I will get him a replacement for that green shirt. Thought you all would enjoy this feature from across the border.
Kyle Dodson commits to Wisconsin the day after receiving an OSU offer. Ohio State fans were expecting him to commit to them tonight, so this was an unpleasant surpise for them.
A new post about Yost possibly being renovated got me thinking, while you could argue that DB's corporate attitude has harmed the program (jerseyz, for example), he has undoubtedly also helped it (renovations and new scoreboards in all 3 major venues).
So my question is: who would you prefer; a corporate type like DB who improves facilities, stadiums, etc while "selling out" some of UM's tradition, OR a more traditional AD who may not bring a lot of improvements to UM's sports programs, but also doesn't mess with UM's tradition, etc.
So Fickell held his first presser as HC of OSU. Nothing too exciting, but some of the highlights:
He mentioned toughness quite a few times:
"The 2011 Buckeyes will not be compared or contrasted to previous years," Fickell said. "It will be about respect, toughness and being men of action."
"We have a goal to lead the nation in three categories: effort, turnovers and toughness."
He also claimed to have no knowledge of any of the OSU violations:
"I was not informed of any information until it became public knowledge," Fickell said.
With OSU before the NCAA on these issues, I have to imagine that this line was wordsmithed by OSU's counsel, so being a lawyer myself, here is my take: Fickell says that he "wasn't informed" of any info - he doesn't say that he didn't know it on his own. So, for example, he might have known that the OSU players were trading tats for autographs or that TP had more cars than most auto dealers, and if this comes out at a later date, his statement about having not been "informed" is technically accurate. I find this telling, as he had a chance to say, "I had no knowledge whatsoever of any violations of the NCAA rules," and he chose not to.
On the topic of Tress resigning, he wasn't particularly broken up about it:
"I would take the shot any way I can" (in response to his feelings about getting the opportunity to be HC because of Tress' resignation.
'I'm not saying I'm not disappointed, I'm not upset, but we're moving forward."
Not exactly a guy who I would to be stuck in a foxhole with, but I suppose that this is the OSU way.
Nothing else of real substance from the portions that I saw.
This year's recruiting class to date has drawn near unanimous praise, and some M fans are damn near ecstatic over the results so far. In particular, the last month's or so results have been undeniably strong. The dominance of Michigan based talent, in-roads into Ohio, and the list of top ranked recruits still listing us highly are all seen (rightly so) as a terrific start for the coaching staff. But is the overall quality of the recruits as top notch as the consensus estimates of the fan base?
To examine that, I looked at Rivals data for every year since 2002, when they first started rating. I looked at the total number of 4 and 5 star recruits each year, and then calculated that as a percentage of the overall class. As we know, 4 and 5 star recruits are what fans think of as "elite" recruits, and if you look at elite recruits as a percentage of the overall class, you can get a rough idea of the "quality" of that year's class.
There are major caveats with this approach, starting with a huge one; this year's class isn't finished being rated, since none of have even played a game as a senior in H.S. Also, the class isn't, like, complete. Finally, the usual caveats of recruiting ratings apply as well. But since fans are typically using ratings to proclaim their happiness with recruiting, it seems fair to at least look at the early ones, just as we do around here in Tim's "Hello' posts. So here goes:
YEAR- #4/5* of # in class (%)
2002- 11 of 21 (52%)
2003- 13 of 17 (77%!)
2004- 13 of 22 (59%)
2005- 10 of 23 (44%)
2006- 11 of 19 (58%)
2007- 7 of 20 (35%)
2008- 17 of 24 (71%)
2009- 14 of 22 (64%)
2010- 6 of 27 (23%)
2011- 6 of 20 (30%)
2012 to date- 7 of 16 (45%)
So of the 11 years that Rivals has recruiting rated, there have been 4 of those years that, by looking at 4 and 5 star percentage of class, this year's class so far has beaten. And of course 6 that had a higher percentage of the class rated as elite by Rivals. Again, I don't draw any conclusions here because of the above caveats, but I do find it interesting. What do you think?
EDIT: some asked about how this would compare to Scout's ratings. Here goes:
2002- 8 of 21 (39%) 2003-11 of 17 (65%) 2004- 10 of 22 (44%) 2005- 14 of 23 (65%) 2006- 10 of 19 (53%) 2007- 14 of 20 (70%, major outlier vs. Rivals) 2008- 15 of 24 (62%) 2009- 9 of 22 (40%) 2010- 9 of 27 (33%) 2011- 5 of 20 (25%) 2012 (56%)
So M this year so far, has a quality rating that has beaten 6 of it's past year's ratings, and trails 4 years.