Jimmystats: The Fate of Early Enrollees Comment Count

Seth

Brian buzzed me last week with a recruiting question on early enrollees:

1) Are EEs less likely to redshirt?

2) Are EEs more likely to start as freshmen? Underclassmen?

3) Are EEs more likely to be all-conference? Drafted?

4) Are EEs more likely to stick around as 4th and/or 5th year Seniors?

I hear a lot about the benefits of being an EE; you get on campus early, you get to start working out with the team trainers and players, start taking classes, etc. I think Clemson has something crazy like 12 EEs this year and I can't imagine that hurts their team development. I'm just curious if it actually gives any empirical advantage to those who do so.

Thanks and Go Blue!

Steven Z

I don't have national data, but I've got the early enrollees in my giant spreadsheet (see "EE" column). I'm pretty sure of things since 2008, but before that I had to rely on Michigan's press releases from signing days and spring games.

The list:

2015: Malzone, Cole
2014: Speight, Canteen, Harris, Cole, Mone, Ferns, Watson
2013: Douglas, Butt, Bosch, LTT, Taco, Dymonte
2012: Ringer, Bolden, Wilson
2011: Greg Brown
2010: Gardner, White, Hopkins, J.Rob, J.Jackson, Ricardo, Pace
2009: Forcier, V.Smith, Campbell, LaLota, M.Jones, Hawthorne, Vlad
2008: Stonum
2007: Mallett, Helmuth, Chambers
2006: C.Brown, Boren
2005: Kevin Grady

Just from reading that list you'll notice transition years have relatively few of them; a healthy Michigan probably has six or seven guys enrolling in January each year. You'll also note a lot of guys who left for one reason or another.

1) Are EEs less likely to redshirt?

Yes. 32% of EEs redshirted as freshmen versus 65% of those who enrolled in fall (those who never enrolled not counted). They obviously came to play.

2) Are EEs more likely to play early? Yes, but they're less likely to play overall. Here's the average number of starts per their season in the program for players who would be eligible*. Notice the difference?

EEs2

* "Would be eligible" means I've removed redshirt (including medical), and transfer years, and 5th years of guys who never redshirted. Those lost to attrition otherwise are counted.

That is wow. It is extremely weird for there to be as many starts for true freshmen as for third- or fourth-year players. This shows that early enrollees are more likely to play as freshmen, but were progressively less likely to be starters each season thereafter.

You also can see the average start numbers per eligible player are rather low.

It's more accurate to say you find out what they are much earlier. Notably, NONE of the early enrollees to earn starts at Michigan redshirted initially (the 11 starts by a 5th year are all Gardner's).

It's also worth nothing that it wasn't the same guys contributing to those columns. Your true freshman EEs with more than 3 starts were Mason Cole (12), Jake Butt (8), Tate Forcier (12), and Darryl Stonum (10). Those guys—for reasons of injury, Denard, or temporal existence—contributed just 8 starts to the sophomore column, which is filled instead by Boren, Vincent Smith, and Jarrod Wilson.

3) Are EEs more likely to be all-conference? Drafted?

That seems to be much more relative to their talent, but we'd need national data to make that assumption. One day I'll add NFL draft information to the big spreadsheet; maybe we'll discover something then.

4) Are EEs more likely to stick around as 4th and/or 5th year Seniors?

As you probably guessed from the above chart, they are way LESS likely, and from the data it appears that's mostly because they're flight risks. Even if you figure all of the current players make it to graduation, early enrollees at Michigan have an average of 1.92 (!) lost seasons of eligibility out of the four they get, compared to 0.82 for fall entries.

This remains true even if you remove all the guys currently on the team. Here's a breakdown of the % of former players (from 1993 class to 2014) who stuck around X amount of years by when they enrolled:

Seasons at M—> 5 4 3 2 1 DNQ
Fall enrollees 39% 30% 10% 10% 7% 4%
Early enrollees 4% 29% 17% 17% 33% n/a

That is stark. A good third of early enrollees left the program after just a year, and the hits kept on coming. When you total up all the eligible seasons of enrollees lost to various types of attrition, the EEs were particularly likely to be giving those seasons to other schools:

% of Season Lost To: Fall Early
Transfers 44% 72%
Medical 20% 9%
Dismissed/Behavioral 14% 15%
Gave up football 10% 2%
Unrenewed 5th 8% 2%
Early NFL 4% 0%

Of the 37 early enrollees, six played out their eligibility and 13 are currently on the team. Three losses were natural attrition (Mike Jones was an unrenewed 5th, Hopkins gave up football, and Pace was a medical loss), and three were dismissals (Forcier, Stonum, and Austin White). That leaves 12 transfers: Boren, Mallett, Helmuth, Chambers, Emilien, LaLota, Ricardo, J-Rob, G.Brown, Ringer, Bosch, and Ferns.

Only the first two of those transfers wound up helping Power Five programs, though Bosch and Ferns still have the opportunity to do so. Mallett and Boren would have been guaranteed starters on the 2008-forward teams. The rest seem to be guys who were buried on the depth chart and realized it early.

What have we learned?

An early enrollee is more likely to care extremely about early playing time. They chose Michigan in part for an immediate opportunity to start, thus raising the likelihood of early playing time. However they are way more volatile in attrition.

Your expectations of an early enrollee from Michigan's smallish sample is that you'll find out right away if he's going to be either a long-term starter or a non-major contributor. A lot of these guys come to compete for an open spot, and either win it or move on.

Comments

Code-7

February 17th, 2015 at 1:29 PM ^

Just for clarification, I counted 39 EE but you had 37 listed. Not being a pain in the ass just noticed that 12 had transferred. Amazing that 1/3 of the EE left for greener pastures.

TheFugitive

February 17th, 2015 at 1:32 PM ^

Mason Cole looks like he could reverse the trend a little bit, possibly Canteen due to lower WR numbers.  

Is one position more likely to transfer as an EE opposed to others?  JH brought in so many QBs over the last month that some are bound to seek greener pastures.  

mgofuj

February 17th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^

Vince Helmuth – that’s a name I haven't thought of in a while. Funny story about him and Mallett, when they moved into the dorms in January they were under the impression they would be roommates. But when they got to West Quad they were slotted into separate double rooms down the hall from each other. Each room had a student already in it but had an open bed.

Well instead of handling it through the proper channels, they figured the best thing to do was to remove the belongings and furniture of Vince’s roommate so they could room together. Mind you the poor kid who they kicked out had been in that room since August. Imagine coming back from winter break with all your belongings in another room down the hall and two huge guys you've never met saying you don't live there anymore. Needless to say there was a swift call to the coaching staff to fix that mess.

JeepinBen

February 17th, 2015 at 2:14 PM ^

I know Seth did what he could with the available data... but the small sample size means that so much of this is attributable to outside forces. Tate - for example, really skews things since he started 1 year, then sat behind Denard. in a better program, Tate never starts as a true EE Frosh.

It's interesting for what it is, but you'd really need more data over either more years or programs to try to reach any conclusions

getsome

February 17th, 2015 at 3:04 PM ^

exactly - too narrow sample size to draw any real conclusions - though still interesting so thanks.

3 significant coaching changes span the datas relatively short window and that cant be overstated (though always seems more depressing when laid out in print in these type studies) - study mostly indicates um's lack of roster continuity, weak talent evals, failed player development, deadly reliance on true frosh, etc, all of which just reinforces um's lack of on-field production during this stretch.

addl programs obviously must be weighed in order to reach any meaningful conclusions.  but its nice to reflect on some of those awful data points knowing that harbaugh likely corrects many issues via stronger evals / player development, elite coaching, etc while offering 5+ years continuity to struggling and deserving program

Ron Utah

February 17th, 2015 at 5:27 PM ^

Unfortunately, I think transitions have made this look worse than it is.

I expect these numbers to change as Bolden, Wilson, Butt, Taco, Dymonte(?), Canteen, Cole, Mone, Watson(?), and Mason Cole move up through the ranks and rack-up some PT.

Then again, we just had another transition, and if those guys aren't willing to eat cereal and gatorade (that's a metaphor) then they won't see the field under JH.

CriticalFan

February 17th, 2015 at 5:41 PM ^

Since these guys are early enrollees, they committed before January. Thus they are not the hat ceremony, 5-star types, right?

Does it follow tthat the EEs are the ones less highly ranked, because the evaluators see them as not good enough/big enough, etc. to stay on the field once their competitors (fall enrollees) have nonzero practice, training table, and study time?

That might correlate, right?

twu49379

February 18th, 2015 at 5:00 AM ^

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77   hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail
 
----------------------> http://www.jobsblaze.com