love it. wish you could do these breakdowns more often like on your old site.
Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
Now that the 2010 classes are wrapped up in the Big Ten (pending final decisions from OH S Latwan Anderson and MN OL Seantrel Henderson), it's time to take the next natural step and decide who acquitted themselves well in college football's second season.
|Big Ten Recruiting Class Rankings|
|Rank||School||# of Commits||Rivals Average*||Scout Average||ESPN Average|
Yes, I'm well aware that Notre Dame isn't in the Big Ten, but there's enough interest in them as a regional rival that Michigan pays every year, that it's worthwhile to include them.
*(Rivals uses a five star system but also grades players on a finer scale that ranges from 6.1 to 5.2.)
The full data after the jump.
|#1 Penn State - 20 Commits|
Though they lost a big name or two (MD WR Adrian Coxson and NY DE Dominque Easely decommitted from PSU and ended up signing with Florida), the Nittany Lions still landed a nice-sized class with some top talent.
|#2 Michigan - 27 Commits|
Michigan's ranking is inflated by its size, but Devin Gardner, Cullen Christian, and Demar Dorsey are the highly-ranked headliners for a class that fills a lot of needs in ann Arbor.
|#3 Ohio State - 18 Commits|
The Buckeyes struck out on a number of guys late (OH OL Matt James, OH LB Jordan Hicks, MN OL Seantrel Henderson - who may choose the Buckeyes yet), and they have a small class. However, with Tressel, quality can trump quantity.
|#4 Notre Dame - 23 Commits|
Brian Kelly had a pretty good February in his first year at Notre Dame, but a few recruits at the back end of the list really drag down average rating. It's still good enough to be one of the top classes.
|#5 Michigan State - 21 Commits|
Outside of Gholston, this is a solid-not-great class for the Spartans. A couple of their guys might be slightly overrated (see: Boisture, Joe), but with continued on-field improvement, MSU has a chance to move up in the pecking order.
|#6 Iowa - 21 Commits|
Fiedorowicz is a stud tight end, but the Hawkeyes will develop most of the guys they recruit, like usual.
|#7 Wisconsin - 24 Commits|
|James C. White||RB||5.7||3||77|
Middling class for the Badgers, heavy on linemen.
|#8 Northwestern - 17 Commits|
Small class for Northwestern, and they lost a commit in the final weeks of the recruiting season, too.
|#9 Purdue - 24 Commits|
OJ Ross is a coup for the Boilermakers, but they need more than one.
|#10 Illinois - 20 Commits|
I would say "wow, this class is terrible (especially for Zook)," but that honor is reserved for his fellow "outstanding recruiter" below.
|#11 Minnesota - 25 Commits|
Wow, this class is terrible. Brewster is supposed to be an outstanding recruiter... and this is what he comes up with? Minnesota suffered through approximately 7,000 decommitments this year, and this class is a huge disappointment.
|#12 Indiana - 25 Commits|
As per usual, the Hoosiers bring up the rear.
love it. wish you could do these breakdowns more often like on your old site.
can you clarify why michigan is ranked 2nd in this chart?
if i average michigan's position in each of these systems (1 pt for best rating, 2 for second, etc.) michigan ends up tied with ND for 3rd.
I was going to say I thought it was how the class rankings fell according to Rivals, but after I look again, this is not the case.
Using your criteria (inversely) I show our class as #2 in the B10.
The first chart only shows average stars/scores/whatever metrics per recruit. Team rankings also have to factor in class size. So, even though OSU had better recruits on average, the sheer size of Michigan's class causes it to be generally considered superior to OSU's.
It's because our class is so much bigger than all other classes. The Bucks only had 18 commits to our 28. Obviously if we sign more guys we will not have as high of an average, or if we did we would have a monster class. If we took of the bottom 10 rated guys, our average would be higher.
A lot of people seem to see Michigan's class as "overrated" because it is quantity or quality (i.e., UM's class is bigger, but OSU has a higher avg. star).
That type of overrated comment is filled with ignorance. If OSU's class had 10 more players, their star ranking would drop. There are only a small number of 4 and 5 star recruits, so it would HAVE to drop barring something crazy. The same is true for everyone.
That is one of the reasons sites take size into account. It is imporant because the higher the class size, the more likely the avg star rating will be forced down.
Michigan did a great job recruiting after two losing seasons. Plus, this class is so fast that once they add some girth (easy to do) they could be scary good.
This post wasn't by Brian. It was posted by Tim.
cfn.scout.com have Michigan as #1 in the big eleven but scout.com has them at #2? doesn't make sense.
Thanks for the wrap up.
We should really stop paying Notre Dame though
I assume that's Jordan Norwood's little brother? Interesting that PSU said, "Sorry, you have to go somewhere else now" to the universally-praised Adrian Coxson, but took a kid with lesser guru ratings across the board.
I guess they are banking on Levi being as good as his brother.
It's disheartening to learn that we pay Notre Dame every year. If anything they should be paying us after last year.
1 - You know it's bad for Illinois if their third rated recruit in the whole class apparently couldn't get an offer from UM or MSU.
2 - Let's keep an eye on Andre Kates from Indiana. Rivals gives him the same rating as Ricardo Miller, Jibreel Black, and Josh Furman, Scout gives him 2 stars and ESPN gives him a 40. Something has to give.
We're 4th in the Rivals rankings, 3rd in the Scout rankings, and 3rd in the ESPN ratings, but somehow, we move ourselves into 2nd on the rankings because of class size? I fail to see the logic in taking quantity over quality if we're using the rankings of the recruiting sites to establish some sort of pecking order than ignoring it to put us into second place.
Someone explain this to me. I'm not down on the class or any of the recruits, but are we saying we're second based on the evidence given in the chart or because we know we've addressed needs on the team that will bolster our team going forward?
Here's the logic. Yes, 20 4 and 5 star guys is likely to give you more All Big-10 caliber players than 30 3 star guys. However, 30 guys ranging between 3 and 5 stars is likely to give you more All Big-10 caliber players than 20 players between 3 and 5 stars, even if on average, the class of 20 is slightly higher rated.
Edit: I'm not saying that Michigan is or is not ranked appropriately. I am only pointing out that using average recruit ranking as the ONLY measure is as foolish as ignoring average recruit ranking all together. As we all know, Mike Hart was a 3-star recruit and he far exceeded expectations. If you have 10 3 star guys compared to 5 3-star guys, it stands to reason that the larger class is more likely to find that diamond in the rough.
Can we stop using the Mike Hart three star argument please? It has been thoroughly debunked. That is all.
As long as they're first in your hearts, that's all that matters, not what Rivals, Scout and ESPN tells you to think.
Wonder if he'll still be barking that Boilermakers never give up when we are back in short order to schooling him.
The guy seems to have some issues.
you will need to excuse him - he is just really "boilered up!"
the best name in the bunch is Devin Gardner.
but Kona Schwenke and Chichi Ariguzo aren't bad, either.
We pay them every year? No wonder they could afford to buy Weis out.
A lot of great depth and a lot more athletes and speed on the way.