66 | Baylor | 14 | 86.75 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 168.77 |
| 67 | Colorado State | 19 | 84.16 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 168.35 |
| 68 | UCLA | 11 | 88.21 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 167.33 |
| 69 | UNLV | 22 | 83.61 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 167.27 |
| 70 | Memphis | 22 | 84.30 | 0 | 1 | 15 | 166.91 |
| 71 | Houston | 15 | 86.27 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 165.30 |
| 72 | North Texas | 28 | 84.14 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 165.21 |
| 73 | Southern Miss | 20 | 83.58 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 161.33 |
| 74 | San Diego State | 15 | 84.93 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 160.52 |
| 75 | Florida Atlantic | 18 | 83.96 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 159.87 |
| 76 | Virginia | 13 | 85.81 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 158.69 |
| 77 | Western Michigan | 24 | 82.88 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 158.62 |
| 78 | Miami (OH) | 21 | 83.15 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 155.40 |
| 79 | Charlotte | 20 | 83.92 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 155.01 |
| 80 | Boise State | 18 | 84.41 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 152.76 |
Rank |
Team |
Total Commits |
Avg Rating |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
Points |
| 81 | Appalachian State | 19 | 82.95 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 152.18 |
| 82 | Coastal Carolina | 20 | 84.77 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 151.35 |
| 83 | Ohio | 19 | 83.35 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 149.85 |
| 84 | Fresno State | 16 | 83.67 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 146.32 |
| 85 | Western Kentucky | 17 | 83.92 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 146.26 |
| 86 | Arkansas State | 21 | 84.30 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 145.96 |
| 87 | Marshall | 15 | 83.68 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 145.18 |
| 88 | SMU | 10 | 86.76 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 143.82 |
| 89 | Liberty | 18 | 83.99 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 142.06 |
| 90 | Georgia Southern | 21 | 83.31 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 141.89 |
| 91 | Tulane | 16 | 85.43 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 140.80 |
| 92 | Boston College | 12 | 85.31 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 139.40 |
| 93 | Kent State | 22 | 82.36 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 136.95 |
| 94 | James Madison | 16 | 83.28 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 136.88 |
| 95 | Northwestern | 15 | 84.86 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 136.54 |
| 96 | Northern Illinois | 24 | 82.07 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 133.99 |
| 97 | Texas State | 16 | 84.46 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 133.65 |
| 98 | Eastern Michigan | 23 | 81.26 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 133.54 |
| 99 | Colorado | 6 | 93.13 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 132.63 |
| 100 | South Alabama | 18 | 84.21 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 132.31 |
Rank |
Team |
Total Commits |
Avg Rating |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
Points |
| 101 | Central Michigan | 22 | 82.43 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 130.83 |
| 102 | San Jose State | 16 | 83.02 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 127.83 |
| 103 | FIU | 17 | 82.40 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 126.49 |
| 104 | UAB | 13 | 84.48 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 124.85 |
| 105 | Bowling Green | 22 | 82.45 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 122.74 |
| 106 | UTSA | 11 | 85.30 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 122.19 |
| 107 | Akron | 18 | 83.16 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 121.30 |
| 108 | Connecticut | 13 | 82.71 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 118.07 |
| 109 | Massachusetts | 13 | 82.76 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 117.91 |
| 110 | Louisiana Tech | 16 | 83.54 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 117.33 |
| 111 | Wyoming | 24 | 83.01 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 113.13 |
| 112 | Oregon State | 13 | 85.14 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 111.09 |
| 113 | Troy | 14 | 85.15 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 110.29 |
| 114 | Houston Christian | 10 | 84.07 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 102.61 |
| 115 | Temple | 16 | 82.39 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 100.55 |
| 116 | Hawaii | 14 | 82.57 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 100.50 |
| 117 | Old Dominion | 16 | 82.78 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 92.75 |
| 118 | Ball State | 23 | 80.32 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 90.12 |
| 119 | Sam Houston State | 12 | 83.17 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 85.63 |
| 120 | Louisiana | 13 | 84.82 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 84.69 |
Rank |
Team |
Total Commits |
Avg Rating |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
Points |
| 121 | Rice | 9 | 84.13 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 80.48 |
| 122 | Louisiana-Monroe | 26 | 83.94 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 79.86 |
| 123 | Georgia State | 8 | 83.88 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 79.24 |
| 124 | Utah State | 12 | 83.65 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 78.32 |
| 125 | Buffalo | 20 | 83.08 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 74.88 |
| 126 | Nevada | 7 | 82.76 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 72.71 |
| 127 | Navy | 19 | 82.83 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 62.04 |
| 128 | Sacramento State | 8 | 82.49 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 60.64 |
| 129 | Campbell | 7 | 84.29 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 56.08 |
| 130 | Middle Tennessee State | 21 | 82.86 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 50.37 |
| 131 | UTEP | 11 | 84.89 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 44.26 |
| 132 | Montana State | 8 | 83.91 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 41.34 |
| 133 | Portland State | 17 | 83.76 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 40.91 |
| 134 | Central Arkansas | 5 | 83.76 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 40.90 |
| 135 | Utah Tech | 3 | 83.68 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 40.63 |
| 136 | Eastern Washington | 13 | 83.50 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 40.13 |
| 137 | Jacksonville State | 10 | 82.70 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 37.79 |
| 138 | Lindenwood University | 7 | 82.63 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 37.54 |
| 139 | Jackson State | 6 | 85.89 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 31.69 |
| 140 | Stephen F. Austin | 11 | 85.64 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 31.19 |
Rank |
Team |
Total Commits |
Avg Rating |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
Points |
| 141 | New Hampshire | 3 | 84.71 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 29.33 |
| 142 | Tennessee State | 6 | 84.65 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 29.23 |
| 143 | Princeton | 6 | 84.33 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 28.58 |
| 144 | McNeese State | 2 | 83.98 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 27.89 |
| 145 | Southeastern Louisiana | 3 | 83.50 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 26.92 |
| 146 | North Dakota State | 14 | 82.50 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 24.92 |
| 147 | Air Force | 42 | 81.64 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 23.21 |
| 148 | Southern Illinois | 5 | 87.14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17.14 |
| 149 | Nicholls State | 1 | 87.00 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17.00 |
| 150 | South Dakota | 6 | 86.50 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 16.50 |
| 151 | Northern Iowa | 5 | 86.22 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 16.22 |
| 152 | Lamar | 7 | 85.52 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 15.52 |
| 153 | Idaho | 19 | 85.50 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 15.50 |
| 153 | Cal Poly | 10 | 85.50 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 15.50 |
| 155 | Lehigh | 2 | 85.25 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 15.25 |
| 156 | Austin Peay | 3 | 84.85 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.85 |
| 157 | Fordham | 2 | 84.52 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.52 |
| 158 | South Dakota State | 7 | 84.44 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.44 |
| 158 | Mississippi Valley State | 3 | 84.44 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.44 |
| 158 | Weber State | 6 | 84.44 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14.44 |
| 161 | Harvard | 12 | 83.44 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13.44 |
Rank |
Team |
Total Commits |
Avg Rating |
5-stars |
4-stars |
3-stars |
Points |
| 162 | UC Davis | 6 | 83.17 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13.17 |
| 163 | Army | 32 | 82.67 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12.67 |
| 164 | Northern Arizona | 2 | 81.56 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11.56 |
| 165 | Ferris State | 3 | 81.50 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11.50 |
| 166 | New Mexico State | 4 | 80.50 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10.50 |
| 167 | Pennsylvania | 5 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Montana | 9 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Holy Cross | 5 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | North Alabama | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Howard | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Western Illinois | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | North Dakota | 4 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Illinois State | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Yale | 6 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Georgetown | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Cornell | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Idaho State | 7 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Southeast Missouri State | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Delaware | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Indiana State | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Grand Valley State | 7 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Eastern Kentucky | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Sacred Heart | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Southern Utah | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Eastern Illinois | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 0 | Minnesota Duluth | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Saginaw Valley State | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 0 | Montana Tech | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | San Diego | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 0 | Pacific | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 0 | St. Thomas | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Wofford | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Wagner | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 0 | Kennesaw State | 13 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Central Washington | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 0 | Minot State | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 0 | Michigan Tech | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Colgate | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 0 | Southern Oregon | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | LIU | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Lafayette | 3 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Wayne State | 4 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 167 | Abilene Christian | 1 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
In conclusion, the top recruiting classes of 2024 in college football promise an exciting season ahead. Georgia’s resurgence to the top spot, the elite five programs consistently vying for talent, and the impact of recruiting classes on performance and long-term success all contribute to the intrigue of the upcoming seasons. Additionally, the emergence of underdog programs adds an element of surprise and unpredictability to the mix, making college football more exciting than ever.
FAQs
1. How do recruiting classes impact a college football team’s performance?
Recruiting classes are crucial as they bring in talented players, influencing a team’s overall skill, depth, and competitiveness in the upcoming seasons.
2. Were there any surprises or unexpected rankings in the 2024 recruiting classes?
Yes, there were a few surprises with some teams outperforming expectations and securing higher-ranked recruiting classes than anticipated.
3. How does a strong recruiting class contribute to a college football program’s long-term success?
A strong recruiting class lays the foundation for sustained success by providing the team with skilled players who can make immediate contributions and develop into future stars.
4. Did any underdog or less-recognized football programs make a significant impact with their recruiting efforts in 2024?
Yes, several underdog programs demonstrated impressive recruiting prowess, showcasing the evolving landscape of college football.
