Rivals position rankings: 4 stars galore
Over half of those guys won't end up at Michigan. They have us in their top 3-5. So what, the point of mentioning all the 3*s was that most of them were likely commits, on top of the six 3*s that are already committed. I don't doubt we'll end up with a nice recruiting class, it just seems like half the class can be filled up with 3*s by mid-summer.
You said "most of Michigan's committs (sic) and recruits that hold us in high regard are 3 star prospects."
That's quite a glass-half-empty conclusion when we have commitments from four 4* players and we're in on numerous others. You singled out Cullen Christian, Lo Wood, Corvin Lamb, and Austin White. Christian is the top ranked 3 star CB, primed to become a 4. Wood is probably not coming. (4 stars Mathis or McKnight are more likely, I think.)
I also like getting highly ranked kids, but I don't share your space concerns. Hate it or love it, we have a coach who politely dumps kids when he can secure better. If we decide we have a Jordan Barnes of Dewayne Peace in this class his phone will stop ringing. If four stars want to come, we'll make room. The issue is laying the groundwork (done) and then winning some games so they want to come (here's hoping).
I agree with you on all points. I wasn't counting the four 4*s because they were all previously ranked. I just wanted to let everybody know that doesn't have a rivals subscription on the newly released rankings. I also approve (as bad as it is) RR's way of letting the lower ranked kids "de-commit".
Didn't mean to be snippy by titling the post as I did. It's just that after reviewing the Rivals position rankings myself, I actually had the opposite reaction. I thought our selections looked good. For example, Javarie Johnson: no one had heard of him when he almost committed; now he's ranked ahead of Caleb Lavey, source of so much dismay here. I think the rankings make us look pretty smart.
My personal favorite was Drew Dileo rated above Scott McVey.
Go cry somewhere else. We'll be fine.
Maybe if I cry enough here you'll drown. I'll cut you some slack though since my last post and your post were nearly at the same time and you didn't realize my intentions. I find it pretty amazing that you agree with everything everybody posts, you don't have your own opinions?
I just went backed and looked at Michigan recruiting classes on Rivals and Scout from 2002-2006 and at a glance I see no reason to be concerned if a guy is rated 3 or 4 star talent. Some of Michigan's best players have been 3 star some have been 4 star, also both groups have a high rate of players who did very little on the football field.
recruiting rankings don't matter because Mike Hart.
They matter but there is so much error involved I don't think it is wise to pass judgement on an individual recruit until we see what they do in college.
It is more than just Mike Hart a 3 star or James McKinney a 4 star. there are an innumerable examples of each. the "Mike Hart" cliche just indicates to me, you don't want to let go of your star studded security blanket. Go back and look at Michigan's recruits and you can see for yourself that there are many many misses on the Rankings pro and con
I think if you did an analysis with a fairly large sample size (over 5 classes or so, for example) you would see a clear correlation between recruiting rankings and production. Obviously there are no guarantees, but I think the evidence presented in the blogosphere makes it clear that there is a difference between three and four stars. The four star lottery tickets are a little bit more likely to hit than the three stars.
But let me make it clear that I'm fine with our current recruiting class, because I do think it's a tad underrated in terms of stars. There are several players with huge offers and yet only three stars (Jackson, for example, I think has offers from LSU and Florida). I think that offers, in many cases, are a better predictor of future performance than stars.
I don't understand why anyone that's been in this board for more than a few weeks (I'm not criticizing you LJ, just the debate) would even enter into a discussion about recruiting rankings and whether they matter. It has already been PROVEN that they do matter, and that they correlate to success in the field, in a couple data filled posts from Brian and a couple more from dutiful posters here. Anyone that still questions them either is not reading the posts here or is just not smart.
Having said that, they indicate, not guarantee, anything. So of course 3 star guys can and do excel, and the same in reverse for 4 star guys.
Also... Mike Hart was a highly anticipated recruit coming out of HS. I remember reading about Hart as a Barry Sanders type runner and Max Martin as a Eric Dickerson type runner, one panned out the other did not. Surprising? No
Max Martin failed in the classroom, not necessarily on the field.
...the "Mike Hart was a 3 star" discussion isn't happening again, is it? If sure, make sure Pat White - 3 star, Patrick Omameh - 2 star and Colt McCoy - 2 star make it into the conversation.............
No, I think the "Mike Hart" thing is cliche. I think Hart probably should have been rated higher to start.
This incoming class the 2 players I most look forward to see are Toussaint and Gallon and it does not matter to me if they are 3 or 4 stars.
My complaint; people who reference the rankings from Rivals or Scout as if they are gospel, the rankings are useful tools not the final word on recruiting.
Magnus has an interesting take on RR recruiting tactics on his blog, it is a good read, and may soothe some anxious Michigan fans.
...and I bring up the Mike Hart 3 star thing because I've seen the argument here about 30 times in the past 3 months.
I agree with you - the ratings are somewhat useful, but I don't think they should be used as a basis to criticize Rich's recruiting. There are too many variables that go into recruiting these kids and getting them on campus to simply say that getting 20 five stars means you will win the national title, or that a group of 15 3 stars means you have no chance. I enjoy debating the nuances going into the recruiting and players, rather than simply debating an arbitrary star number.
FWIW, I'm most excited to see Denard and Touissant this fall. Of those already here, Tate, Emilien and Vincent Smith pique my interest.
Yeah Denard and Tate go without saying. It is amazing, both are already easily recognized on a first name basis around here. I hope they are linked in Michigan lore forever. Like Gordie Bell and Rob Lytle (the blond bomber from Fremont Ohio), are for me.
Check out Rivals and look at every single recruit who has committed to a team in the SEC. With the exception of Florida (even they have some 3-stars) the commitments to LSU, South Carolina and Georgia aren't radically different than Michigan. Michigan actually has more 4-stars than almost every SEC school right now.
i'm trying to figure out who's more psycho?
1. you guys for whining or praising our commits stars in freiken may before their senior years.
2. ME for reading every post and response.