Who decides recruiting stars and what is the criteria?
November 9th, 2013 at 9:29 PM ^
Richrod's classes were so-so and decimated by transfers. They are the upperclassmen.
Hoke's classes are great and are sophmores at best.
And it's some kind of team of reviewers at those services. It's going to be hard to quantify 'toughness' and I am certain character is not a factor. "SUCH A NICE YOUNG MAN. FIVE STARS. "
November 9th, 2013 at 9:30 PM ^
Hoke's two full classes have a lot of highly rated players, but they are all sophomores/freshman. Have to give it time, and repeatedly bring in classes like that
November 9th, 2013 at 9:44 PM ^
I really think the increased coverage and following of recruiting is giving people false hopes about what guys do as underclassmen. The fact that we're paying attention to what high school kids are doing now doesn't mean that they're suddenly much better prepared to contribute immediately.
Our guys will most likely be really good... in a couple of years. I know that's shitty, but I've been saying it since last season and still believe it's true. It's just really hard for 19- and 20-year-olds who are getting their first college playing time (and college life experience) to compete with 22- and 23-year olds who have grown physically, matured, been coached up, and learned to play together for the past several years.
If there's an upside to our youth, it's that we'll be insanely experienced in a couple of years. We won't be the usual type of experienced - lots of juniors and seniors who are stepping into increased roles. We'll be experienced in that we'll have juniors and seniors who are multi-year starters. I'm looking forward to that.
November 9th, 2013 at 9:59 PM ^
What I normally say when someone says "Put in X! He was a 5*!" you have to consider that a lot of the guys starting now would basically be equivalent to 6*, 7*, and 8* as they are another level past what makes someone a top level recruit in high school. Being a 4/5* doesn't mean you're ready to play
November 9th, 2013 at 11:36 PM ^
actually thats exactly what being a 5 star recruit means. You should be ready to play. Some positions are harder to play as a freshman/ RS freshman but this goes beyond youth. If it was youth you'ld see inconsistent play but we're very consistent week in and week out. We're getting consistently worse.
November 10th, 2013 at 12:03 AM ^
Not really. The star ratings are more about potential. Very few 5-star OL play as true freshmen, for instance, and not too many 5-star QBs play much as frosh, either.
November 9th, 2013 at 9:31 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 9:37 PM ^
Coaches do not pay attention to recruiting services. That stuff is for fans.
November 10th, 2013 at 12:18 AM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 9:32 PM ^
Yes, the services work. High recruiting rankings generally translate to a better chance of NFL draftability, although there are always some guys who underperform or overperform.
The stars are determined by groups of scouts. Rivals, for example, has analysts for each part of the country who suggest ratings for players in their area. Then final decisions are made by the group.
November 9th, 2013 at 9:33 PM ^
Won't say for which service, but I've been in the rooms when they are deciding these things. They look at actual game film from lots of sources -- Youtube, Hudl, XOS, whatever. Then they pick out skills and traits and things like that are pros and cons, give the guys a score, put them in a list with guys at their position, and then merge the lists together. Then they tweak the lists slightly by "this guy should be higher" or "he's better than this guy."
Outside of the top top players, the score difference between someone that's say #40 overall and #120 is only 1-2 points. And the difference between #40 and #60 might be like a difference of 0.2
Its why you'll see those lists with like 400 4-star players. They're all roughly the same.
November 9th, 2013 at 9:33 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 9:38 PM ^
Well that would be incredibly difficulty to quantify for a bunch of high school players who all are just destroying the competition i.e seeing little to no adversity. I really don't know how you could possibly quantify that
November 9th, 2013 at 9:44 PM ^
Hoke's only had 2 real classes, since he had less than a month to finish the 2011 class.
November 9th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
I did this diary several months ago, so if it will help discussion, here are our average star ratings from 2002-2013:
YEAR | 5 STARS | 4 STARS | 3 STARS | 2 STARS | MICH. AVG. RATING |
2002 | 1 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 3.63 |
2003 | 2 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 3.82 |
2004 | 1 | 12 | 8 | 1 | 3.59 |
2005 | 1 | 10 | 11 | 1 | 3.48 |
2006 | 2 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 3.63 |
2007 | 2 | 5 | 12 | 1 | 3.40 |
2008 | 0 | 17 | 6 | 1 | 3.67 |
2009 | 1 | 13 | 6 | 2 | 3.59 |
2010 | 0 | 6 | 20 | 1 | 3.19 |
2011 | 0 | 6 | 13 | 1 | 3.25 |
2012 | 2 | 10 | 13 | 0 | 3.56 |
2013 | 1 | 16 | 9 | 1 | 3.63 |
November 9th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 9:42 PM ^
No doubt coaching is a problem, but the program is still recovering from the state of disarray Richrod had it in. All of your great classes are just sophmores. We should continue to get better each of the next two years even if the coaches don't change a bit
November 9th, 2013 at 9:42 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 9:47 PM ^
All those 5 star athletes have to work together as a team- thats where bad coaching can turn them all into 1 star players. Football isn't wrestling, its more like synchronized swimming. I hold that a successful team is 1/3 recruiting, 1/3rd training and practrice and 1/3 gameday play calling and decisions.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:45 PM ^
You can have great athletes and fancy play calls, but unless you've trained them well to perform as a cohesive unit, you won't get very far. That's how a team like Appalachian State can beat a team that later beats a Tim Tebow-led Florida.
November 9th, 2013 at 9:49 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
...says the guy who's whining about his post getting negged.
November 9th, 2013 at 9:54 PM ^
I negged it because it was stupid.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:43 PM ^
Passing judgement isn't very becoming.
November 9th, 2013 at 11:24 PM ^
November 10th, 2013 at 12:09 AM ^
November 10th, 2013 at 12:26 AM ^
Not as judgemental as calling something stupid for no reason......
November 10th, 2013 at 1:45 AM ^
I called the thread stupid; not the poster...but point taken.
November 10th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^
I know. I suppose calling what the poster writes as stupid could be seen as calling the poster stupid but it doesn't matter. What does is that our coaches have moobs. Moobs, man. Moobs.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:01 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 9:50 PM ^
I'm sure MSU doesn't mind that we have out recruited them for the last several years. I'm sure they are just fine beating us on the field where it matters.
Like I'm not pissed off enough about the loss, OP, that I have to read this sort of garbage. If Sparty was so happy about this then why do they offer the Michigan players? I'm sure they didn't really want Shane Morris, Mario Ojemudia, Kyle Bosch etc. etc.
This may not be the most ridiculous thread of the year but you are for sure top 5.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:10 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:21 PM ^
but your statement remains inherently ridicoulous. They'd take the vast majority of our recruits.
Coaching is an issue, youth is an issue...is what it is now.
November 10th, 2013 at 12:33 AM ^
Could you provide those other threads that comprise the rest of your top 5? For comparisons sake, of course.
November 10th, 2013 at 1:45 AM ^
ties included?
November 10th, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^
Sure. That's fine with me.
November 9th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:05 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 9:56 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:09 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:22 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:24 PM ^
Well, that and the statement about Sparty being content Michigan out-recruits them annually.
Top five, definitely.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:36 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 11:32 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:07 PM ^
I'm sure MSU doesn't mind that we have out recruited them for the last several years. I'm sure they are just fine beating us on the field where it matters.
Keep in mind, we're not playing our freshmen against their freshmen. It's our team (which is very young overall) against their team, which has a lot of upperclassmen. MSU's entire starting defense is redshirt sophomores or older - they're all in at least their third year in the program. We can't say the same. Our 2010 class is down to nine guys from the original 27. The attrition in that class has really hurt.
November 9th, 2013 at 10:19 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:28 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^
November 9th, 2013 at 10:51 PM ^
I'm sorry if you're not getting the response you're clearly fishing for, but there is currently no reason to believe that recruiting and talent evaluation are problems for the staff right now. Their classes just haven't been on campus that long. The upperclasses, which they didn't recruit, are far smaller than they should be - there are only 24 upperclassmen on scholarship right now.
This is not to say that there are zero coaching issues with the staff, but inexperience is certainly a handicap for the team.
November 9th, 2013 at 11:15 PM ^