go go go
The question was whether Positional Rating meant more than star (or Rivals' sliding scale) ratings in determining the value of a player toward success of his program.
To do this, I compared averages of recruits who entered college during the period of 2005 to 2008, and stacked that up against real results. In other words, I wanted to see if there was a greater correlation between the current BCS standings and any of several factors:
1. Star Rating
2. Rivals Rating
3. Positional rank in class
4. Number of ranked recruits
5. Team speed (40-yard dash)
6. Team size (height (in) times weight)
Since I can't figure out how to post the entire sheet, I've written out the Top 15 for each category.
For our purposes, I used only recruits that were ranked by Rivals.com. Rivals usually ranks only those recruits that it rated higher than 5.5 (which is a low 3-star).
For some positions, there were typically 90 or more ranked recruits each year, whereas for others, there was only 15 or so. I thus considered making recruiting rank a percentile, for a team that recruited a 4 star receiver ranked 70th (of 92) in his class would be penalized more than a team that recruited the 15th (last) fullback or kicker. However, I felt this -- the ability to recruit all positions -- was an important factor in the key differential between Star Rating and Positional Ranking. Plus, a successful team would be responsible for recruiting all of those positions. So instead of a percentile, I simply dropped from our list any team that did not bring in 20 or more ranked recruits in this period.
This eliminated a lot of Mid-Majors, but the only BCS conference teams to be cut were Cincy (7), Indiana (13) and Connecticut (15). It is assumed that these teams, which could not bring in more than five 3-star or higher recruits in four years, would perform below the teams included.
I also did not cover attrition (transfers, early leaving, etc.) Instead, I simply omitted the 2004 class altogether, figuring the good done by holdovers was roughly equivalent to the bad of attrition for the four following classes. I understand that this is very inexact, but I feel the results are still useful for our purposes.
Results Skewed by Southern Bias in Data
Particularly interesting was the SEC schools and their higher number of ranked recruits brought in. Among teams that had more than 85 recruits in this time, we get Florida (91), Alabama (95), Georgia (90), Florida State (88), LSU (88), Oklahoma (88), Tennessee (86) and Auburn (86). In other words, seven of nine over-recruiters were SEC schools, and all were in the South. Overrecruiting did seem to have a correlation with winning, but not as much as class rank or star rating. I posit that this represents not so much the ability of the SEC conference to recruit better talent, but Rivals.com's tendency to overrate recruits in the South. It's noteable that teams that recruited nationally like Notre Dame and Michigan were the most overrated by talent influx, while other Northern teams that had most northern recruits were largely underrated. If you look at the cut-off line for where Rivals stops their ranking, the picture becomes even more clear; the last few 5.6-rated players included in the rankings are normally from Southern states; the alphabetic list of unranked, 5.5-rated players is overrepresented by Northern players.
Top 15 -- Current BCS Standings
6. Texas Tech
7. Penn State
8. Boise State
9. Ohio State
12. Oklahoma State
13. Georgia Tech
Top 15 -- Star Ranking Only
3. Ohio State
4. Florida State
11. Notre Dame
12. Penn State
Top 15 -- Rivals Ranking Only
4. Florida State
7. Ohio State
10. Notre Dame
13. Penn State
Top 15 -- Avg Positional Rank of Recruit in Year
4. Florida State
6. Ohio State
10. Notre Dame
15. Penn State
Top 15 -- Most Ranked Players
4. Florida State
9. Notre Dame
13. South Carolina
Top 15 -- Avg. 40-Yard dash time
4. Texas A&M
5. Southern Miss
7. Ohio State
10. Georgia Tech
13. Kansas State
14. South Carolina
(Little brother is 16th!)
Top 15 -- Avg. size of recruits
2. Penn State
8. Mississippi State
9. Texas Tech
13. Virginia Tech
15. Boston College
Recruiting as a whole was shown to be a fair but imperfect predictor of overall success.
Team speed was the most overrated statistic; even removing teams without recruits at every position, the speed ratings made little mark on anything. In fact, Texas Tech (4.78) and Missouri (4.81), both of which employ speed-based offenses, were both near the bottom among teams in total team speed. This means that either speed makes little to no difference in a team's ability, or 40-yard-dash times are arbitary (or in Brian, "FAKE.")
No recruiting statistic stood out as a definitive predictor of team ability, but the positional rank of recruits did, in fact, prove to be a slightly better metric than star rating, and a much better predictor than other factors.
To look at Michigan in particular, it does in fact seem that positional ratings mattered a great deal.
Top 15 positional ratings of M recruits 2005-08:
1. Justin Boren (#1 Center, 2006)
2. Marques Slocum (#1 Guard, 2005)
3. Brandon Minor (#1 Fullback, 2006)
4. Zoltan Mesko (#2 Kicker/Punter 2005)
5. Brandon Graham (#2 Mack Linebacker, 2006)
6. Stephen Schilling (#2 Guard, 2006)
7. Ryan Mallett (#2 QB-Pro Style, 2007)
8. Donovan Warren (#3 Cornerback, 2007)
9. Jonas Mouton (#3 Safety, 2006)
10. Boubacar Cissoko (#4 Cornerback, 2008)
11. Kevin Grady (#4 Running Back, 2005)
12. Kevin Koger (#4 Tight End, 2008)
13. Antonio Bass (#5 Athlete, 2005)
14. David Molk (#5 Center, 2007)
15. Carlos Brown (#6 Running Back, 2006)
Look at all that attrition!
Among top recruits in high percentiles we include Mario Manningham, Stevie Brown, Greg Mathews, Michael Shaw and Terrance Taylor.
Then again, here's our lowest positional ratings:
1. Martavious Odoms (Receiver 81)
2. Mark Huyge (Tackle 76)
3. James Rogers (Athlete 71)
4. Chris Richards (Athlete 63)
5. Troy Woolfolk (Cornerback 59)
6. Obi Ezeh (Running Back 58)
7. Mark Ortmann (Tackle 55)
8. John Ferrara (Strongside DE 55)
9. Carson Butler (Strongside DE 55)
10. Perry Dorrestein (Tackle 53)
11. Quinton Woods (Strongside DE 53)
12. Greg Banks (Strongside DE 51)
13. Artis Chambers (Safety 51)
14. Roy Roundtree (Receiver 50)
15. Zion Babb (Receiver 49)
As you can see, these are obviously positions in which there were a lot of recruits. Percentile-wise, the lowest guys were Odoms, Huyge, Rogers, David Cone, Chambers, Brandon Logan, Quinton Patilla, Steve Watson, Woolfolk and Ezeh.
So it does seem that positional ranking means a lot, even if the player was projected at a different position. And if so, it is even more devastating that Michigan lost Bass, Slocum, Mallett and Boren before they could become top contributors. Equally devastating was Stevie Brown and Kevin Grady being busts, at least up until now.
In the future, as a fan, this shows me that my projections for future seasons needs to be looked at again, and that when evaluating recruits, their percentile means more than their ranking.
Other than that, plus the already well-established fact that the SEC badly needs to get over itself (i.e. Rivals scouts need to get over their fear of crossing the Mason-Dixon line), this analysis proves little.
Hope you were entertained.
this was my latest repsonse to the "my thoughts on who might be DC" thread... I figured i would repost it as a diary....
for those of you that have followed the season, and listened to what was happening, this is a rehash. For revisionist wanna-be coaches that didnt really pay attention, you might learn something.
1. 4 vs 3 man front. Shafer is a 4-3 guy. However shafer likes the 3-4 okie defense, ESPICALLY vs spread teams. Most of the top dc's in the country use some type of nickle package against spread teams, unless they have safeties and lb's that play well in space. SO shafer ran a lot of 3 man fronts against the spread teams and as his nickel package. All dlmen prefer 4 man fronts becasue they are dlmen, and they want them and their buddies to make plays, and believe that they can. But straight 4 man fronts, against spread teams is suicide unless you have lb's that make big plays in space (michigan did not this year) the other alternative is that 4-2 nickle that shafer used some as well getting thompson off the field for harrison. The fact that michigan was not good on 3 downs had ZERO to do with scheme and everything to do with the fact that our lb's and safties were not very good in coverage. doenst matter if we had 50 dlmen out there... the 3-3 exepriment was something the rr people wanted to try, and that was the perfect week to do it.. nothing at stake, wr turned qb who we didnt think would be able to throw, etc. it didnt work, so be it... The less spread we saw, the less 3 man fronts we ran, except in passing situations... becasue the best way to blitz is with deception, and the 3 man front offers more deception and flexablity of coverages..
2. this year vs last. 2 words, englemon-adams. In shafers system these would be the top two safties in the country. michigan lossing them was huge, and no defense can survive the type of safety play we had this year, unless their lb's were studs. I have never seen a defense of michigan implement as many coverage schemes as this year, and that was 100% due to the fact that shafer was trying to cover up major personal issues at safety, and LB....
3. THe wings fell off the freekin plane. IT is ok to have an opinion but dont say "we couldnt tackle or cover, but the rest is on shafer" no we couldnt tackle or cover, thats all that has to be said. It doesnt matter if it was tenuta, veneables, Amato, Gruden, etc. just like it takes time to implement a zone read offense, it takes time to implement the techniques needed to run a complicated defense. Shafer was a frustrated coach that couldnt spend the time teaching the fundamentals that were sorely lacking as the season progressed.. and it became more and more evident that there was not the personel to fill the holes that were hurting us. Look for major improvements next year. if we dont see it, then you can START to talk about coaching... but even then, it took me 4 years at this school to really implement the type of defense that we can run now.
coaches have to be able to fit the right schemes vs offenses, and shafer did that. Then coaches have to teach the fundamentals and the techniques to implement thier system and give the players a chance to make plays, and that takes more than a season to implement.
very seldom was michigan out of possition to make a play, that speaks more about players than coaches, obviously... the coaches for the most part had kids in places to be successfull, but by sometimes a very small margin, did not exectue well. When a lack of exectuion happends on offense you lose yards, when it happends on defense you give up td's... simple as that...
Rankings came out today in basketball and hockey.
I’ll start with hockey.
The loss by Vermont was enough for us to pass them, the split by Colorado College with Minnesota kept them at the same place. This puts us at #11. Which means we got better without playing.
#10 Colorado College has a Friday/Saturday series against Sacred Heart. If they can split, there’s probably no effect on us. And they should split, at least. Sacred Heart is .333 on the year, and CC plays at home. A sweep is a reasonable assumption. We’ll probably stay the same next week, at which point there’s the GLI.
Now, I got me some basketball jones. (That basketball was like a basketball to me!)
So, we beat EMU by 31. Kansas lost to UMass. As a result, they fall from the polls.
And we’re media darlings. Not really, but we’re a theoretical #26 in the media poll. Which is one away from an actual rank. If we can beat Oakland this weekend, maybe we get it.
Similar story in the coaches poll, #28. So, we’ll see how that goes.
So, other than beating Oakland Saturday at the Palace of Auburn Hills, here’s what can affect our rank (this might be different from what I said last time, but, rankings are now listed media/coaches):
First, teams that were only got more votes than us coaches’ poll, both of which are not really ranked in either poll:
Miami (FL): One game this week, against #25/#25 Clemson, on Sunday night, which is weird, because a loss by either team helps us. Personally, I think a Miami win actually helps us more, because a loss by #25 definitely means they drop out of the poll, and, depending on what we do against Oakland, does not necessarily mean they get replaced by the team that beat them.
BYU: Again, one game, against #20/#17 Arizona State Saturday. I’m rooting for the Sun Devils here, because they’re a bit too highly ranked for a loss to certainly drop them from polls, and a loss by BYU certainly lets us pass them next week (if we beat Oakland).
No teams beat us in the media poll but not the coaches’ poll, so, on to the bottom 5 (well, 6):
#25/#25 Clemson: See Miami. Also, North Florida tomorrow. Should win.
#24/#23 Marquette: Two games this week, one tomorrow at #16/#19 Tennessee, which they certainly could lose, and one against 4-2 Western Carolina on Friday, which they should win, but, you know, nothing’s certain. But, if they lost to the Vols, they probably drop out.
#23/#21 Memphis: One probable win Wednesday over an Arkansas-Little Rock (7-2). I mean, I guess theoretically ALR could beat them (based solely on record), but, we have a much better chance of them getting a loss Saturday, when they play #11/#11 Syracuse.
#22/#20 Davidson: One game this week, and it’s of interest. Davidson plays at #13/#18 Purdue on Saturday. I want Purdue to win pretty badly, both because they’re a Big T1e1n team and because, well, a Davidson loss could help us.
#21/#24 Baylor: One game, Saturday, easy win over Texas-Arlington.
#19/#22 Michigan State: Two games this week; an easy win on Wednesday over the Citadel. There’s a pretty big contest Saturday though: at #5/#5 Texas. In the end, its probably better for us if State wins this game. There’s enough other possible losses that if they win, it won’t be too big of a deal.
So, the skinny: Almost every bottom 5 team in both polls plays a very, very losable game this week. We really only need one of them to lose and for us to beat Oakland to be ranked in at least the coaches’ poll. I’m gonna go ahead and predict a ranking next week.
Good night, and Go Blue.
Here's where we stand so far for scholarships for next year, and how many more commits we can take. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there. Just because we can theoretically take 28 kids in a class doesn't mean we have that much room.
If anyone sees any errors, please let me know! I think it reflects all defections at this time.
Tom - can we pin this?
1. Steve Threet
2. Nick Sheridan
3. David Cone
4. Tate Forcier
5. Shavodrick Beaver
6. Brandon Minor
7. Carlos Brown
8. Mike Shaw
9. Kevin Grady
10. Mike Cox
11. Teric Jones
12. Fitzgerald Toussaint
13. Vincent Smith
14. Mark Moundros
Outside WR (8)
15. Greg Mathews
16. Daryl Stonum
17. Junior Hemingway
18. James Rogers
19. LaTerryal Savoy
20. Roy Roundtree
21. Dewayne Peace
22. Cameron Gordon
Slot WR (5)
23. Martavious Odoms
24. Toney Clemons
25. Terrance Robinson
26. Justin Feagin
27. Jeremy Gallon
28. Kevin Koger
29. Brandon Moore
30. Martell Webb
31. Steve Watson
32. Steve Schilling
33. David Moosman
34. David Molk
35. John Ferrara
36. Mark Ortmann
37. Tim McAvoy
38. Perry Dorrestein
39. Mark Huyge
40. Dan O'Neill
41. Patrick Omameh
42. Ricky Barnum
43. Rocko Khoury
44. Elliot Mealer
45. Kurt Wermers
46. Michael Schofield
47. Taylor Lewan
48. Mike Martin
49. Renaldo Sagesse
50. Pearlie Graves
51. DeQuinta Jones
52. Vince Helmuth
53. Brandon Graham
54. Ryan VanBergen
55. Greg Banks
56. Adam Patterson
57. Andre Criswell
58. Anthony LaLota
59. Craig Roh
60. Obi Ezeh
61. Jonas Mouton
62. JB Fitzgerald
63. Marell Evans
64. Brandon Herron
65. Kenny Demens
66. Isaiah Bell
67. Mike Jones
68. Brandin Hawthorne
69. Steve Brown
70. Michael Williams
71. Brandon Smith
72. Thomas Gordon
73. Vlad Emilien
74. Donovan Warren
75. Boubacar Cissoko
76. JT Floyd
77. Troy Woolfolk
78. Justin Turner
79. Zoltan Mesko
80. Bryan Wright
81. Brendan Gibbons
82. - This will be Will Campbell
That leaves 3, assuming that Andre Criswell is brought back. If he's not, we'd have four more.
I'd like the following kids:
83. Pernell McPhee
84. Quinton Washington
85. Mywan Jackson
In reading the recent speculation lately on Shafer being a no show at recent recruiting visits, I again began to rethink what crossed my mind about a month or so ago. If , and that is if, Shafer is out the door there is one man that I think should be heavily considered.
With the recent finalization of Monte Kiffin to Tennessee, it leaves a good defensive coordinator w/out a job.
Living in the state of Tennessee, I am forced to hear all about Vol football, and of course Rocky Top at the top of every hour. I know Vol fans credit Chavis for being the only bright spot in their 3 year downslide, or ten year depending on who is asked.
Chavis recruits speed on defense and has sent many a talent to the next level. But unlike Florida State, his players are top notch in college and carry it with them to the NFL. Line backers are his specialty and to my knowledge, we need them, and we need them to be better.
""Following the national championship season of 1998, Chavis was named the SEC's outstanding linebacker coach."
Rumors swirled a month or so ago that LSU was his destination, so I kept my mouth shut, BUT nothing has come of it. So I bring it to the Michigan fan base.
"Tennessee's defense led the SEC in 1996 and ranked in the top three five of the past seven years."
Yep thats TOP 3 IN 5 OF THE LAST 7 YEARS!!!
Whats your opinion on Chavis? If he is unknown to you These next few points might help.. I promise it will be easier to find his success that it was Shafer.
Here are a few points from his Bio.......
"Johnny "John" Chavis (born October 16, 1956 in Dillon, South Carolina), commonly known as The Chief, is the former defensive coordinator, linebacker Coach and associate head football coach at the University of Tennessee, where he has been since 1989. Chavis is the only Native American that is currently a Coordinator or Head Coach for a major college or NFL team."
"Following the 2006 Season Chavis was named as the Assistant Football Coach of the Year by the American Football Coaches Association."
"Chavis and then Florida Defensive Coordinator Bob Stoops are credited with bring the "Zone Blitz" into College Football in the mid to late 90's."
"Following the national championship season of 1998, Chavis was named the SEC's outstanding linebacker coach."
So I have been thinking on this topic for awhile. And I'm sure it's been done here many a times, but I thought I'd just throw out my all M team.
Not all of these players are great NFL players and not all of them would fit on-the-field in the positions as such, but I just thought I would throw out a list of my favorite M players that I have seen play in my lifetime. I'm sure many people will flame some of my picks, but they are mine. Feel free to post your own.
QB: Chad Henne, Drew Henson
RB: Tim Biakabatuka, Tyrone Wheatley
WR: Braylon Edwards, The New Math Mario Manningham, Mercury Hayes (if only for the name alone)
TE: Jerame Tuman
OL: Jake Long, Steve Hutchinson, John Jansen, David Bass, Couldn't name a single M center not on the roster.
DL: Lamaar Woodley, Brandon Graham, Alan Branch, Terrance Taylor
LB: Larry Foote, David Harris, Jarrett Irons (haha), Sam Sword (Super nice guy)
CB: Ty Law, Charles Woodson, Marlin Jackson, Leon Hall
S: Ernest Shazor, couldn't name a decent Safety besides ES, but I could be over looking.
P: The one and only Space Emperor of Space Zoltan Mesko
K: Hayden Epstein (I just have fond memories for whatever reason)
KR/PR: Black Jesus Steve Breaston/Charles Woodson could play here too.