well that's just, like, your opinion, man
Sandwiched in between #16 Florida State and #18 Ole Miss.
EDIT: Can mod delete this? Meant to post to the board.
EDIT 2: Since this is being left up for some bizarre reason, let's get to some actual analysis and compare some resumes.
Humans love to argue. We pay lawyers obscene amounts of money to argue for us because we're not good at arguing. Click bait sites generate "discussion" by posting "controversial" articles or arbitrary rankings of things that are entirely subjective. Last night, the College Football Playoff Committee transformed into Bleacher Report's wet dream. They ranked 25 college football teams in order of, I dunno, bestness or something. Aside from the obvious elephant in the room (pun absolutely intended because nobody from Alabama gets puns and so it doesn't matter), Michigan was ranked for the first time ever (except in Brady Hoke's fever dreams), coming in at #17. But, what does that #17 really mean?
What criteria did the Committee use to rank the teams? Strength of schedule is a factor, apparently. Top 30 wins might be too. Why the Top 30 and not the Top 25? The Committee wants to create controversy, man. Shake up the establishment. Why can't we have a Top 27?
Look at the programs on either side of Michigan. Florida State at #16. Ole Miss at #18. Is there an argument to be made for Michigan to be higher than the 'Noles or lower than the school with a horrible, racist mascot that's a remnant of one of the darkest period in American history.
I think this calls for a chart.
|VS. TOP 25||0-0||1-2||2-2|
|BEST WIN||UH, MIAMI||NORTHWESTERN||BAMA|
Florida State has one loss to a 3-6 Georgia Tech team. Michigan and Ole Miss have two losses a piece. Michigan lost to the committee's #7 team and its #12 team. Ole Miss lost to the committee's #10 team and it's #13 team. Clearly, the committee values losing less games even if your 2 losses are better than the other team's 1 loss.
But, wait, if that's the case then why is 1-loss Alabama and 1-loss ND ranked ahead of undefeated Michigan State? Is it quality of wins? Alabama's best win is #19 Texas A&M. State's best win is, sigh, us. Alabama's 2nd best win is Wisconsin. Their 3rd best win is Georgia or Tennessee. Is that difference between Wisconsin and Georgia vs. Oregon and nobody so great that it warrants Alabama at #4? Or maybe it's SOS. Alabama has the 9th ranked schedule and State is in the low 50s (all SOS #s from Sagarin).
Then, wait, if SOS and quality wins trump the # of losses, then why is Florida State ranked ahead of Michigan and Ole Miss? Michigan and Ole Miss have a better SOS, better top 3 wins, and their 2 losses are way better than Florida State's one loss.
Michigan is ranked #17 and that's nice, but at this point, it's no different than the ranking in the AP or Coaches Poll. The Committee is another arbitrary body that uses a vague methodology or no methodology at all to rank the 25 "best" teams in the country. The only difference is that their poll actually matters.
SB Nation has a top 25 composite ranking that uses the AP Poll, Coaches Poll, S&P+, Massey, and witchcraft.
OSU, Clemson, Baylor, and LSU are the top 4 (same as last week). MSU is at 8 (+3) and we've fallen one spot to #13.
I don't recall seeing this posted before, but SB Nation has a top 25 composite ranking that uses the AP Poll, Coaches Poll, S&P+, Massey, and witchcraft.
OSU, Clemson, Baylor, and LSU are the top 4. MSU is at 11 and we're right behind at 12.
Let me apologize in advance. I know a good amount of us are fed up with the recruit rankings talk, but I've been thinking of it in a way I haven't really seen discussed.
Some Things We Know:
-Harbaugh likes tough "chip on the shoulder types"
-He is also fairly accomplished at developing unheralded players into players to be proud of.
-Players pay attention to their recruiting rankings. An actual number representation of your perceived value.
Do you think recruiting a handful of decent upside, low star guys is being looked at as a "Win Win" for Harbaugh and Co.? You get guys willing to commit to a demanding team of coaches, and not drag the recruiting process along. These guys also come into it knowing they have to earn spots against players they are already being told are better. Before they even start they know they have a little more to prove. And a handful could eventually turn into All-Conference type players under this coaching staff.
Oddly enough, I also see this as being better motivation for the higher rated players. A four or five star sees someone ranked lower outperform them, or win praise from coaches, maybe it serves as inspiration to prove themselves. Think of the little things that motivate you. It may be easier to be second on the depth chart when you lose out to a fellow four star recruit, than to someone with one or two D1 offers.
tl;dr - Does Harbaugh view these unheralded commits as a "win win?" Could they help in development of higher rated teammates?
Sorry for being long-winded. Long time reader, first time forum MGoBoard thread creator.
Looks like MSU's class jumped up in the rankings due to a couple recent commitments.
OSU is ranked #1 or #2 nationally, depending on the service, and we're rated 22, 25, and 29.
EDIT: Link to the stats. I could have sworn I posted it when I made the thread.
ESPN revealed their first rankings for 2016 recruits.
Players of note:
Brandon Peters #142 (committed)
Matt Falcon #246 (committed)
Rashan Gary #1
Michael Jordan #110
Khalid Kareem #126
Donnie Corley #261
Lavert Hill #265
If there is anybody else of note you want added, let me know. I know we have offered a lot of kids for 2016, but I have no clue who of those are high on Michigan.
So excited for football season!