USDA S1 Blue Chip Hub Report - California, Florida, Georgia, & Texas
🏈 USDA: THE MAGAZINE
🗺️ THE S1 BLUE-CHIP TALENT HUB REPORT
162 Blue Chips. Four Superstates. 34 Programs with Current Leads. And a Recruiting Map That Is Already Exposing Who Wants to Build Through the Nation’s Richest Talent Areas.
The Five-Star Report told us who the crown jewels are.
The Talent Hub Report tells us something broader:
Where are USDA programs actually trying to build their rosters?
Across California, Florida, Georgia and Texas, there are 162 blue-chip prospects.
That is enough talent to shape not just one recruiting class, but the competitive structure of the league for years.
And once we move beyond the five-stars, the recruiting landscape becomes much more revealing.
Some schools are clearly trying to dominate home.
Some are targeting neighboring states.
Some are using one major hub almost like a second recruiting base.
And a small group of programs — notably USC and Texas A&M — are appearing across multiple elite regions, suggesting an intentional effort to build nationally from the country’s deepest talent pools.
There are also some early warning signs.
Miami is not currently converting Florida at the level you would expect.
Georgia is heavily involved at home but is being invaded at an extraordinary rate.
Oregon keeps getting into major California recruitments without winning many of them yet.
Texas is strong across the depth of its own state, but the five-star layer is much more fragmented.
UCLA may quietly be having one of the best home-state recruiting starts in USDA.
And perhaps most importantly:
There isn’t one universal way to win these hubs.
Texas rewards market share.
Florida rewards evaluation and volume.
Georgia rewards the ability to defend your borders.
California rewards elite retention.
This is the first full map of where USDA talent lives — and who is actually getting to it.
⸻
📊 THE FOUR SUPERSTATES
The four identified Blue-Chip Hubs contain:
162 total blue-chip prospects
Broken down:
TEXAS — 55
5 Five-Stars
50 Four-Stars
FLORIDA — 43
1 Five-Star
42 Four-Stars
GEORGIA — 35
4 Five-Stars
31 Four-Stars
CALIFORNIA — 29
5 Five-Stars
24 Four-Stars
Their share of the four-hub market:
Texas — 34.0%
Florida — 26.5%
Georgia — 21.6%
California — 17.9%
More than one-third of all the talent in this report comes from Texas alone.
But raw volume isn’t the whole story.
⸻
💎 FIVE-STAR CONCENTRATION
Here’s where the states begin to look completely different.
California
5 of 29 blue chips are five-stars.
17.2%
Georgia
4 of 35.
11.4%
Texas
5 of 55.
9.1%
Florida
1 of 43.
2.3%
That is an enormous gap.
California has the smallest total blue-chip pool but the highest concentration of truly elite prospects.
Florida has 14 more blue chips than California — but California has five times as many five-stars.
So a recruiter approaching California and a recruiter approaching Florida should not be thinking the same way.
California is about protecting and landing the top.
Florida is about mining the enormous four-star middle.
⸻
🏠 WHO IS ACTUALLY PROTECTING HOME?
Using the first-listed school as the current leader:
TEXAS
Texas-based programs currently lead 28 of 55 prospects.
That includes:
Texas — 10
Texas A&M — 7
TCU — 6
Texas Tech — 5
That’s a slim majority.
But at the five-star level, only 2 of 5 are currently led by an in-state school.
So Texas is doing a much better job controlling its depth than controlling its absolute elite tier.
⸻
CALIFORNIA
USC and UCLA currently lead:
13 of 29 prospects
USC — 6
UCLA — 7
That’s not a majority of the entire pool, but the five-star picture is much stronger.
USC leads:
3 of California’s 5 five-stars
And is involved with a fourth.
So California has the best current home-state five-star defense.
⸻
FLORIDA
Florida, Florida State and Miami currently lead:
15 of 43 prospects
Florida — 9
Florida State — 5
Miami — 1
That’s only 34.9%.
And the lone five-star?
A&M currently leads Miami.
So Florida has substantial local activity, but outsiders are currently winning most of the first-place positions.
⸻
GEORGIA
Georgia and Georgia Tech currently lead:
6 of 35 prospects
Georgia — 5
Georgia Tech — 1
That’s only 17.1%.
Outside programs currently lead 26.
Three prospects remain OPEN.
And all four Georgia five-stars currently have outside leaders.
No hub is being invaded more heavily.
⸻
🤠 TEXAS
55 BLUE CHIPS
THE MARKETPLACE
Texas isn’t simply the biggest hub.
It’s almost its own recruiting ecosystem.
Fifty-five blue chips means that several programs can recruit Texas aggressively and all come away with valuable classes.
That’s exactly what’s happening.
The state currently has significant activity from:
Texas.
Texas A&M.
TCU.
Texas Tech.
Oklahoma.
Alabama.
Ohio State.
USC.
LSU.
SMU.
And many more.
The real question isn’t:
Who owns Texas?
It’s:
Who gets the largest and most valuable slice?
⸻
⭐ THE TEXAS FIVE
Texas’ five five-stars currently point toward four different programs:
CB Vernon Troyer → Texas
LT Brent Lemon → Oklahoma
DT Miguel Trapasso → Texas A&M
FS Chuck Faulk → Alabama
SS Chuck Landry → Alabama
That means Alabama currently leads as many Texas five-stars as Texas and Texas A&M combined.
That’s one of the most striking elite-tier numbers in the entire report.
⸻
🤘 TEXAS
THE DEEPEST LOCAL FOOTPRINT
Texas appears on:
17 of 55 Texas boards
and currently leads:
10
Both are the highest totals in the state.
The Longhorns may not currently dominate the five-star layer, but they are involved everywhere underneath it.
Texas is leading or battling for:
linebackers,
running backs,
athletes,
tight ends,
receivers,
edges,
defensive backs,
offensive linemen.
This is why the Texas story shouldn’t be reduced to one five-star lead.
The Longhorns are doing substantial roster-building work.
The challenge is adding more elite wins at the top.
⸻
👍 TEXAS A&M
BUILD HOME — HUNT NATIONAL
A&M’s hub profile is one of the most interesting in USDA because it looks different from Coach Bone’s five-star profile.
In Texas:
12 appearances
7 current leaders
That includes five-star DT Miguel Trapasso.
A&M also already has:
a Texas four-star ATH verbal
and
a Texas four-star WR committed
So while Coach Bone’s five-star board stretches across Oregon, Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama and Texas, his broader blue-chip foundation is much more concentrated at home.
That creates a very coherent strategy:
Use Texas to build the class.
Use national NIL reach to elevate the class.
That’s a much more sustainable model than attempting to build the entire roster from national five-star battles.
And it explains why A&M shows up in this report even when it’s not the most active program in every hub.
The Aggies don’t need 10 Florida recruits.
They may only need Nick Cota.
They don’t need 10 Georgia recruits.
They may only need Kane Shackelford.
The national work is selective.
The Texas work provides volume.
⸻
🐸 TCU
THE FOUR-STAR VOLUME PLAY
TCU appears on:
12 Texas boards
and currently leads:
6
That’s as many appearances as A&M.
And TCU’s activity is almost entirely built around the massive four-star layer.
RB.
WR.
MLB.
QB.
ATH.
CB.
OLB.
RT.
That’s smart recruiting in a state with 50 four-stars.
TCU does not need to win the five-star headline battle to build a blue-chip roster.
It just needs to keep stacking wins in the middle.
⸻
🌵 TEXAS TECH
THE SAME MARKET, ANOTHER STRONG PLAYER
Texas Tech has:
11 appearances
5 current leads
The Red Raiders keep showing up at:
QB.
WR.
CB.
OLB.
DT.
RB.
And more.
Again, this is why Texas is so different.
Five local programs can recruit heavily inside the state without exhausting the supply.
And that’s before Oklahoma and Alabama arrive.
⸻
🅾️ OKLAHOMA
THE MOST EFFECTIVE OUT-OF-STATE TEXAS RAIDER
Oklahoma appears on:
9 Texas boards
and currently leads:
7
That’s outstanding early conversion.
The biggest is:
five-star LT Brent Lemon
But Oklahoma also leads Texas prospects at:
RT.
MLB.
EDGE.
CB.
DT.
another MLB.
The Sooners aren’t dabbling in Texas.
They’re building there.
And geographically, it makes perfect sense.
Texas functions almost like an extension of Oklahoma’s home market.
⸻
🐘 ALABAMA
THE ELITE TEXAS RAID
Alabama appears on:
8 Texas boards
and currently leads:
6
Two of those are five-stars:
Chuck Faulk.
Chuck Landry.
That’s an extraordinary early showing for a program located far outside the state.
And unlike Oklahoma, Alabama cannot simply explain this through proximity.
This is national recruiting power.
If Alabama eventually closes most of these six, Texas becomes one of the defining pillars of the Tide’s S1 class.
⸻
⚠️ SMU: PRESENT, BUT NOT YET FIRST
SMU appears on three Texas boards.
Current leads:
Zero
That doesn’t mean those recruitments are lost.
But in a state where TCU and Texas Tech are already converting significant volume, SMU’s current position matters.
If SMU wants to use Texas as its primary source of blue-chip talent, the next step has to be turning involvement into first place.
⸻
📍 EVERY SCHOOL REPRESENTED IN TEXAS
Texas — 17 appearances, 10 current leads
Texas A&M — 12, 7
TCU — 12, 6
Texas Tech — 11, 5
Oklahoma — 9, 7
Alabama — 8, 6
USC — 4, 2
LSU — 4, 0
SMU — 3, 0
Ohio State — 3, 3
Utah — 3, 1
BYU — 2, 0
Minnesota — 2, 1
Oregon — 1, 0
Washington — 1, 0
Florida State — 1, 1
Auburn — 1, 0
UCLA — 1, 0
Georgia Tech — 1, 0
Illinois — 1, 1
Iowa — 1, 1
And:
4 Texas blue chips remain OPEN
Twenty-one programs represented.
That’s why Texas is the recruiting stock exchange of USDA.
⸻
🌴 FLORIDA
43 BLUE CHIPS
THE FOUR-STAR GOLD MINE
Florida has:
43 blue chips
but:
only one five-star
That means:
42 four-stars
or 97.7% of the state’s blue-chip pool.
No other hub is shaped like that.
Florida is where you go when you want to build depth.
And because there are so many four-stars, a coach who evaluates correctly can potentially build a stronger roster here than a coach who spends the same amount of resources chasing one or two five-stars somewhere else.
⸻
👑 NICK COTA
ONE PLAYER CARRIES THE FIVE-STAR STORY
Florida’s only five-star:
RB Nick Cota
Current board:
Texas A&M
Miami
The irony couldn’t be sharper.
Florida produces 43 blue chips.
Yet its only five-star is currently led by a school from Texas.
And the only local challenger is Miami.
That brings us directly to one of the most interesting early hub situations.
⸻
🌴 MIAMI
THE EARLY FLORIDA CONCERN
Miami appears on:
5 Florida blue-chip boards
Current leaders:
1
That lone current lead is a four-star ATH.
Miami is also chasing Nick Cota.
But compared with Florida and Florida State, the Hurricanes’ early in-state conversion is clearly lagging.
Florida has:
9 current Florida leaders
Florida State has:
5
Miami has:
1
That’s a meaningful early gap.
And this is Miami we’re talking about.
A program located in one of the richest recruiting states in the country should theoretically have tremendous access.
The problem isn’t that Miami isn’t on boards.
It is.
The problem is that it’s currently sitting behind somebody else on four of the five Florida recruitments in which it appears.
That’s worth watching.
⸻
🌴 WHAT WOULD CHANGE THE MIAMI STORY?
One name:
Nick Cota.
If Miami flips the state’s only five-star from Texas A&M, the entire narrative softens.
Suddenly Miami can say:
We kept Florida’s only five-star home.
And he happens to be the only five-star RB nationally.
That’s a gigantic win.
But if Cota leaves and Miami remains around one or two Florida leads?
Then the question becomes much more serious:
Why isn’t Miami getting more traction in one of the nation’s deepest blue-chip states?
It’s too early for alarm.
It is absolutely not too early to notice.
⸻
🐊 FLORIDA
WINNING THE FOUR-STAR GAME
Florida has:
11 appearances
9 current leads
The Gators lead the state in both meaningful categories.
And three of those four-star leads are already verbals:
RB.
OLB.
LG.
That is exactly how you should attack a class where 42 of 43 blue chips are four-stars.
Florida isn’t chasing headlines.
It’s stacking volume.
If those leads hold, the Gators may end up with one of the strongest hub-based classes in USDA without ever landing the state’s lone five-star.
⸻
🍢 FLORIDA STATE
A VERY EFFICIENT START
Florida State:
6 appearances
5 leads
That’s excellent.
Current leaders include:
RT.
SS.
DT.
EDGE.
CB.
There is a noticeable defensive tilt.
And FSU is converting at a much higher rate than Miami despite only one additional appearance.
Again, early board.
But the comparison is hard to ignore.
⸻
🐶 GEORGIA
RAIDING FLORIDA WHILE DEFENDING GEORGIA
Georgia appears on:
8 Florida boards
and currently leads:
3
That’s more Florida involvement than Florida State or Miami.
Think about that.
Georgia is dealing with massive pressure at home.
Yet the Bulldogs are simultaneously one of the most active programs in Florida.
This is a perfect example of how national recruiting actually works.
Georgia isn’t merely protecting.
It’s counterattacking.
⸻
🐘 ALABAMA
DEEP SOUTH WITHOUT BORDERS
Alabama:
6 Florida appearances
4 current leads
Two already have status:
a committed FS.
a verbal WR.
Add Alabama’s major activity in Georgia and Texas, and a pattern appears.
The Tide aren’t building from one hub.
They’re trying to stitch several elite southern markets together into one recruiting footprint.
⸻
🐅 CLEMSON
SMALL BOARD, HIGH CONVERSION
Clemson appears on:
3 Florida boards
and leads:
2
Both are verbals:
CB.
DT.
That’s important.
Clemson doesn’t have Florida’s largest board.
But it has already converted two opportunities into actual decisions.
Volume is valuable.
Closure is better.
⸻
📍 EVERY SCHOOL REPRESENTED IN FLORIDA
Florida — 11 appearances, 9 leads
Georgia — 8, 3
Alabama — 6, 4
Florida State — 6, 5
Miami — 5, 1
Auburn — 4, 2
Illinois — 3, 1
Ole Miss — 3, 3
Clemson — 3, 2
Texas A&M — 2, 2
Texas Tech — 2, 2
Minnesota — 2, 1
Georgia Tech — 2, 1
USC — 2, 2
Ohio State — 1, 1
Nebraska — 1, 0
Virginia — 1, 1
Iowa — 1, 0
Oklahoma — 1, 1
Plus:
2 OPEN prospects
Nineteen programs represented.
⸻
🍑 GEORGIA
35 BLUE CHIPS
THE BATTLEGROUND
Georgia might be the most fascinating hub in the entire report.
It isn’t the biggest.
It isn’t the deepest.
But nobody’s borders are under more pressure.
Thirty-five blue chips.
Four five-stars.
And every five-star currently has a different outside leader.
Carl Everett → Alabama
Lee Nwaneri → Notre Dame
Kane Shackelford → Texas A&M
Thad Summers → Clemson
Georgia itself leads none.
That is remarkable.
⸻
🐶 GEORGIA
ACTIVE, BUT UNDER SIEGE
Georgia appears on:
10 Georgia boards
Current leads:
5
That’s tied for the most current Georgia leads with Clemson.
So this is not a story about Georgia being absent.
Quite the opposite.
Georgia is the most active program in the state.
But the Bulldogs currently have a major difference between:
overall presence
and
elite control
They lead several four-stars.
They already have a four-star CB verbal.
But all four five-stars currently point somewhere else.
That’s the tension.
⸻
🍊 TENNESSEE
THE NEIGHBOR WHO WON’T LEAVE
Tennessee appears on:
9 Georgia boards
Only one fewer than Georgia itself.
That is an enormous number.
Tennessee currently leads:
4
And the Volunteers appear at:
five-star CB.
five-star DT.
WR.
another WR.
ATH.
RT.
TE.
CB.
OLB.
This isn’t selective raiding.
It’s an attempt to make Georgia part of Tennessee’s recruiting infrastructure.
If that strategy works long-term, it becomes a major problem for Georgia.
⸻
🍊 TENNESSEE’S REAL IMPACT IS BIGGER THAN FOUR LEADS
Even if Tennessee doesn’t close all nine?
The Vols matter.
Every battle forces somebody else to spend resources.
Georgia has to defend.
Clemson has to defend.
Alabama has to defend.
Notre Dame has to defend.
That has downstream effects.
Tennessee can influence the entire hub simply by remaining a credible threat on this many players.
And if those four current leads become signatures?
Then this stops being disruption.
It becomes ownership of a meaningful slice of Georgia.
⸻
🐅 CLEMSON
THE MOST EFFICIENT GEORGIA INVADER
Clemson:
5 appearances
5 current leads
Perfect on the current snapshot.
That includes:
five-star RT Thad Summers
And two of Clemson’s four-star Georgia leaders are already committed/verballed.
This may be one of the best hub performances in the entire report.
Clemson isn’t fighting for everyone.
It’s fighting for five.
And currently winning all five.
⸻
☘️ NOTRE DAME
A NORTHERN PROGRAM BUILDING SOUTHERN ACCESS
Notre Dame appears on:
4 Georgia boards
and currently leads:
3
The headline is five-star CB Lee Nwaneri.
But the broader board matters.
Notre Dame has multiple Georgia opportunities.
That suggests this isn’t merely one superstar recruitment.
The Irish are trying to establish actual access to Georgia.
⸻
🐘 ALABAMA
THE FIRST FIVE-STAR IS ALREADY GONE
Alabama appears on:
4 Georgia boards
and leads:
3
The biggest:
Carl Everett — five-star LB — verbal
So the first five-star decision in USDA came from Georgia.
And it went to Alabama.
That’s the kind of result that makes every remaining Georgia five-star battle feel more urgent for the Bulldogs.
⸻
👍 A&M
QUALITY OVER QUANTITY
A&M appears on just:
1 Georgia blue-chip board
But it’s:
Kane Shackelford — five-star DT
And A&M leads.
This is important when discussing which schools are “active” in hubs.
Not every national recruiter is trying to blanket every state.
A&M’s approach outside Texas appears much more selective.
When Bone goes into Georgia, he’s not necessarily chasing eight four-stars.
He’s chasing one of the state’s four five-stars.
That is a very different kind of national strategy than USC’s.
⸻
📍 EVERY SCHOOL REPRESENTED IN GEORGIA
Georgia — 10 appearances, 5 leads
Tennessee — 9, 4
Clemson — 5, 5
Alabama — 4, 3
Notre Dame — 4, 3
Indiana — 3, 1
Minnesota — 3, 0
Auburn — 3, 2
USC — 2, 1
Miami — 2, 0
Nebraska — 2, 2
Ole Miss — 1, 0
Texas A&M — 1, 1
Florida State — 1, 0
Georgia Tech — 1, 1
Michigan — 1, 0
TCU — 1, 1
Michigan State — 1, 1
Arkansas — 1, 1
Ohio State — 1, 0
Texas Tech — 1, 1
Plus:
3 OPEN prospects
Twenty-one programs represented.
⸻
🌴 CALIFORNIA
29 BLUE CHIPS
THE WESTERN KINGDOM
California has fewer blue chips than any of the four hubs.
But the talent is disproportionately elite.
Five of the 29 are five-stars.
That’s:
17.2%
And the in-state recruiting picture has a fascinating split.
USC owns the headline.
UCLA owns the volume.
⸻
✌️ USC
THE ELITE GATEKEEPER
USC has:
8 California appearances
6 current leads
The most appearances of any program in the state.
Three current leads are five-stars:
Tymon Kamara.
Frank Duvall.
Marco Smith.
USC also appears on Sam Willy’s board.
So the Trojans are either leading or involved with:
4 of California’s 5 five-stars
That’s outstanding elite control.
But USC’s significance goes beyond California.
We’ll get to that.
⸻
🐻 UCLA
THE QUIETLY RIDICULOUS CALIFORNIA START
UCLA has:
7 California appearances
7 current leads
Every California recruit UCLA currently appears on has UCLA listed first.
And four already carry a verbal or commitment designation:
OLB — verbal.
CB — committed.
WR — verbal.
WR — verbal.
That’s an extraordinary start.
USC has the glamorous five-star board.
UCLA may currently have the more secure four-star foundation.
If this continues, California could produce two excellent local recruiting classes built in completely different ways.
⸻
✌️ USC VS UCLA
THE CEILING VS THE FLOOR
USC currently leads:
6 California blue chips.
UCLA leads:
But USC’s six include three five-stars.
UCLA’s seven are all four-stars, with four already verbally committed/committed.
That’s one of the best contrasts in the entire report.
USC is building the ceiling.
UCLA is building the floor.
Neither approach is inherently superior.
If USC closes the elite names, that’s enormous.
If UCLA keeps piling up four-stars and turning them into actual commitments, that’s how roster depth gets built.
⸻
🦆 OREGON
HIGH ACCESS, LOW CURRENT CONVERSION — AGAIN
Oregon appears on:
5 California boards
Current leads:
1
This is exactly what we saw in the Five-Star Report.
The Ducks are getting into the right recruitments.
They just aren’t currently listed first often enough.
Sam Willy.
Frank Duvall.
Marco Smith.
Other four-stars.
The opportunities are there.
California could determine whether Oregon’s national recruiting profile becomes a major success story or an example of being close without closing.
⸻
🏔️ WASHINGTON
ANOTHER NORTHERN THREAT
Washington also appears on:
5 California boards
and leads:
2
The Huskies are involved at:
QB.
ATH.
EDGE.
WR.
EDGE.
Washington and Oregon together are forcing USC and UCLA to defend the West from the north.
This is becoming a regional recruiting war, not just a collection of individual recruitments.
⸻
🤘 TEXAS
THE BIGGEST OUTSIDE PRESENCE IN CALIFORNIA
Texas appears on:
7 California boards
and currently leads:
3
That’s tied with UCLA for the second-most appearances behind USC.
The Longhorns currently lead five-star QB Hugh Morris plus two California four-star receivers.
That’s a serious western footprint.
Texas is not merely defending its own gigantic market.
It’s actively shopping California too.
⸻
⛪ BYU
A SNEAKY GOOD CALIFORNIA OPERATION
BYU has:
4 California appearances
3 current leads
Those are primarily offensive skill players.
That’s a very strong small sample.
BYU isn’t showing up in the five-star headline discussion.
But the Cougars are extracting quality four-star talent from California at a very efficient rate.
⸻
📍 EVERY SCHOOL REPRESENTED IN CALIFORNIA
USC — 8 appearances, 6 leads
Texas — 7, 3
UCLA — 7, 7
Washington — 5, 2
Oregon — 5, 1
Notre Dame — 4, 1
BYU — 4, 3
Utah — 3, 0
LSU — 2, 1
Indiana — 2, 1
Illinois — 2, 1
Penn State — 1, 1
Tennessee — 1, 0
Louisville — 1, 1
TCU — 1, 1
Fifteen programs represented.
No California blue chip is currently listed OPEN.
That tells you how aggressively the state is already being recruited.
⸻
🌎 THE NATIONAL HUB HUNTERS
WHO IS DELIBERATELY BUILDING FROM THE BEST STATES?
This may be the most important addition to the report.
Which programs aren’t simply recruiting one hub?
Which programs are showing up repeatedly across several?
That’s where you begin to see true national class-building strategies.
⸻
✌️ USC
THE ONLY PROGRAM IN ALL FOUR HUBS
USC is represented in:
California
Florida
Georgia
Texas
No other program appears in all four.
Across those hubs:
16 total appearances
11 current leads
USC’s footprint includes:
8 California appearances.
2 Florida.
2 Georgia.
4 Texas.
That tells us something very clear.
USC’s class is not simply “California plus whatever happens nationally.”
The Trojans are actively shopping every one of the four major talent hubs.
California is the foundation.
But Florida, Georgia and Texas are part of the plan.
That makes USC the broadest hub-diversified recruiter in USDA.
⸻
👍 TEXAS A&M
THREE HUBS — PLUS A FIVE-STAR NATIONAL NETWORK
A&M appears in:
Texas
Florida
Georgia
Across the four hub report:
15 appearances
10 current leads
Twelve appearances come from Texas.
That tells us where the volume lives.
But the other three are extremely high-value:
Florida includes five-star Nick Cota.
Georgia includes five-star Kane Shackelford.
And then the Five-Star Report adds national leaders from Oregon, Louisiana and Alabama outside these four hubs.
So A&M’s model differs from USC’s.
USC broadly recruits all four hubs.
A&M recruits Texas heavily, then cherry-picks premium targets nationally.
Both are national strategies.
They simply arrive there differently.
⸻
🐘 ALABAMA
THREE HUBS, 13 CURRENT LEADS
Alabama is represented in:
Florida.
Georgia.
Texas.
Total:
18 appearances
13 current leaders
That ties Texas for the most current hub leads in the entire report.
And unlike Texas, most of Alabama’s activity is happening outside its own state.
That’s remarkable.
Alabama is arguably the strongest pure hub raider in USDA.
Five-star Georgia LB already verbal.
Two Texas five-star safeties currently led.
Four Florida leaders.
Alabama is building across the South’s deepest external talent bases.
⸻
🐶 GEORGIA
ATTACKING FLORIDA WHILE DEFENDING HOME
Georgia has:
18 total hub appearances
8 leads
across:
Florida.
Georgia.
The Bulldogs’ map is more regional than national.
But 8 Florida appearances show Georgia isn’t sitting back and simply trying to protect home.
It’s attempting to draw heavily from another elite neighboring market.
That matters because Georgia’s own state is being attacked just as aggressively.
⸻
🤘 TEXAS
THE MOST TOTAL HUB INVOLVEMENT
Texas appears on:
24 hub boards
the most of any program.
Current leads:
13
Most naturally come from Texas.
But seven appearances come from California.
That’s not incidental.
Texas is using the country’s two westernmost mega-hubs — Texas and California — as its primary blue-chip foundation.
And the Longhorns currently lead a five-star California quarterback.
That’s a national class-building approach even if most of the volume still comes from home.
⸻
🐸 TCU AND 🌵 TEXAS TECH
STAY HOME AND EAT
Both appear on:
14 total hub boards
Both lead:
8
Their activity is overwhelmingly Texas-based.
And that’s completely rational.
You don’t need to build a four-state national recruiting network when your backyard contains 55 blue chips.
For these programs, concentrating resources may be smarter than spreading them.
There’s a difference between national reach and unnecessary travel.
⸻
🐅 CLEMSON
TWO HUBS, INCREDIBLE EFFICIENCY
Clemson appears in:
Florida.
Georgia.
Total:
8 appearances
7 current leads
That’s one of the highest current conversion profiles among programs operating across multiple hubs.
And Clemson has already moved several of those prospects into verbal/commitment territory.
The Tigers aren’t everywhere.
They’re just winning almost everywhere they go.
⸻
🐊 FLORIDA STATE
THREE-HUB PRESENCE
Florida State appears in:
Florida.
Georgia.
Texas.
Total:
8 appearances
6 leads
Most activity comes from Florida, but FSU has also stepped into Georgia and Texas.
That’s a broader footprint than the five-star board alone would suggest.
⸻
🟠 AUBURN
QUIETLY PRESENT IN THREE HUBS
Auburn appears across:
Florida.
Georgia.
Texas.
8 appearances
4 leads
Auburn isn’t dominating any individual hub.
But the Tigers are present across three of them.
That’s worth tracking because a class can become nationally diverse without ever having one massive state-specific headline.
⸻
🟠 ILLINOIS
AN UNEXPECTED THREE-HUB FOOTPRINT
Illinois appears in:
California.
Florida.
Texas.
6 appearances
3 leaders
That’s quietly impressive geographic breadth.
Illinois is not recruiting the same volume as USC or Alabama, but appearing in three of the country’s premier talent states is notable.
⸻
👀 THE PROGRAM THAT STANDS OUT FOR THE WRONG REASON
MIAMI
Miami appears across:
Florida.
Georgia.
Seven total hub recruitments.
Current leads:
1
That’s one of the largest gaps between hub activity and current first-place position among notable programs.
And because Miami’s home state is Florida, the imbalance matters more.
Five Florida appearances.
One lead.
Two Georgia appearances.
Zero leads.
The Hurricanes have access.
The early results aren’t there.
Nick Cota could change the conversation immediately.
But absent that, Miami is one of the clearest programs to monitor in the next update.
⸻
🦆 OREGON
ANOTHER ACCESS-TO-CONVERSION QUESTION
Oregon appears in:
California.
Texas.
Six hub appearances.
Current leads:
1
Again, this mirrors the Five-Star Report.
Oregon is getting invited into major recruiting battles.
But the current lead count remains low.
That’s becoming a consistent theme across both reports.
It may simply mean Oregon’s board is difficult and national.
Or it may eventually become evidence that the Ducks are spreading resources too broadly.
We don’t know yet.
But it is absolutely a trend worth tracking.
⸻
🏔️ WASHINGTON
WESTERN EXPANSION, LIMITED CURRENT RETURNS
Washington appears in:
California.
Texas.
Six hub boards.
Current leads:
2
Most of Washington’s activity is in California, which makes strategic sense.
The Huskies are attempting to turn the West Coast into a shared recruiting territory.
The access is there.
The next step is increasing conversion.
⸻
🧭 MULTI-HUB ACTIVITY LEADERBOARD
Programs represented in multiple hubs:
Texas — 24 appearances | 13 leads | 2 hubs
Alabama — 18 | 13 | 3 hubs
Georgia — 18 | 8 | 2 hubs
USC — 16 | 11 | 4 hubs
Texas A&M — 15 | 10 | 3 hubs
TCU — 14 | 8 | 3 hubs
Texas Tech — 14 | 8 | 3 hubs
Tennessee — 10 | 4 | 2 hubs
Oklahoma — 10 | 8 | 2 hubs
Notre Dame — 8 | 4 | 2 hubs
UCLA — 8 | 7 | 2 hubs
Auburn — 8 | 4 | 3 hubs
Florida State — 8 | 6 | 3 hubs
Clemson — 8 | 7 | 2 hubs
Miami — 7 | 1 | 2 hubs
Minnesota — 7 | 2 | 3 hubs
LSU — 6 | 1 | 2 hubs
Washington — 6 | 2 | 2 hubs
Oregon — 6 | 1 | 2 hubs
BYU — 6 | 3 | 2 hubs
Illinois — 6 | 3 | 3 hubs
Utah — 6 | 1 | 2 hubs
Indiana — 5 | 2 | 2 hubs
Ohio State — 5 | 4 | 3 hubs
Ole Miss — 4 | 3 | 2 hubs
Georgia Tech — 4 | 2 | 3 hubs
Nebraska — 3 | 2 | 2 hubs
Iowa — 2 | 1 | 2 hubs
This is one of the cleanest ways to distinguish recruiting philosophy.
Some programs are extremely concentrated.
Others are building coast-to-coast boards.
⸻
🏆 THE NATIONAL HUB-BUILDING TIERS
If we classify these strategies by what the data is actually showing:
TRUE FOUR-HUB NATIONAL RECRUITER
USC
The only school touching all four.
⸻
HIGH-VOLUME THREE-HUB RECRUITERS
Alabama
Texas A&M
TCU
Texas Tech
Auburn
Florida State
The caveat: TCU and Texas Tech’s totals are heavily Texas-driven, while Alabama and A&M show more meaningful cross-state diversity.
⸻
SELECTIVE THREE-HUB RECRUITERS
Illinois
Minnesota
Ohio State
Georgia Tech
Lower total volume, but they are reaching into multiple premier regions.
⸻
DOMINANT REGIONAL CONCENTRATORS
Texas
Georgia
Oklahoma
Clemson
UCLA
These schools are not necessarily trying to be everywhere.
They’re extracting a lot of value from one or two markets.
That’s often just as effective.
⸻
🤯 THE MOST INTERESTING CROSS-HUB CONTRASTS
USC vs A&M
This might be the cleanest example of two national strategies that look completely different.
USC:
Broad.
All four hubs.
16 appearances.
California foundation.
Selective but real activity in Florida, Georgia and Texas.
A&M:
Concentrated.
15 appearances.
12 in Texas.
Then premium five-star raids elsewhere.
USC is building a wide network.
A&M is building a home base with elite satellites.
Both could work.
⸻
Alabama vs Texas
Both currently lead:
13 hub prospects
But they got there differently.
Texas is mostly winning in Texas.
Alabama is winning in other people’s states.
That’s an incredible contrast.
Texas represents home-market dominance.
Alabama represents national raiding power.
⸻
UCLA vs Oregon
Both recruit California heavily.
UCLA:
7 appearances.
7 leads.
Oregon:
5 appearances.
1 lead.
That’s the current difference between access and conversion in one state.
And four UCLA California leaders are already committed/verballed.
⸻
Georgia vs Tennessee
Georgia:
10 Georgia appearances.
5 leads.
Tennessee:
9 Georgia appearances.
4 leads.
This is almost a dead-even recruiting war inside Georgia’s own borders.
That’s extraordinary.
⸻
Florida State vs Miami
Florida State:
6 Florida appearances.
5 leads.
Miami:
5 Florida appearances.
1 lead.
Nearly identical opportunity volume.
Very different current results.
That’s one of the most important local comparisons in the report.
⸻
🔐 EARLY CLOSERS
Across the four hubs, there are:
21 prospects already listed as verbal or committed
By hub:
California — 5
UCLA — 4
Indiana — 1
Florida — 8
Florida — 3
Alabama — 2
Clemson — 2
Georgia — 1
Georgia — 4
Clemson — 2
Alabama — 1
Georgia — 1
Texas — 4
Texas A&M — 2
Oklahoma — 1
Ohio State — 1
Florida is moving fastest.
California’s early decisions are overwhelmingly UCLA.
Georgia is already seeing elite talent leave.
Texas still has huge amounts of undecided inventory.
⸻
🔓 OPEN BLUE CHIPS
Texas — 4
Georgia — 3
Florida — 2
California — 0
Nine total.
California being at zero is notable.
Every blue chip has already attracted at least one program.
Texas has four OPEN players despite having 21 programs represented in the state.
That’s just another demonstration of its size.
Georgia’s three are especially interesting because the rest of the state is under such intense pressure.
Smart recruiters may be able to find value while everybody else fights over the obvious names.
⸻
📈 STOCK UP — HUB EDITION
UCLA
Seven California opportunities.
Seven leads.
Four early decisions.
One of the best starts in the entire report.
CLEMSON IN GEORGIA
Five appearances.
Five leads.
Five-star RT included.
Two early closures.
Outstanding efficiency.
OKLAHOMA IN TEXAS
Nine appearances.
Seven leads.
An aggressive and productive Texas operation.
ALABAMA
Thirteen current leaders across the hubs.
Major success in Texas, Georgia and Florida.
Arguably the most successful outside raider.
FLORIDA
Nine Florida leaders.
Three verbals.
The Gators are exploiting their state’s four-star depth.
USC
Only program in all four hubs.
Controls California’s elite tier while recruiting nationally.
TEXAS A&M
Seven Texas leaders plus premium targeted raids outside the state.
A clear “home base + national stars” model.
⸻
⚠️ PRESSURE WATCH
MIAMI
Five Florida opportunities.
One lead.
Florida State has nearly identical volume and five leads.
That gap is currently significant.
Cota can change everything.
GEORGIA’S ELITE HOME DEFENSE
Ten total in-state appearances and five overall leads.
But zero of Georgia’s four five-stars currently favor Georgia.
That’s the problem to solve.
OREGON
Strong access in California and nationally.
Very limited current conversion.
This is now a repeated pattern across both USDA recruiting reports.
SMU IN TEXAS
Three Texas appearances.
Zero leads.
With TCU and Texas Tech already taking major pieces of the four-star market, SMU needs to establish some traction.
LSU IN THE HUBS
Six appearances across California and Texas.
Only one current leader.
The Five-Star Report looks stronger because LSU’s biggest victories are coming outside these hubs, but within the four major talent states, there’s room for improvement.
⸻
🧠 THE STRATEGIC LESSON FROM EACH STATE
TEXAS — PRIORITIZE
There are too many players to chase everyone.
The winner is probably the program that identifies the right 10–15 and closes them.
Trying to “own Texas” is almost impossible.
Owning your portion is realistic.
⸻
FLORIDA — EVALUATE
Forty-two four-stars.
That means stars are going to emerge from the middle of this board.
The best recruiter may not be the one landing the most recognizable name today.
It may be the one who correctly identifies which four-stars become tomorrow’s stars.
⸻
GEORGIA — DEFEND
Everybody is coming.
Tennessee.
Clemson.
Alabama.
Notre Dame.
A&M.
USC.
Auburn.
Indiana.
The challenge is not discovering Georgia talent.
Everyone already knows it’s there.
The challenge is keeping enough of it home.
⸻
CALIFORNIA — ESTABLISH HIERARCHY
USC owns the elite layer.
UCLA owns significant four-star depth.
Oregon and Washington are trying to break in.
Texas is selectively raiding from across the country.
California is a battle over who gets first choice.
⸻
🔮 WHAT THE NEXT REPORT MUST ANSWER
Does Miami recover inside Florida?
Does Nick Cota become the recruitment that changes the entire Hurricanes narrative?
Can Florida keep converting its huge four-star board?
Does Florida State maintain one of the best local conversion rates?
Can Georgia reclaim one of its four five-stars?
Does Tennessee actually convert its enormous Georgia presence?
Can Clemson remain perfect on the Georgia prospects it targets?
Does Alabama close its Texas safety pair?
Can Oklahoma maintain seven current Texas leads?
Can Texas’ broad home-state presence produce more five-star wins?
Does A&M continue building locally while Coach Bone hunts nationally?
Can UCLA finish its remarkable California start?
Does USC maintain California’s five-star ceiling while continuing to touch all four major hubs?
Do Oregon and Washington finally begin turning West Coast access into victories?
And perhaps the broadest question:
Which recruiting philosophy actually wins?
The national net?
The home-state fortress?
The selective raid?
The four-star volume strategy?
The five-star hunt?
We now have examples of all of them.
⸻
🏁 THE USDA S1 TALENT MAP
The first Blue-Chip Hub Report gives us much more than four totals.
It gives us recruiting identities.
Texas is the marketplace.
55 players.
Twenty-one programs represented.
Local schools still control most of the total board, but outsiders are hitting the elite tier hard.
Florida is the mine.
43 players.
Only one five-star.
This state will reward evaluation and volume.
Florida is winning the local four-star fight.
Florida State is converting efficiently.
Miami has early work to do.
Georgia is the battlefield.
35 players.
Four five-stars.
Four outside five-star leaders.
Georgia and Tennessee are nearly matching each other in total activity.
Clemson is converting at a remarkable rate.
Everybody is crossing the border.
California is the kingdom.
29 players.
Five five-stars.
USC controls the top.
UCLA is piling up the four-star layer.
Oregon and Washington want in.
Texas has already established meaningful national reach.
And then there are the programs whose recruiting maps transcend any one hub.
USC is the only school represented in all four.
Texas A&M is using Texas as its foundation while selectively hunting elite players elsewhere.
Alabama may be USDA’s most aggressive successful raider.
Texas has the greatest total hub involvement.
Clemson and UCLA are showing how devastating targeted efficiency can be.
Miami and Oregon remind us that being involved is not the same thing as being first.
That’s the biggest lesson of this entire report.
Getting into the recruitment matters.
Getting the lead matters more.
Getting the commitment matters most.
And right now, USDA’s richest talent states are giving us all three stages at once.
162 BLUE CHIPS.
FOUR SUPERSTATES.
DOZENS OF PROGRAMS CROSSING BORDERS.
AND NOT ONE OF THEM IS TRULY SAFE.
Having talent in your backyard is one thing.
Building your class from it — while keeping everybody else out — is the real fight.