Scout has come out with their recruiting rankings for the class of 2009. Michigan is #10, right it front of Rutgers. Which, is pretty funny, because 5 years ago if Michigan was just in front of Rutgers in recruiting rankings we'd all be freaking out.
Scout Ranks U of M in the Top Ten
Is that projected or based only upon current commitments?
What's the projection on the number of scholarships for this year...anybody. I remember Brian or maybe the GBW blog guys saying 21/22 or maybe even a full class if a few move on/are not invited back!!
Campbell plus a OL a LB (Jenkins) DE (montgomery/Ankrah) and Thames or Gordon would be a real good finish. If we can reel in Hawkins it would be even better!
How many more guys can they bring in? And will Sheridan still be on scholarship next year, or is it a one year deal?
Top 10 would be a very pleasant surprise if it holds. I wonder what RichRod's highest rated class at WVU was.
According to scout 18th. WVU recruiting rankings according to scout:
2002-#33, 2003-#57, 2004-#53, 2005-#33, 2006-#56, 2007-#18.
In case you're wondering, 2008-#36 & 2009-#19
These rankings are both without Will Campbell, FWIW.
The 4 teams in front of us don't have as many Top 100 players. Its also underrated players like Toussaint and Schofield. Its better to look at the offers these kids received and compare them that way, not by what Scout thinks of them.
It's worth saying that Rivals is much more positive of our class - having us at #6. That's without Will Campbell, who would be our top recruit, if we get him.
thing I posted 34 minutes before. Apparently it was worth saying...again.
...is that it's based primarily on numbers, not player rating. I would consider a 24 man class full of 4/5 stars better than a 32 man class full of 3/4 stars. That's particularly true pre-signing day when a school like UF looks like they have a shitty class, but they only have ~10 commits.
You don't want that Roll Tide Roll guy to throw a bitch-fit on you.
I'm not encouraged by the #10 ranking at all, I was last year, and would be if RR was just jumping in like he did, but we should be in the top ten every year as a matter of course. So what exactly is good about it? Talk to me about top 5, then I'll be happy, and I do not think that's unrealistic based on past performance and the upgrades we've made.
Quit being a weak sister Wolverine1987.
If you are pissed about the rankings you shouldn't be. Here are the stats for a couple of schools above us.
#4 Auburn 25 commits 2 in top 100 avg rating 3.20
#8 Texas A&M 24 commits 0 in top 100 avg rating 3.04
# 10 Michigan 18 commits 2 in top 100 avg rating 3.39
So simply because those two team have 6-7 more commits than we do, they are rated higher with worse players on average. Looking at the players we are still in it for, there is no way we won't move up come signing day.
Complete listing here: http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2009
It always has been. I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
" Scout.com team football recruiting rankings are based on the Talent, Need and Balance
of players committed to that school. We consider only players who have
made a Verbal or Soft Verbal commitment to that school. We include high
school, prep school and junior college players in our analysis.
Talent - This category reflects the quality of players committed
to that school. Teams must recruit difference-makers throughout their
class to obtain a high ranking.
Need - This is analysis of whether the team needs are being met
at each position. This value is capped per position type (i.e., a team
does not receive extra credit for overloading at a position).
Balance - Teams must be represented at every position by players
of each body type. Securing balance in every recruiting class is a
necessity due to the injuries and attrition that are part of college
Don't "need" and "balance" kind of offset each other? Lets' say a team is totally stacked on offense, all positions, for the next few years, but the defense is completely depleted. So during recruiting, you pick up a bunch of good defensive players, multiple players at each position, to renew your depth on defense. This would look good for NEED but not BALANCE. If you instead signed players equally from each position, it would score well for BALANCE but not NEED. What a dumb rataing system.
That whole statement should be interpreted as "we want to be able to tweak the rankings when we don't like how the numbers add up."
That's sort of bizarre. Rivals just assigns each recruit a number of "points" based purely on skill, and then tallies it up, I believe.
I never understood the "OUR TALENT IS SO AMAZING ALL THE TIME" meme espoused by Wolverine1987 - true, we have always recruited well, but VERY rarely have we even been top 5, and we have frequently been out of the top 10. #6 is a good class for Michigan. Period.
2009: (as of now) #6
So, this class is about as good as we have ever done. So far. So chill.
Suppose I should clarify. I'm not unhappy with the current ranking, and am not one of those "we should win everything" alums. My point was that I wasn't impressed or "encouraged" by it (as another poster had stated in his note), because I believe top ten is where we should be nearly every year recruiting wise. My comment would be better expressed as "so far so good", and hoping for even better.
Gotcha, "weak sister" redacted.
Why the hell does it matter if we are #8 or #4? Because we get an extra win for being in the Top 5 on Rivals?
I do believe that recruiting rankings are important. If you get a lot of good players, you'll probably do pretty well. So I guess the way I look at it, as long as you are in the upper echelon (top 15ish), you'll be alright.
Worrying about the difference between being the #8 class and in the "Top 5" is dumb. Pure, disgusting, unappealing, short-sighted, shallow-minded dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Agree, there's no difference, though staying top ten is important IMO. It seems the 5 star guys are the difference often though, and as we've seen, they hit maybe two thirds of the time but when hit can make a huge difference on the field.
I think it's more important to see how we stack up against the other Big Ten teams. If we are 8th, and every team ahead of us is an SEC team or USC, I'm cool with it, since we may not play any of those teams with those recruits.
What interests me more is how well we do against the Big Ten and ND. If we have a top 5 class, but we are below OSU, ND and some other Big Ten team, albeit unlikely, that would be worse in my book than if our class was 12th but we were ahead of all of our likely opponents. It's all relative people.
who cares? we'll be fine. michigan fans have got to be the most paranoid college f'ball fans (and i'm included). but seriously, its september and people are arguing and bitching about our class ranking which isn't finalized until february. and even when they are, which will open a whole new can of shit, everyone will bitch and argue about where we are then... w/o having seeing any of these guys play a down of college football.
guys, relax. take a deep breath and relax. we're looking good. richrod is in the beginning of a long process of putting our program back on top. this is getting ridiculous hearing so many people bitch about recruiting or how we're doing this year. WE'RE REBUILDING.
IIRC Alabama fans are just absolutely nuts. I think that fans could be a lot worse. Take a look at Louisville, for example. Rick Pitino made a public statement asking fans to take it easy of Steve Kragthorpe, who still needs time to clean up Petrino's mess (Petrino apparently didn't discipline his players at all). And look at some of the booster scandals at Alabama and Auburn, where that really rich guy tried to push Tuberville out. Ridiculous. Fine, not the entire fanbase, but you get the idea.
Are Michigan fans nuts? Sure they are. But there are other cases that make Michigan fans seem tame.