Diaries

Someone suggested I do this, I have some free time, and there were one too many posts about MSU for my liking, even if it is the offseason, so here is a new question: Is Nebraska recruiting the Midwest better after joining the B1G? I think the overall impression is yes, though as we saw, A&M simply started recruiting the plains better, and doesn't seem to be getting kids from SEC states yet, and vice versa. Anyway, here is 2010, before the conference switch:

3 kids from traditional B1G territory, 14 from the old Big 12, 22 kids total

2011:

3 from the B1G territory, 10 from the old Big 12 territory, 20 kids total.

2012:

4 from the Midwest, 5 from the Plains, 17 kids total

2013:

6 from the Midwest, 7 from the Plains, 25 total

So, as we can see, Nebraska went from a little over 10% from the Midwest before switching, and is up to about 25% now, which makes sense now that they play in this area a lot more, and are starting to recruit more heavily there. Obviously, there were not a ton of kids in Nebraska to begin with, so the effect on the rest of the conference would be be less about us getting more kids from that area. It also means getting kids from the Plains is harder for them, as about 2/3 of their early classes were Plains kids, and it's down to maybe 1/4 now. Again, this makes sense, as they are getting less exposure now in that region and playing less games close to kids there. 

So, that's all about what we would expect. However, for a little baseless speculation and a possible preview of a future diary, it seems that they are still having a hard time getting the best Midwestern kids, as those will still get snapped up by Michigan and Ohio, and even the slightly lower B1G East programs might offer a better package because at least the kids are closer to home. While they had that issue with Texas kids as well, with the new divisions, they will be playing fewer games against the Eastern powers, and thus even less exposure in that area. While Nebraska is the premier program in its area, there just aren't that many players there, and they don't seem to be having much luck. Basically, I am saying it seems Nebraska will have a hard time getting good players out of its old stomping grounds, and Texas is getting harder for them to recruit if they don't play teams there, and the Midwest as it is traditionally conceived is still far away for most recruits who might otherwise consider Nebraska, so in future years they might have a really hard time putting together a good class.

When: June 5th, 6-9pm

Where: Chicago Marriott Downtown Magnificent Mile. 540 N. Michigan Avenue, 5th floor ballroom.

Cost: $40 for Alumni members, $55 for non-members.

The Coaches Tour returns to Chicago June 5th. Come enjoy a night out with fellow Alumni, as Brady Hoke, John Beilein, Dave Brandon and other speakers talk about  their plans for the 2013-2014 seasons. A silent auction will take place at the end of the night, featuring one of a kind Michigan items.

Last year was the first year I attended and it was a blast. Come out and have a great time listening to out fearless leaders from the gridiron and the hardwood, as well as Dave Brandon's vison of the future.

Register Here: 

Alright, time for the first update to the out-of-conference recruiting chart.  One commenter on the last version did ask me to add each recruit’s state of origin; I may not have time to do that this week but will add that information eventually.

New verbal commitments since debut (May 14):

·         May 17: Notre Dame adds OT Alex Bars

·         May 20: Cincinnati adds WR Conner Krizincic

Composite Chart

Notre Dame (2014, 2015) – 10 commits, overall star average: 3.85

Notre Dame adds OT Alex Bars.  Rivals upgrades Quenton Nelson to a 5-star rating.  Nic Weishar now a 3-star rating on Scout (note: I am not sure if he was actually downgraded or if I had just made an error previously).  Bars’ commitment is enough to push the Irish past M on the 247 composite rankings, but hopefully that will change in a few hours when a certain announcement out of New Jersey comes down…  [UPDATE: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!]  Rumored commitment from 4-Star QB Brandon Dawkins of California has not been confirmed and thus is not included.

Utah (2014, 2015) – 5 commits, overall star average: 2.90

No gains or losses for Utah.  Kenyon Frison now rated 4-stars by 247.

Arkansas (2018) – 4 commits, overall star average: 3.38

No gains or losses for Arkansas.  Juan Day rated 3-star by Scout.

Brigham Young (2015) – 5 commits, overall star average: 2.63

No gains or losses for BYU.  Isaiah Nacua gains 3-star rating on Rivals. 

Cincinnati (2017) – 3 commits, overall star average: 2.31

Cincinnati gains WR Conner Krizancic.

Hawaii (2016) 4 commits, overall star average: 2.19

No changes for the RAINBOW Warriors.

Ball State (2016) 2 commits, overall star average: 2.38

No gains or losses for Ball State.  David Morrison rated 3 stars on Scout.  Morrison and Darian Green rated 2 stars on Rivals.

Oregon State (2015) 1 commit, overall star average: 2.50

No gains or losses for Oregon State.  Their lone commit, QB Nick Mitchell, picks up a 3-star rating from Rivals.

UNLV (2015) 1 commit, overall star average: 2.0

No changes for UNLV.  Scout formally rates Doug Saeks as a 2-star recruit.

Jack Torrance (2014)

                Still no commits for the program from Boone, NC.

Colorado (2016)

                No Commits

N.T. Miami (2014)

                No Commits

So, one of the things we hear about as a benefit of expansion is that it opens up new recruiting grounds for the schools already in the conference. Since we have yet to see what will happen with Maryland and New Jersey, I figured one of the most apt comparisons for our purposes would be to look at what happened to the SEC in what is generally called in recruiting circles the "Midlands" (Basically Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, etc.) In theory, picking up A&M and Mizzou should have helped existing SEC members gain access to recruiting in this area, and it should have been obvious over the last couple cycles. So, I went through the Rivals database, and grabbed every kid who was a four star or higher from  2010-2013 in those regions, and checked to see what conference the school they ended up at was in. Chart? Chart.

I only looked at the SEC and the Big 12 as they were in 2010, before things switched, and didn't count the schools that switched. I also only counted schools that stayed in the same conference, as it would throw things if I counted a school for one conference, then the other. In theory, the schools still in the same conference should also benefit.

2010:

10 out of the 90 four stars ended up at an SEC school

2011:

4 out of 61 to the SEC this year

2012 was the year we should have seen an uptick:

It's 6/56, which is not very different from previous years

2013:

7 out of 62, a slight uptick.

So, a preliminary report shows that the difference is pretty nonexistent, at least over the years covered. Things might look different if we counted the number of high-level players  A&M was getting in the Big 12 days as opposed to the SEC days, but their move doesn't seem to be helping the SEC in general start to recruit the state (a couple SEC West schools grabbed a couple kids, but they were doing that anyway). Also, Texas is one of the biggest recruiting states in the nation, and the difference is small in conference shift. A weird side note is that in the first year I looked at, the region put out 90 four star kids, and in every year after that, it's been about 60. Not sure if 2010 was simply a bumper crop, or if for some reason the region is actually just putting out less talent, which seems unlikely. At any rate, the effect of expansion on recruiting is minimal, at least in the first couple years after expansion.

EDIT: To satisfy curiosity, in 2010, 8 four stars from the region went to A&M, 2 in 2011, 7 in 2012, and 12 in 2013. It's worth noting that it was 12 out of 62 total in 2013, and 8 out of 90   total in 2010, so at least on the surface, A&M is really capitalizing on SEC membership. However, some of this could be skewed by oversigning, plus the fact that A&M had a very successful season in 2013, which always helps with recruits, no matter the conference.

With the addition of Maryland and Rutgers the conversation has centered around WHY, WHY, WHY, TV sets and whether or not this was just a cover for Delaney to ditch Leaders and Legends. MGoUser trppwlbrnID asked the question that should always be asked, what about recruiting?

With the addition of the two schools, I dug into their recruiting bases and how much opportunity there might be for Michigan to jump into some new territories.

Maryland

Home state of Maryland recruits (2009-2013 classes) weighted by consensus rating

Nearly half of Maryland’s last five classes have come from Maryland and Washington, DC. These two regions would have the most likely opportunity for Michigan. Pennsylvania, Georgia and Florida are regions that aren’t going to give any advantage because Maryland has joined the Big Ten.

Rutgers

Home state of Rutgers recruits (2009-2013 classes) weighted by consensus rating

Over half of Rutgers’ recruits came from the home state of New Jersey. Like Maryland, Rutgers has looked to Pennsylvania and Florida as key secondary regions. So that leaves just the home regions of New Jersey, Maryland and DC as areas that Maryland and Rutgers have had success that seem viable for Michigan to make new inroads into.

Over the last five years, there have been 73 players from New Jersey, Maryland and DC that have garnered a consensus 4 star level rating. Five schools have signed at least four of these players. Penn St has signed 9 of these players while the new members of the Big Ten have signed 7 each. Florida and Michigan have each signed four. When you look at the totals by conference (excluding Maryland and Rutgers from any conference) the Big Ten is already the leading team in recruiting these key regions.

The Big Ten is already getting about a third of the players not going to the new members. Adding Maryland and Rutgers into the Big Ten count gives them 45% of the top recruits from the region. In terms of quantity, there doesn’t seem to be much upside for Michigan in the newly acquired regions on a quantity basis. Some of the ACC signees may end up going B1G but even taking a third of these players is still just one extra recruit for the conference per year.

The Elite Opportunity

During the same five year period, the Maryland/Rutgers region has produced 15 players who were consensus Top 100 level players only one signed with a Big Ten team (Eli Apple, OSU) and Maryland (Stefon Diggs) and Rutgers (Darius Hamilton, Savon Huggins) were each only able to sign three of the fifteen.  Of the other 11, four went to other ACC schools, 3 to the SEC, 3 to the Pac-12 (one of which was the embattled Yuri Wright) and one to Notre Dame.

Overall, the Big 10 and Michigan already have a solid presence in the local areas where Maryland and Rutgers have the most success. The area that seems the most likely for Michigan to gain a new advantage will be the elite level recruits that have been avoiding the Big Ten presently.

The Michigan Opportunity

As noted above, Michigan is already doing better than most at signing 4 star talent from the region. There is certainly an opportunity to do more, but this shouldn’t be a major change for Michigan. The biggest windows of opportunity are probably in some of the Top 100 type players. Recent names such as Stefon Diggs and Kendall Fuller are players who Michigan might have had a better shot at with the new footprint (although Fuller’s recruiting did overlap with the news). This isn’t a massively talent rich region but it has enough to produce a couple elite prospects annually. Michigan and Ohio should be most poised to step in and take advantage, especially with Penn State buried for the next several recruiting cycles.

The more difficult to quantify opportunity is probably Virginia. Maryland isn’t a major player in the state, but with the Derrick Green commitment and the recruitment of Da’Shawn Hand the opportunity to play two games in neighboring Maryland should definitely help solidify Michigan’s position as a major player in Virginia recruiting.

As a true confession, the addition of Nebraska to the conference in 2010 was finally what got me really into college sports, and football in particular; before I was just a casual fan, but the machinations of expansion just got me hooked. Anyway, like many of you, I was fairly disappointed by the recent move to pick up Maryland and Rutgers, and don't really see it ending well. At any rate, after spending way too much time thinking about this, I think expansion has died off for the forseeable future, though not for the reasons I have seen elsewhere (ACC grant of rights, etc.)

It seems to me that every conference has a "utility" that it wants to maximixe, and will add schools accordingly. The SEC wants to maximize football success, so A&M was a good choice, even if they thought it was largely a move to pick up Texas recruiting at the time. The ACC wants to maximize basketball success, which is really the main reason to pick up Pitt and Syracuse. Our precious B1G wants to maximize money, and to a lesser extent power (if it wanted to maximize power purely, it would go the SEC route of picking up football schools, and focus less on academics). Nebraska was to get a historic football brand which was available, and Rutgers and Maryland were demographic cashgrabs, which were likely shortsighted.

So, given all that, why is expansion dead for now, at least for the B1G? Well, in the interest of being provocative, the best way to put my point is that there are actually too many schools left to choose from to make any of them practical. A rule I have seen with expansion so far is that schools central to the existence of a conference do not leave for other conferences (Nebraska was not the be all end all of the Big 12 like UT or OU are, Maryland was expendable to the ACC in a way that UNC and Duke are not, etc.) For the purposes of this comparison, the most comparable conference to the B1G in terms of its goals is probably the PAC-12. If you recall, when the PAC-12 tried to expand last time, it went with the Texas and Oklahoma schools at first, and was willing to take all of them to get UT and OU. That fell through, so it was left with the Rutgers and Maryland-like demographic grabs of Utah and Colorado, which have contributed nothing so far in terms of football, and, tellingly, its options seem to be gone, unless it wants to reach down for a Nevada school.

So, where does that leave us? Well, effectively, the B1G would have to pick up an even number of schools that fit its criteria to make expansion feasible. For the sake of argument, we can throw out any SEC (except maybe Mizzou) or PAC-12 school for obvious reasons. That leaves us with maybe Kansas, maybe Mizzou, a couple ACC schools that fit the criteria of not being central to the conference like Pitt, and the crown jewels of UNC, UVA, UT, OU etc. as pipe dreams. Now, assuming we are probably only looking to add two more schools (no major conference has gone to 16 yet, presumably for the reason that no one wants to be the first to try and fail at it), let's see what the options are.

So, let's talk about the smaller, more doable, options of Mizzou and Kansas. Neither have historic football, and don't add new demographics as the previous moves have. Same with Pitt. Syracuse doesn't either, and isn't in the AAU. The problem is that even if one of those schools seemed OK if the goal was to help get another school, the schools that really bring in the bucks and prestige are all in larger groups. UT and OU go nowhere without each other, and both of them have their own baggage of the other schools in their states that they are likely yoked to. Similar with the ACC schools. UNC and UVA are probably together, and both have schools in their state that are not appealing options for other conferences to pick up, and would be left homeless if the ACC broke up - not to mention the power they lose by going to conferences where they are one of many, not the stars. Similarly, now that the ACC has 15 schools, it becomes an issue of where all those schools go. The upper half (Clemson, FSU, Miami, Duke, etc.) is appealing enough to get picked up by other conferences like the SEC, but the problem is that the SEC only has two spots left as well, so some school is left out, and the Big 12 might be reluctant to spread its geography further. Basically, the stronger members have no incentive to leave, and the weaker members will do anything they can to keep the conference together.

So, if the B1G is looking to add schools that are contiguous, academically acceptable, and bring demographics or money or football, the problem is that some schools that are singly available really don't do it, and the ones that do do it are in groups such that the conference would have to be willing to go over 16 members (which is not impossible, but dangerous). Now, if some other conference is the first to move, and other options are on the table, then all bets are off, but as it stands, there is little incentive to be the first to move, and we may very well have reached a stalemate for the forseeable future.