2026 Recruiting Class Thread

GregInPitt said:
Yes, and a young man and family that not only researched the Engineering major that he wants to study, but also the Business school as a backup if I interpreted the article correctly. I'm a PSU engineer and way back then to some freshmen engineering students it turned out to be pre-business...... :oops:
Click to expand...
PH201 weeded out a large portion of engineering hopefuls
 
bdroc said:
Currently ranked 14th, 16th in average rating. 5th in the BiG.
I thought we'd move up with a couple of 4*s.
Click to expand...
They are low 4 star "rated". To move up it likely takes higher 4 star commits that raise the average player rating of the class..
 
bdroc said:
Currently ranked 14th, 16th in average rating. 5th in the BiG.
I thought we'd move up with a couple of 4*s.
Click to expand...
I hope we can hold at 14. Tennessee and Florida could pass us as they still have several guys left to fill out their class and have an average rating that is higher.
 
GregInPitt said:
EMECH 11, I believe. Energy cycles or sum such nonsense.....
Click to expand...
Maybe a different timeframe. I remember like close to 50% of people failing PH201 but don't recall that with EMECH. One of my roommates started out engineering and PH201 took him out. 3 of the 4 of us were good to go. The issue I think is that were doing scantron exams and every incorrect answer would be a common mistake whereby you knew 90% of the physics and misapplied one small thing. I suppose that is a function of hundreds of kids in the auditorium taking an exam. To me, that doesn't test the knowledge and application as much as partial credit grading (I did this when I taught at another university). If you have 90% of the concepts identified and applied and maybe make an algebra mistake combining concepts you actually get a listed answer that has 0% probability of scoring points on the question whereas someone completely guessing at random has a 20% or 25% chance of scoring the points.
 
LudicrousSpeedGO! said:
Maybe a different timeframe. I remember like close to 50% of people failing PH201 but don't recall that with EMECH. One of my roommates started out engineering and PH201 took him out. 3 of the 4 of us were good to go. The issue I think is that were doing scantron exams and every incorrect answer would be a common mistake whereby you knew 90% of the physics and misapplied one small thing. I suppose that is a function of hundreds of kids in the auditorium taking an exam. To me, that doesn't test the knowledge and application as much as partial credit grading (I did this when I taught at another university). If you have 90% of the concepts identified and applied and maybe make an algebra mistake combining concepts you actually get a listed answer that has 0% probability of scoring points on the question whereas someone completely guessing at random has a 20% or 25% chance of scoring the points.
Click to expand...
Don't know what I was thinking with the EMECH11. I believe it was ME22 which was the energy cycles course for non mechanical engineering majors that most engineering students thought was useless and some repeated to get by it. ME22 doesn't seem to be in the current PSU course catelog....

EMECH11 was "statics" which I thought was pretty easy, but some flunked as well. It seemed that in a class of around 20, about 6 or 7 of us got 90%+ on every test. About 6 got 70-80%. And then the rest got below 60%. I remember one of my frat brothers in my class failing it, but he ended up going to Med School and was an emergency room doctor in Erie.

First rule of Statics: "you can't push on a string"
First rule of Physics: "everything has to be somewhere"
 
I did IE, 94-98. The core four weed out courses for freshman were math 140 and 141, chem 12 and physics 201. 140 and 141 were calculus one and two.
For sophomores the core four weed out courses were EMch 11,12 and 13 ( or take emch 210 for 5 credits instead of 11/13) and ME 30, thermodynamics. Add in stuff like math 231 and 220 (diffeq and linear algebra) and semester is three and four would weed out a bunch of students as well.

I definitely agree on the Scantron grading on tests left a lot to be desired. Now that I’m in education it’s really an awful way to assess. I know it’s much faster, but that’s why you have all the TA’s to grade. I would bet there were thousands of times kids made a simple arithmetic or algebraic error and got a wrong answer, but they really knew the physics / chemistry or whatever course it was.

I know my first ever exam at Penn State was telling about how the faculty really doesn’t care about kids or even teaching, they just want to do their research. I got credit for Calc one in high school so I was taking Calc two and the first exam was just a review of volumes of revolution that you end with in Calc one. it wasn’t a scan Tron test but one where you had to show your work and I remember getting my test back and the score at the top was 96÷2 for a 48%. After class, I asked the professor to explain what the grading meant and he told me that I had to come during office hours, I couldn’t just ask him right after class. So the next day I go in to talk to him about it and he told me that I got a 96 according to my work shown to get the correct answers. But for every question, I used the opposite method that he asked for, discs versus shells. so even though I basically did more work than he was asking for, he graded me more on reading comprehension than my mathematical ability. Let me just say that during my time at Penn State there are only about three professors that I had throughout four years there that I would say were actually people who cared about their students.
 
Last edited:
Bison13 said:
I did IE, 94-98. The core four weed out courses for freshman were math 140 and 141, chem 12 and physics 201. 140 and 141 were calculus one and two.
For sophomores the core four weed out courses were EMch 11,12 and 13 ( or take emch 210 for 5 credits instead of 11/13) and ME 30, thermodynamics. Add in stuff like math 231 and 220 (diffeq and linear algebra) and semester is three and four would weed out a bunch of students as well.

I definitely agree on the Scantron grading on tests left a lot to be desired. Now that I’m in education it’s really an awful way to assess. I know it’s much faster, but that’s why you have all the TA’s to grade. I would bet there were thousands of times kids made a simple arithmetic or algebraic error and got a wrong answer, but they really knew the physics / chemistry or whatever course it was.

I know my first ever exam at Penn State was telling about how the faculty really doesn’t care about kids or even teaching, they just want to do their research. I got credit for Calc one in high school so I was taking Calc two and the first exam was just a review of volumes of revolution that you end with in Calc one. it wasn’t a scan Tron test but one where you had to show your work and I remember getting my test back and the score at the top was 96÷2 for a 48%. After class, I asked the professor to explain what the grading meant and he told me that I had to come during office hours, I couldn’t just ask him right after class. So the next day I go in to talk to him about it and he told me that I got a 96 according to my work shown to get the correct answers. But for every question, I used the opposite method that he asked for, discs versus shells. so even though I basically did more work than he was asking for, he graded me more on reading comprehension than my mathematical ability. Let me just say that during my time at Penn State there are only about three professors that I had throughout four years there that I would say were actually people who cared about their students.
Click to expand...
I'm IE 1973-77 and some course numbers were different back then from when you attended. The 3 EMch courses were the same for me, but the thermodynamics was called ME22 for me as I remember it.

Sounds like you had some Prof without a personality or interpersonal skills. My memories are not that way, although I was more of a just attend class and fill in the rest from the book type of student.

My one instance of getting extra help was during freshman English class, and I remember it clearly as the class was first period over from East Halls and my 2nd period class was in Hammond, with the English prof always keeping us a little late such that a couple of us alway walked in late for 2nd period getting a dirty look...... Early on the English prof gave us a sentence structure and grammar test and if you didn't do well they STRONGLY recommended you start appointments with one of the English grad students for individual help. I had this Indian gal who was very helpfull and patient, explaining sentence structure to me and giving me sentences to puctuate, etc. Some how it really stuck with me such that later in my career I would proof read and fix all the capital appropriation documents that would later go the the BOD of a fortune 500 company. Even though during my career I managed operations, wrote automation software in defense department languages, developed models for capital equipment evaluations and replacement priority, managed stuctural inspections and repair priorities for a very large international industrial corp...... , what I learned from that English grad student may have been the most valuable thing I took away from PSU. No matter what position or role you may have in engineering or a technical field, communication skills are a very big part of your success.
 
I'm reposting this on the 2nd page of this thread to hopefully get some feedback. I thought that given that the class now has 25 commits and it would seem that the class will likely top out at less than 30 that some here might have knowledge of where the staff would be focusing for the last few players in the class. Or is it at this point really just "best available"....?

Class now sits at 25 players. Pretty evenly distributed through all positions, numbers and talent wise.

So what's everyone here think about the strongest and weakest positions of the class so far? For me, even though the 5 OL commits include what seem like a couple of projects in Lubintus and Fuchs, Brown is a stud and Bright and Eziuka seem like pretty sold prospects. I also believe the LB class covers the bases and like getting a legit 6'1" 4 star WR in Brown, but I was hoping for at least 2 WR's with some size in the class. So here's my initial rating by position for the class. (I'll add more "thoughts" later as my adult son wants to go for a ride in the vette....). No real inside information on my part, but my opinion from what's available on line.

I also don't have any idea about the numbers the staff is shooting for by position or the max total they would take for the class. So the comments on the plan forward are obviously just my opinions.... And we know that if a true stud in the eyes of the staff at about any position is interested in joining the class that Franklin will likely do something to make room for him.

So at this point will the staff just continue to recruit the players that they had great relationships with that committed elsewhere, and/or will they continue to add a few players at positions that they believe they want another player at...?

Strongest to weakest, based on the current commits and what I believe are likely position numbers targets:
1. OL - a true stud, two likely development future starters, and a couple of true developmental players with size. A good OL class but maybe a 6th OL recruit could be added if the right one is available.
2. LB - 3 talented LB recruits. Likely finished at LB for this class (?)
3. DB - 2 Safety's, 3 CB's, plus Davis who likely plays DB. Seems full with 6 DB's, but Smith and Poindexter would likely take a stud at either DB position.
4. WR - 3 WR's with Brown and Rogers headlining the group. Class could use another talented WR, preferably a taller WR.
5. DE - 2 Edge recruits Jackson-Ford and Harley. Roster has numbers of young DE's. But staff would likely take a 3rd if they can get a solid talent.
6. DT - two DT's, but with only 1 in 2025 Barnes is likely looking for another DT for this class, likely a 1 tech with solid size.
7. RB - Staff trying to add a 2nd RB in Bonner, but Mickens is talented.
8. QB - 1 pretty talented QB, but the staff likely would replace Falzone if they could. Hard to do this late in the cycle.
9. TE. - One very talented athlete, likely a future TE. But could also end up at LB or ? Current roster has numbers and talent at TE.

Don't really see how to rate special teams.....

4 or 5 years ago I would have hope, realistic hope, that Franklin would pull in a couple high 4 star players or even a 5 star player down the stretch of the cycle, August to December. But with the current focus by the top uncommitted players on big NIL paydays it will be very surprising to me if Franklin can pull in the 2 or 3 positive surprises that we saw consistently just a few years ago..........

247sports.com

Penn State 2026 Football Commits​

Penn State
247sports.com
247sports.com
 
Last edited:
As mentioned on other threads, the team building model of bringing in raw talent with innate speed and quickness skills is a solid decision IMHO. Retainment, then supplement along the way. S&C, mental and physical maturation from ages 18 to 22, game experience, etc. The 2026 class should fit with this approach.
I like Huhn because he has a natural QB style, whereas Falzone does not. Plus, Huhn really wants to be a Nittany Lion, from what I've seen. And getting a few kids from those far reaches helps future recruiting and in making PSU a true national brand. BTW, telling my USC neighbor that NYC is a four-hour drive from Happy Valley surprised him.
 
Frank Lee said:
As mentioned on other threads, the team building model of bringing in raw talent with innate speed and quickness skills is a solid decision IMHO. Retainment, then supplement along the way. S&C, mental and physical maturation from ages 18 to 22, game experience, etc. The 2026 class should fit with this approach.
I like Huhn because he has a natural QB style, whereas Falzone does not. Plus, Huhn really wants to be a Nittany Lion, from what I've seen. And getting a few kids from those far reaches helps future recruiting and in making PSU a true national brand. BTW, telling my USC neighbor that NYC is a four-hour drive from Happy Valley surprised him.
Click to expand...
And based on how the 2025 roster was created, can this same approached be used with success, year after year? The first thing to do might be to have formal plan for rotating underclassmen, and possibly in critical situations against tough opponents, if they can be trusted.
 
Strongest group is probably WR. I think Rogers is severely underrated.

Weakest group on paper is Corner, but I believe Polydor might be our most underrated recruit. He didn't lose very many reps at a recent camp. Sneaky length at 6'1.

Priority for any other scholarships would seem to be:

1. DT
2. WR
3. DE
4. Safety

I don't think we take another QB, RB, CB nor TE unless a stud circles back.

Looking at the team rankings, 16 is most likely the floor of this group. There isn't anybody else likely to pull 10+ 4 stars that doesn't already have them. Re-rankings will be interesting and could help the overall perception. Ceiling is less clear, but barring any major flips 10-12 seems to be the extent of it.

Polydor, Chukwurah, and Rogers all 3 should be our biggest risers. Brown could end up a 5* (should IMO). Huhn could rise, but 10-12 ranked QB is likely the top.

Flip side is we'll have some drops. Mickens as an early verbal seems likely unless he's camped and excelled. Some of the others, not so much a worry. They aren't highly rated enough that it would hurt.

USC at the top is a surprise. Goes to show money means more than winning lately.

ND being higher than OSU caught me by surprise.

A&M and their money still epitomizes "recruiting like Tarzan, playing like Jane".

Look at Florida State sitting at 11 coming off 2-10. Interesting that they have 5 WR verbals, all ranked 350 and higher, and only 2 OL, both ranked 580 and 10xx.

Perhaps something that is lacking in recruiting ratings of team classes is how this builds a future team. This isn't 7v7. Of course, I don't know their roster, but coming off a 10 loss season I suspect that OL wasn't their strong suit.
 
Lazy Dave said:
Strongest group is probably WR. I think Rogers is severely underrated.

Weakest group on paper is Corner, but I believe Polydor might be our most underrated recruit. He didn't lose very many reps at a recent camp. Sneaky length at 6'1.

Priority for any other scholarships would seem to be:

1. DT
2. WR
3. DE
4. Safety

I don't think we take another QB, RB, CB nor TE unless a stud circles back.

Looking at the team rankings, 16 is most likely the floor of this group. There isn't anybody else likely to pull 10+ 4 stars that doesn't already have them. Re-rankings will be interesting and could help the overall perception. Ceiling is less clear, but barring any major flips 10-12 seems to be the extent of it.

Polydor, Chukwurah, and Rogers all 3 should be our biggest risers. Brown could end up a 5* (should IMO). Huhn could rise, but 10-12 ranked QB is likely the top.

Flip side is we'll have some drops. Mickens as an early verbal seems likely unless he's camped and excelled. Some of the others, not so much a worry. They aren't highly rated enough that it would hurt.

USC at the top is a surprise. Goes to show money means more than winning lately.

ND being higher than OSU caught me by surprise.

A&M and their money still epitomizes "recruiting like Tarzan, playing like Jane".

Look at Florida State sitting at 11 coming off 2-10. Interesting that they have 5 WR verbals, all ranked 350 and higher, and only 2 OL, both ranked 580 and 10xx.

Perhaps something that is lacking in recruiting ratings of team classes is how this builds a future team. This isn't 7v7. Of course, I don't know their roster, but coming off a 10 loss season I suspect that OL wasn't their strong suit.
Click to expand...
NFL first rounds are full of trench guys and CBs. Maybe that's where the effort is placed, then overpay for a few ringers at critical skill positions. 🤔
 
Lazy Dave said:
Strongest group is probably WR. I think Rogers is severely underrated.

Weakest group on paper is Corner, but I believe Polydor might be our most underrated recruit. He didn't lose very many reps at a recent camp. Sneaky length at 6'1.

Priority for any other scholarships would seem to be:

1. DT
2. WR
3. DE
4. Safety

I don't think we take another QB, RB, CB nor TE unless a stud circles back.

Looking at the team rankings, 16 is most likely the floor of this group. There isn't anybody else likely to pull 10+ 4 stars that doesn't already have them. Re-rankings will be interesting and could help the overall perception. Ceiling is less clear, but barring any major flips 10-12 seems to be the extent of it.

Polydor, Chukwurah, and Rogers all 3 should be our biggest risers. Brown could end up a 5* (should IMO). Huhn could rise, but 10-12 ranked QB is likely the top.

Flip side is we'll have some drops. Mickens as an early verbal seems likely unless he's camped and excelled. Some of the others, not so much a worry. They aren't highly rated enough that it would hurt.

USC at the top is a surprise. Goes to show money means more than winning lately.

ND being higher than OSU caught me by surprise.

A&M and their money still epitomizes "recruiting like Tarzan, playing like Jane".

Look at Florida State sitting at 11 coming off 2-10. Interesting that they have 5 WR verbals, all ranked 350 and higher, and only 2 OL, both ranked 580 and 10xx.

Perhaps something that is lacking in recruiting ratings of team classes is how this builds a future team. This isn't 7v7. Of course, I don't know their roster, but coming off a 10 loss season I suspect that OL wasn't their strong suit.
Click to expand...
I'm not sold on WR as the strongest group but otherwise agree with this take.

Brown is massively under-rated. He is a definite 5 star and has shown it at camps this year. His ratings are lagging from the injury penalty that was enforced last year. He's not just massively strong (615 squat this summer and I've seen the video; he did it relatively easily) but he's quick and has zero bad weight. He looks like a jumbo athlete to me. Would likely excel at DT as well.

It's interesting how USC, previously ATM, and others cycle in at the very top of recruiting for a bit but without on the field results, that fades. So I would rather lose top talent to those schools as we have seen with White, they may circle back to us. Unfortunately, White likely lost some key developmental time at ATM to go along with injury. Time to get back to work and reach some of that potential. We put DEs in the NFL and in the top rounds. I think we know what we are doing there. Same with OL and TE. WR, I'm not so sure right now although you can argue that the talent hasn't been there much either.

As far as the 2026 class. It's an average PSU class under Franklin IMO. There are a few guys that will be stars, several solid starters, a few more contributors, but probably half will not make the cut, get buried on the depth chart, and transfer out at some point. So we took a flyer on some guys, ok. A portion of those scholarships will be available in 2 years.

What excites me is 2027 and beyond. I love the 2027 start. We need to start talking that class here very soon, in another thread of course.
 
Along with the RBs, the OL is the team's strongest group. Opponent DCs know this and will scheme to attack any of its weaknesses, whether disguised blitzes, shooting the gaps, whatever. Coach K is the key here. He must exploit the OLs prowess, but at the same time, 4-D chess/game theory is still involved. For example, how would he have handled that red zone situation against OSU knowing what he knows now, and still with a better outcome? I don't want to see the OL get exposed like the Spanish Armada.
 
LudicrousSpeedGO! said:
A portion of those scholarships will be available in 2 years.

What excites me is 2027 and beyond. I love the 2027 start. We need to start talking that class here very soon, in another thread of course.
Click to expand...

Every class has a good portion of players that never see the field. Go back and look at the '22 class. The #5-15 ranked players largely is made up of top 300 kids that haven't done much if anything.

A forgotten factor is the return of the seniors this year. That will keep at least 10+ players from minimally reaching the 2 deep. Some of them will move on (think Tamere), some will stay (we have 3 RBs that must really like it here because I'm shocked we retained Smith, Martin, and Wallace with the return of Singleton and Allen), and some will never see the field (Ivey is still trying to breakthrough somewhere).

'27 class is intriguing. The '26 class began similarly though and these COMMITTED players always seem to drop in favor of UNCOMMITTED players. It's why I don't get upset about losing a Joey OBrien. Is he really the top player in PA? Or did he just stay UNCOMMITTED longer and keep camping?

Out of curiosity, which position group do you believe to be the strongest currently in the '26 class? And the weakest?
 
Lazy Dave said:
Every class has a good portion of players that never see the field. Go back and look at the '22 class. The #5-15 ranked players largely is made up of top 300 kids that haven't done much if anything.

A forgotten factor is the return of the seniors this year. That will keep at least 10+ players from minimally reaching the 2 deep. Some of them will move on (think Tamere), some will stay (we have 3 RBs that must really like it here because I'm shocked we retained Smith, Martin, and Wallace with the return of Singleton and Allen), and some will never see the field (Ivey is still trying to breakthrough somewhere).

'27 class is intriguing. The '26 class began similarly though and these COMMITTED players always seem to drop in favor of UNCOMMITTED players. It's why I don't get upset about losing a Joey OBrien. Is he really the top player in PA? Or did he just stay UNCOMMITTED longer and keep camping?

Out of curiosity, which position group do you believe to be the strongest currently in the '26 class? And the weakest?
Click to expand...
When I look at the 2026 class, it just feels really balanced. I don't see position groups that are head and shoulders above the others or any that I feel like we completely wiffed with plan C guys. Balanced is good. We lack the 5 stars although many of us feel that Brown legitimately should be. And the position groups have comparable talent. Even when I look at the 2025 class, it feels relatively balanced except we went with numbers (and some great talent at TE probably due to not flipping Olesh until the very end). Earlier Franklin classes felt imbalanced to me.
 
Frank Lee said:
Along with the RBs, the OL is the team's strongest group. Opponent DCs know this and will scheme to attack any of its weaknesses, whether disguised blitzes, shooting the gaps, whatever. Coach K is the key here. He must exploit the OLs prowess, but at the same time, 4-D chess/game theory is still involved. For example, how would he have handled that red zone situation against OSU knowing what he knows now, and still with a better outcome? I don't want to see the OL get exposed like the Spanish Armada.
Click to expand...
Yep, the OL starting unit and depth chart are very strong. In this thread we were giving opinions on the position groups of the 2026 recruiting class commits, and also commenting on what position the staff may be focusing on with future additions to the 2026 class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LudicrousSpeedGO!
Is NIL the primary reason we've lost top recruits for the 2026 class?
Replies
5
Views
92
LMTLion
L
Back
Top