#Crootin'

If you average out those rankings there isn't much difference. I'm not huge into recruiting but IMO the difference between the two is that under Hoke there have been more 4/5 star commits and interest from those caliber players. O-line recruiting is night and day.

We've struck out on some big ones (Hand, Campbell, Harris) but as least the interest is there. If Hoke can produce some wins on the field, I'd expect guys like Hand, Campbell, etc. to stick.

 

 

2011: 3.25 stars (tied for 20th best average)

2012: 3.56 stars  (9th best average) 

2013: 3.63 stars (7th best average) 

2014: 3.44 stars (12th best average) 

 

Note: I may be a bit off on the rankings of the averages.  I did the counting very quickly.

Did a quick calculation 2008-2014: Total number of Rivals points received divided by number of recruits per class. That way, we can see what the average point total PER recruit is.

2008: 2220 points/24 recruits: 92.5 points per recruit

2009: 2124 points/22 recruits: 96.5 points per recruit

2010: 1479 points/27 recruits: 54.8 points per recruit

2011: 1314 points/20 recruits: 65.7 points per recruit

2012: 2132 points/25 recruits: 85.3 points per recruit

2013: 2661 points/27 recruits: 98.6 points per recruit

2014: 1641 points/16 commits: 102.6 points per recruit

What we see here is an upward trajectory starting with the beginning of Hoke's tenure, after a rather catastrophic decline in Rich Rod's after a promising initial start. So what you're seeing is a higher average caliber of player coming in, no matter what the class ranking is - up to a peak this year.

 

Is this data appropriately using the formula? Nope.

I can use "stats" to make whatever point I want. Just like you.

Michigan was 20, OSU was 25.  That OSU class was not highly ranked because it only had 19 commits, but it included Corey Brown, Christian Bryant, Andrew Norwell, Carlos Hyde, Bradley Robey and Johnathon Hankins.

 

To Trigger's mutilated corpse....

Even though Rivals caps the count at 20 for their rankings, adding 4 more at our average star ranking doesn't take into account that a team's recruits over 20 eliminate the under-the-radar or "glue" guys like Pallante or Watson from the ranking calculation further boosting the overall class rating.

Alabama et. al. take some of these guys every year, they just don't count against their class ranking with 25-30 recruits.

This post is 2013 in its quality. 

How about re-running (or at least adding) the numbers on an "average star ranking" basis?

EDIT:  NEVER MIND.  Beaten to the punch.  Thanks, guys, well done.

I appreciate His Dudeness taking the time to put this together for us, always good to see new content. Thanks Dude. I disagree with your conclusion, though. Recruit rankings are highly suspect, with huge variances, and are at best only general indicators. There's a vast margin for error. I also am a bit more optimistic in our recruiting classes. We've signed a ton of talented kids with great potential. Despite rankings being a total crapshoot, finishing #7 and #5 in the country is hardly poor performance, either. Still, thanks for posting and giving us something to discuss.

Ouch. 3 and 32?

I dont give a damn about some stars given by a "expert"...I judge by what the class does on and off the field and we are going to find out about Hokes "crootin" real soon

At the end of the day the performance on the field, this year, will have a lot to do with the recruiting strength of this regime going forward.  I think had we held all the kids at one time either actually committed or considered a strong Michigan lean we'd be talking about one of the greatest recruiting classes of all time in terms of overall rating.  But IMO, the kids did not like what they saw on the field and we started to lose players in the process.

Have a solid year this year (10 wins or more) and it's obvoius Brady can close the deal and will going forward.  But he's got to match it on the field to keep these kids in the fold.

You gave us the information that you compiled but omitted why you put this together?  The only conclusion I draw from your chart is that you are trying to make an argument that Michigan was wrong in the hiring of Brady Hoke over Rich Rod?  I think using only raw recruiting rankings which mean absolutely nothing because as we all know, 5 stars when they hit college could perform like a 2 star and 2 stars can work like 5 stars.  I would rather give Brady the benefit of the doubt and that the real difference between the coaching staffs is the future outlook.  I believe we will be better with Brady than Rich Rod.  Do I have fancy charts to suggest why I feel this way?  The answer is no.  I just do.

I found this data to be surprisingly relevant:

 

Year l Class Size  l AVG STAR l Class Ranking l AVG STAR Rank

2012         25               3.56                 7                  9

2013         27               3.63                 5                  7

2014         16               3.44                27                13

 

If you sort by AVG STARS, then Michigan is #13, right below #31 USC and #4 FSU, yet above #12 Clemson and #10 Miami. If you look at the four teams above us with a similar class size (LSU (#6, 18), Georgia (#11, 17), UCLA (#16, 17), and USC (#31, 15)), you will notice that only USC has less recruits (by a margin of one) and is ranked below us in the overall rankings, despite having a higher AVG STAR rating (3.53 to Michigan's 3.44).

My point here being that Rivals tends to use some crazy hybrid of quality and quantity to determine team rankings and difference in class size tends throw wrenches in whatever method they use, be it a formula or just gut feeling. This would explain why Miami and UCLA's 2012 classes (33 and 26 recruits, respectively) were both top 15 classes to them, despite being the only two with an AVG STAR ranking of < 3.4, wheras most of the others were in the 3.5-3.7 range.

All this data says to me is that Rivals has won the MGoBlog annual "Worst Recruiting Service in the History of Recruiting of the Year" award. (That was a joke, btw)

TL;DR, We are not Alabama. Michigan does not oversign, nor do they engage in creative roster management tactics like phony medical scholarships and JuCo farm systems, nor have they had many Junior players on the roster that were projected to be draft picks. Therefore, Michigan will not recruit ~25 players every class.

Michigan's class, while down this year, is still a pretty good class and the "bad overall ranking" can be easily attributed to bringing in loaded classes the previous two years and whatever method Rivals uses to solve the class size differental problem.

never got admitted to school. Yet Rivals and the OP both use them to rank that class. I guess that's crootin' stats for you. Number of signees not enrolled under Hoke so far, zero. I consider that a big step in the right direction. It's also something to consider when comparing our classes to some other schools on those lists. 

Wrong meme year. This post should have pointed out how many decommits we have had per class vs OSU. Than we would really have something to talk about...crickets...well then, I'll just wait for this thread to be deleted.

This post was not impressive.

What this guy is smoking.

The formatting looks like shit on my iPad, so I switched over to Safari.

Welp, still looks like shit. I don't get it; what the point?

Those RR classes would've been not bad if he could actually have retained the players from whom he received commitments.  Alas, many fled.  This is a post of mine from another thread a couple weeks back looking at the youth on our team:

It's pretty remarkable to look at the 2013 roster by year:

Freshmen:        59 [36 True + 23 RS]  52%

Sophomores:   23 [12 True + 11 RS]  20%

Juniors:             16 [7 True + 9 RS]       14%

Seniors:             16 [5 True + 11 RS]    14%

You know why we had a team made up of 72% freshmen/sophomores?  Because your (OP) boy Rich wasn't the greatest with player retention.  Hoke is kinda the opposite of that, which is why we don't have a lot of slots to offer this year.

According to Rivals...

Coming off a 11-2 B1G title year...OSU's class was #26

Coming off of an apperance in the title game...LSU's class was #18

Oklahoma and Georgia  have not recurited top 10 classes in over 3 years

The year before they played in the title game...the Domers had the #20 class.

My point is that consistantly hauling in top 5 (hell, top 10) classes is extremely difficult and rare. One low ranked class (due primarily because of numbers crunch) does not signal the end of the world.

bet this didnt go the way you thought it would