There was some more very slight movement in 24/7 very recently:
- Ben Gedeon dropped form 171 to 174
- Deveon Smith went up from 231 to 229
Today's recruiting roundup examines new rankings from Rivals and 247, recaps the IMG 7-on-7 tournament, checks in on Laquon Treadwell and Su'a Cravens, and there's something about a letter that almost certainly won't draw any attention.
2013 OL commit Logan Tuley-Tillman caused, shall we say, a bit of a stir on Saturday with a simple tweet reading "#goblue #beatohio". Oh, and there was a picture attached:
Well, that's one way to say you'd appreciate no further correspondence from your future school's rival. While I'm sure this has ruffled feathers on both sides of the rivalry, I must say I thought this was hilarious, a harmless statement from a high school kid having some fun and
fueling the fire stoking the flames turning up the heat non-fire-related cliche about The Game. Looking closer, there's a couple of details in the photo worth pointing out:
In other news, both Rivals and 247 updated their 2013 rankings. The Rivals100 was released this morning; here's the movement of current commits:
Notable targets include VA RB Derrick Green, who shot up to #12 overall and earned a fifth star, FL DB Leon McQuay III (#33), IL WR Laquon Treadwell (#39), MD DT Henry Poggi (#52), and CA DE Joe Mathis (#71).
While the drops across the board don't look great, it's important to remember that several prospects have been evaluated (or re-evaluated with more film or new info from camps) since the initial rankings dropped in February—early standouts aren't so much losing stock as they are being passed by those who have gained exposure in recent months.
Here's the movement in the updated Top247:
Again, mostly minor drops here, with the notable exception of Ben Gedeon. Any disappointment should be severely mitigated by the fact that Michigan has 12 recruits on the list.
Auburn Hills hosted last weekend's Michigan Elite/IMG 7-on-7 Regional qualifier, which featured Laquon Treadwell's Core 6 squad facing off against Shane Morris & Co.'s Maximum Exposure. Neither team took the title, though thanks to their IMG national title last year MaxEx gets an automatic invite to this year's national tournament, but several commits and targets were standouts. Treadwell earned top performer honors from 247's Steve Wiltfong:
A smooth route runner, Treadwell is a physical player that does a superb job of catching the ball away from his body and making catches with the cornerback draped on his back. Whether he was going over the middle, leaping over a defender, or catching the ball back shoulder, Treadwell was good for a few wow moments a game. He also has some yards after the catch ability. Defensively, he played safety and came through with several plays on the football.
Morris was #4 on the list due to a performance described as "methodical, accurate, and easy like a Sunday morning," an assessment that is Lionel Richie-approved. Jourdan Lewis, playing for MaxEx, was the #9 performer. Maize & Blue News, a new recruiting/news site started by Matt Pargoff (formerly of The Wolverine) has highlights of Morris (above) and Lewis (here).
The event provided the opportunity for everyone to talk to Treadwell about his recruitment, and he provided similar, if slightly differing, statements for the recruiting sites. He presented a chopped-down list to Pargoff:
“I’ll probably decide during my high school season,” he stated. “I’m still looking at Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Illinois. That’s actually narrowed down a lot. There were a lot of schools on me. I just didn’t know what to do, so I just had to think about which ones I really wanted to go to … But I want to take some official visits.”
That list got a little bit smaller when Treadwell talked to Tim Sullivan ($):
Michigan isn't the only school still in play, but the list of serious contenders for Treadwell's services appears to be dwindling.
"Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Illinois," he said. "That's about it that I can think about off the top."
When he talked to 247's Steve Wiltfong, the list dwindled to four ($):
Treadwell says he remains in touch with about 10 college programs, and has four schools he’d currently have a tough time saying no to in Michigan, Michigan State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
“I’m looking at those four schools pretty hard,” Treadwell said.
Finally, Treadwell found a very roundabout way to name a leader, giving TomVH a top three of Michigan and... TBD ($):
He recently went on the record to say just where the Wolverines rank for him.
"In the top three," said Treadwell, who was in Michigan with his travel team for an IMG 7-on-7 qualifier. "That's the first offer. I love that school."
While he says some favorites have started to emerge, he isn't sure who else is on that list, so it's the Wolverines by themselves for now
Treadwell added that he plans to visit Oklahoma State on June 8th, and there's a chance he sees Oklahoma on that trip as well. He has no other visits planned. He also told GBW($) that he plans to take "probably, two officials" and said of Michigan, simply, "I love that school." Draw whatever conclusions you will from that.
The other big news of the week comes from CA S Su'a Cravens, a longshot for Michigan who is now an even longer shot, according to the Omaha World-Herald:
Five-star safety Su'a Cravens had been scheduled to unofficially visit Michigan and Nebraska next week in preparation for his June 6 decision date. NU, UM and USC were the three presumed favorites.
But the Vista Murrieta (Calif.) two-way star reportedly canceled both trips. Su'a Cravens father, Kevin confirmed the cancellation Sunday night.
“It's accurate,” he said.
According to Kevin Cravens, Su'a has final exams to take, and while the family initially thought he'd be able to make up these exams at a different date, the school, Kevin said, won't allow it. So no visit.
Despite the cancellation, Cravens will still announce his decision on June 6th. If he leaves the state of California, I'll eat two lemons.
Quickly: Michigan makes the top seven($) for AZ CB Cole Luke and the top six($) for Good Counsel S Kirk Garner. CA ATH Elijah Qualls tells GBW's Andre Barthwell that he plans to take an official visit to Ann Arbor ($). LSU leads($) for HI DT Scott Pagano. Magnus scouts VA RB Derrick Green at a 7-on-7 tournament. Tremendous gets a visit reaction from 2014 WR Jaylan Grandison.
There was some more very slight movement in 24/7 very recently:
I definitely don't see anything in this post being blown out of proportion by anyone.
Am I just being paranoid in thinking it appears the recruiting services simply assaigned a percentage drop to ALL our recruits across the board? It seems more than a bit odd that all our commits dropped and not a single one improved. I would also love to see the relative change in recruits who've already committed to a school versus those remaining uncommitted. After all - recruiting services exist for a reason and once a player has committed they aren't really needed anymore now are they? They have a vested financial stake in following (and perhaps inflating) the players still on the market versus those already locked up by somebody.
but you started off sounding like a little brother.
I find the whole argument that recruiting services have a "vested financial stake" in playing up uncommitted guys to be pretty ridiculous. There's a reasonable explanation for early commits being ranked high early, then falling; when guys commit early, the recruiting services have very good reason to do a thorough evaluation, before they've taken a hard look at many other prospects. As a result, early commits tend to comprise a large chunk of the early lists. When the services start evaluating the uncommitted players, it's natural for the players on the early lists—committed or uncommitted—to drop as these new players get their rightful place in the rankings.
PA WR Robert Foster dropped in the Rivals update, from #26 to #34. Since he's uncommitted, nobody is complaining, but he was one of those guys who got evaluated very early in the process. I could pick dozens of other examples, or you can just believe me when I say these guys are professionals and there's no conspiracy behind the rankings.
I'm usually not one to wear a tin-foil hat when it comes to sports conspiracies, but it is imprudent to dismiss rankings tampering for the purposes of driving up subscribers since it has been proven to happen before.
I forget the scout's name, but a couple years ago, a former Rivals employees admitted that Alabama recruits were all bumped up in the rankings to appease the Albama subscriber base - the largest fan base out of all the Rival premium sites. He was fired shortly after that.
I'm sure the vast majority of the scouts for these sites do their work honestly, but it doesn't mean there aren't external factors other than pure football ability that ultimately decide the rankings - either on a conscience or subconscience level.
"When the services start evaluating the uncommitted players, it's natural for the players on the early lists—committed or uncommitted—to drop"
In all due respect Ace - why? Why is there any inherent movement upward or downward if the early evaluations were done correctly? Wouldnt the closer look theroy also lead to players being moved UP as frequently as down? Why wouldn't the services be just as likely to re-evaluate a Shane Morris, for example, and move him up after looking more thorougly at other players they may have ommitted initially instead of down?
You may sumarily dismiss the financial angle I believe exists but trust me, I've spent over 30 years in business and the adage "follow the money" is used for a reason. As altruistic as you may believe the services to be they are still filthy capitalists like me and are driven at their core at generating income so their company can grow and prosper.
I agree with both of you in that I think that both of these things happen, but I think the effect that Ace is talking about is probably stronger.
I'd think about it this way:
Prospects rankings came out incredibly early this year - well before these services could have fully evaluated each of these kids. Therefore, they focused their attention on the most visible kids, who often were the kids who had committed to top programs or at least been offered by them. Many Michigan commits got this early treatment. As time goes on and other prospects are discovered, they find their way into their appropriate rankings. All of the Michigan commits had been noticed and accounted for; some of the other prospects hadn't even been evaluated. Sure, the Michigan kids will pass some of the initially ranked recruits, but they can't pass kids who hadn't been ranked yet. They can only be passed by them.
On top of that, there's a general regression to the mean phenomenon, where there's more room to move down than up (and the error that's baked into the rankings of the highest-ranked prospects is disproportionately likely to be error in their favor).
Agree - #10 ranking is more likely to move down than up. Any time you re-rank, you're bound to have many changes which creates "news." The sites don't have plan a big conspiracy to get rankings to change. They just need to ask their scouts to re-evaluate the universe.
Why? Because, as more players are evaluated, the pool is larger. Also, recruiting services are reluctant to rate players who haven't been extensively evaluated very highly; since the early commits are extensively evaluated, they tend to start at the top and slip behind players who start getting more attention later in the cycle. There's also some regression to the mean. Guys who start up top don't have much room to move ahead, but have a lot of space to fall.
Do you believe that recruiting services have any business pressures built in to bias them towards chasing eyeballs rather than having "accurate" ratings? Does not the business side of all this drive activity? Do editors (or whatever you call them at Rivals, Scout et al) get measured on metrics that involve traffic, links, etc?
That's somewhere near Cichago right? I cannot express how much man-love I have for the kids in these last few classes. They know how to be characters with character.
The burning red and gray letter is almost as delicious as predicitons of someone else's "blood on the field". Heartening stuff all.
You can say a guy is in a talent category by watching him play. And maybe even name a couple of guys who are best at their position, or someone who looks like a rare talent. But this continual moving up and down of players in rankings, like anyone can have ANY idea the difference between the 54th and 55th best player, has gotten so ridiculous it's practically becoming insulting. It's just creating news to get more people reading them, and we all eat it up. It's not unique...the NFL guys do this too...but I don't really see anyone taking seriously any changes Mel Kiper makes out of his top ten or so. After the top of the draft it's more a "this guy is still available", not "boy, is this team stupid for trusting their scouts rather than Kiper's rankings."
Give the players a star ranking, rank the classes at the end, do some evaluation. But these endless conflicting lists...meh.
(Directed at the services...not Ace. He's just reporting what people are interested in.)
I'll respectfully disagree. I strongly prefer rankings to star ratings. Here are the two main reasons why:
1. Rankings don't have the hard cut points that star ratings have (and therefore, rankings provide much richer information). Let's say that a service has 20 prospects rated as "five-stars" and 400 rated as "four-stars." If you throw away the rankings, it looks like there's an enormous difference between the #20 and #21 prospects. All you'd know about the former is that he's a five-star and all you'd know about the latter is that he's a four-star. At the same time, it would look like there's no difference between the #21 and #420 prospects (both four-stars). Rankings get you out of this problem.
2. Rankings are inflation-proof. Over the years, prospect star ratings seem to be going the same way of college grades, and there's been a general move upward. This makes it hard to compare classes over time. You can't inflate rankings, though.
I agree that there's no meaningful difference between the #54 and #55 prospects, but that's on the reader to interpret the information properly. For those who interpret this stuff the right way, I think there's much more information in rankings than star ratings.
Where you have 400 4* players. I'm just not so sure they can see that much more difference between the 20 and 21 guy than they can the 21 and 74. Star should just be categories. The really elite, the very good, the good, and so on. Why is one guy a 5 and another a 4 if there's no discernable difference in their ability at 20 and 21? Just because we said we'd have x number of players ranked that? There should be a way to tell when there's definitely a step down in ability, but just a little bit better than another guy, with all the factors? Folly, because a guy isn't changing how good a player he is that much. If it's a lack of info before, then they've made assessments inaccurately because they couldn't wait for enough evidence to be out there.
And comparing classes over time is just something to get more people interested in the rankings. The only thing that matters is how they did on the field. How they ranked in 2008 doesn't really matter anymore.
But even if you wanted to have this dynamic, you could certainly just rank them at the end of the season, when all the evidence is in. At least with school classes you can see additions to a class. That a guy is getting that much better or worse from camps, camps often with only coaches there, and not real football, is the part that is just to garner subscriptions. It's all smoke and mirrors to make one think it's important where it's just a lot of make it up as you go along.
I agree with this, and your original post, M-Wolv! It's always bothered me too.
While TF has two decent points, I simply don't believe that in this post-spring, pre-summer camp "season" enough has changed to merit these "updates".
Furthermore, is there really that great a difference, not just between 54 and 55, but 54 and 155? Or 255? (Ask the NFL draft!...)
Perhaps the rankings themselves should be analyzed (ahem MATHLETE), because to some degree it's apples and oranges. I.e., who is to say that a 5-star safety at #3, say, is more valuable than a 5-star quarterback at #25, anyway? Is he THAT much better of a safety than that other guy is at a more important position?
The only rankings worth paying attention to are the stars, and the position ranks (i.e. #3 safety vs. #25 safety). Anything else is too subjective, in a subjective game (witness the MATHLETE on the overimportance of the running back, for instance). These "top 250s" are the Ace Williams of recruit ranks...
You can inflate rankings, ESPN just did it this month.
Either you're confusing star ratings with player rankings or I'm not following you.
You can - and ESPN did - inflate star ratings by, for example, making too many kids four-star recruits. However, as long as you have one guy ranked #1, one guy ranked #2, one guy ranked #3, etc., you can't inflate player rankings.
Well you can't just use 1-150 (or any arbitrary number) to judge talent, because talent differs year to year, creating a certain deviation, so I assume you mean that we're looking at numerical rankings. In this case, ESPN just changed their entire numerical ranking system, inflating every ranking in order to make their system more "logical" (or so I hear). Thus, top prospects from last year have paltry rankings compared to the inflated numbers of this year.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think is means...
The "score" ESPN gives each player is a rating, not a ranking.
A ranking system is not subject to score inflation, but doesn't take into account fluctuations in talent level (i.e. a "weak" year).
A rating system can suffer from inflation, but can also account for talent differences from year to year.
I assumed it was you who was using the loose meaning of the word, since as you agreed, the "ranking" system is flawed as well.
On the other hand, I don't think differences year to year effect ratings that much. There's a level of player that garners a certain star rating, and they don't meet quotas on that data.
Treadwell eliminates a team each time he's interviewed. If we can just get him interviewed two more times we'll have a commit.
Just don't interview him another time, because then he will give up playing college football altogether.
I'm kind of surprised that there is a national tournament devoted to 7 on 7. It seems like a backyard game like 500 or pepper. It doesn't seem to really show anything or improve any skills other than receivers hands, but there are so many guys in that small space that someone is always bound to get loose in the chaos.
In a world where we measure half naked men like livestock and make 350 lb lineman run in a straight line for 40 yards...while wearing tights....THIS is pretty low on the list of activities that don't truly translate to football.
Queme las correspondencia!
Queme la correspondencia.
/spanish grammar nazi
I am fired up for some reason.
Since you don't have one, the burning OSU letter would make a good avatar for you. It must live on.
Tillman is the man, can't wait to see him in the Maize and Blue!!!
I want to look at some sec early committs list to see how many of their stock have risen. I'm just saying. Also, Tillman is okay with me