Revisionist history: Re-ranking UGA’s 2017 class

THE CLASS

Georgia’s 2017 signing class was ranked No. 3 in the nation, only trailing No. 1 Alabama and No. 2 Ohio State, while just ahead of No. 4 Michigan and No. 5 Florida State. At the time, the No. 3 ranking was tied for the Bulldogs’ highest during the Rivals era. Fifteen years before in 2002, the first class in which Mark Richt’s coaching staff had a full cycle to recruit had also been ranked No. 3.

Despite missing out on top targets Aubrey Solomon (to Michigan), Jamyest Williams (South Carolina), and Markaviest Bryant (Auburn), the 2017 class was regarded as stellar. Headed by five-star prospects Isaiah Wilson and Jake Fromm, the class was considered by UGASports, at the time, as the fourth-most highly touted signing class in the modern era of Georgia football, and the Bulldogs’ most highly regarded in nearly 20 years. In addition, Georgia’s 3.69 “star average” per signee was its highest in the Rivals era.

After annually averaging 4.3 Rivals100 signees over a 17-year span (2000-2016), Georgia signed eight in 2017, which tied the 2015 class for the most Rivals100 signees signed by the Bulldogs. Georgia also signed the No. 101 overall prospect, wide receiver Mark Webb, along with four others in the Rivals250: No. 132 Deangelo Gibbs, No. 163 William Poole, No. 177 Robert Beal, and No. 185 Malik Herring.

After Georgia signed a combined 16 offensive linemen in five years from 2012-2016 (3.2 annual average), the Bulldogs landed six in 2017. Georgia hadn’t signed more in a single year since 2007, when the Bulldogs inked eight along their offensive front.

Georgia also lured more than its fair share of “athletes” in 2017. After the Bulldogs totaled a combined 11 athletes the previous eight years (2009-2016), they signed a staggering six: Trey Blount, Jeremiah Holloman, Tray Bishop, Eric Stokes, Matthew Landers, and Gibbs.

Below is the original ranking of Georgia’s 2017 class (player listed with position according to Rivals). Note: To rank those signees with identical Rivals Ratings, the recruits’ rankings (overall, position, and state), along with the opinions of our recruiting writers, were considered.