Is there a reason why Rivals has us ranked higher than MSU, yet you have us ranked lower under Rivals? Doesn't make much sense to me...
Mike Lantry, 1972
New Michigan commit(s), and this bad boy hits the front page. It was a hectic Signing Day in the Big Ten, so all the action won't be listed here. Last rankings. Barring any unforeseen developments, this will be the last set of rankings for the 2011 class. New rankings:
|Big Ten+ Recruiting Class Rankings|
|Rank||School||# Commits||Rivals Avg||Scout Avg||ESPN Avg|
Rivals rankings are on the "RR" scale, which is on a scale from about 5 to about 6.1. Unrated prospects are given a 5.1 rating, on par with the worst of any Big Ten commit last year. Scout is on the 5-star system (unranked players earn 1 star), and ESPN uses grades out of 100 (unranked is 40 or 45, except JuCo players, who aren't included in the average).
|#1 Ohio State - 24 Commits|
Ohio State takes the recruiting crown with a good-sized cass of quality players. They're slightly behind Notre Dame in ESPN average, but a big part of that is having a long snapper commit. It sounds like OH OL Chris Carter will sign with Ohio State after all, so I've left him in the chart.
|#2 Notre Dame - 23 Commits|
|George Atkinson III||S||CA||5.8||3||79|
The Irish picked up Troy Niklas on Signing Day.
|#3 Nebraska - 19 Commits|
The Huskers' class is a small-ish but solid one. A couple of their signees might play minor league baseball instead of enrolling at school.
|#4 Michigan State - 21 Commits|
Michigan State's class is high-variance, with a couple highly rated guys (though 5 stars for Lawrence Thomas is an exaggeration for sure), and some low-end guys as well. I have Sparty just a hair ahead of their in-state rivals, and the extra commit for MSU was the tiebreaker.
|#5 Michigan - 20 Commits|
Wolverines picked up a few new commits, including a big time tight end in Chris Barnett. However, they also missed on a couple prospects of need in MI OL Jake Fisher (Oregon) and MD DT Darian Cooper (Iowa).
|#6 Iowa - 23 Commits|
Iowa dropped a couple commits and picked up a couple new ones on Signing Day. The headliner among newcomers is MD DT Darian Cooper.
|#7 Wisconsin - 20 Commits|
An okay class for Wisconsin, but nothing special. [Ed-M: Hello, I'm Wisconsin.] As usual, success in Madison will be based upon developing the 3-star types.
|#8 Penn State - 16 Commits|
A small class for the Nittany Lions. It's got a couple top-end guys, but top-to-bottom is just okay.
|#9 Illinois - 27 Commits|
An enormous class for Ron Zook. Can quantity trump quality and help Zook win enough games to stick around another couple years?
|#10 Northwestern - 17 Commits|
Northwestern has their traditional small recruiting class. They're likely to redshirt most of these guys, and focus on development in the system.
|#11 Minnesota - 22 Commits|
I am wholly unimpressed by Minnesota's recruiting class, a hybrid of Tim Brewster and Jerry Kill. They have more JuCo guys than any other school, and a number of guys they have to hope pan out as sleepers. Note former Wolverine Tim McAvoy's brothers are bound for Minneapolis.
|#12 Indiana - 21 Commits|
Indiana loads up on the lines on Signing Day.
|#13 Purdue - 15 Commits|
No sugarcoat, this is a terrible recruiting class. It could spell the beginning of the end for Danny Hope.
Is there a reason why Rivals has us ranked higher than MSU, yet you have us ranked lower under Rivals? Doesn't make much sense to me...
espn has MSU ranked higher than our class yet our espn avg. is higher than little brother's.
"I have Sparty just a hair ahead of their in-state rivals, and the extra commit for MSU was the tiebreaker."
when it comes to rankings. They go through the trouble of assigning value of 5.1 to 6.1 to the athletes:
6.1= 5 Star Top 25
6.0= 4 Star 25-50
5.9= 4 Star 50-100
5.8= 4 Star 100-250
5.7= 3 Star High Level
5.6= 3 Star Moderate Level
5.5= 3 Star Low Level
5.4= 2 Star High Level
5.3= 2 Star Moderate Level
5.2= 2 Star Low Level
5.1 or lower= 1 Star
But then they treat all players of the same star value as equal in calculating their total points.
Michigan is higher than MSU in Rivals' total ratings because our average star value is higher and we have a similar number of recruits.
Tim bases his opinion on the rivals assigned point values, which probably makes more sense, and he has MSU higher than Michigan because their average is slightly higher than Michigan (5.638 to 5.63) and because they have one more recruit. Even if you take out our kicker, we would only be at 5.647.
He probably could have put Michigan ahead of MSU just as easily, but does that really matter? We are basically tied with MSU.
We should always be listed higher.
Also, if you are only going to rank because you use one service, why list the others? UM higher than MSU in two services, barely behind in the other - seems like the home team rankings should put us ahead...
But oh well.
Perhaps Tim values the ratings of Rivals more than the other services? Regardless, it's Tim's ranking. If you can do better, have at it.
Secondly, I agree that Michigan should always be ranked higher but, for this class, they are virtually equal. It doesn't make me feel all that much better to say, "Yeah. We are 4A and not 4B."
I would also like to understand the difference in Tim's ranking compared to Rivals ranking. It's a question, not a statement equal to saying "Tim you suck".
In contrast to the explanation provided by the poster that Rivals ranks on the star average they assign, versus the points, that's not correct. Look at the Rivals ranking of Wisconsin and Utah. Utah's average based on stars is lower, but the Rivals total points is higher than Wisconsin's, thus Utah is one position ahead of Wisconsin.
Now the only thing I can guess is that the publicly available Rivals ranking I can get to on the internet is behind on the LOI's of MSU's targets. Since I'm looking at Rivals.com and it's giving Michigan 6 - 4 star recruits and MSU only 2 - 4 star recruits. Did MSU just not get the recruits Tim has in the list to sign? Did their ranking change from what Tim has?
The Rivals points for Michigan are 1314 to MSU's 1028, a significant difference.
So I'm not critiquing Tim, just curious to understand what he knows that I can't find through googling up Rivals Rankings?
Which is kind of the point of coming to MGoBlog, to get different information that I can't get my self just by typing in keywords.
what do you think the reason is that Rivals averages the star ratings of the players and not their RR score when determining team average? Logically, Rivals should know the correct method to determine how to use their numbers. Seems like we should take direction from them and rely less on our "expertise".
One reason Rivals may not use the RR average is the variance one encounters when there are several different (regionally-based) analysts do the evaluating. For example, hypothetical analyst Brian from the upper midwest region assigns hypothetical player Bosch a 5.7, whereas hypothetical analyst Tim from the upper Pacific coast assigns a player who (on tape and via measurables) is identical to Bosch a 5.9. This phenomena creates a subjective fissure that has a disparate impact on the overall team ratings. To adjust for evaluator variance on how they assign the numerical values to players, Rivals likely looks to the star grouping, which flattens analysts error.
In any event, in the UM v MSU ranking, again it seems like Tim still doesn't see the folly of his reasoning. In the instance of explaining OSU v ND, the Buckeyes lead in the Scout average and in number of commitments, a draw in the Rivals rankings, but trail the Irish in ESPN. Comparatively, the Wolverines lead in the Scout and ESPN ratings, a statistical draw in Rivals, but trail the Spartans by one in commitments. Given that Michigan only trails State in the number of commitments, and that by just one, and wins recruiting services war, the only logical conclusion is that the Wolverines should be ranked ahead of the Spartans. OSU and ND can't break serve according to the recruiting services, but are given the nod because of the one additional recruit.
Bottom line, one additional recruit by State should not tip the scales in their favor since UM players rate higher than the Spartans.
In any event, in the UM v MSU ranking, again it seems like Tim still doesn't see the folly of his reasoning.
The ratings are there for comparison purposes and are not the complete measure for what Tim bases his rankings. He's made it clear on many occasions that his opinion carries some weight on his list. Disagreeing is one thing, but criticizing him based on his opinion is ridiculous.
As far as rivals methodology, I know they have their reasons but I'm not sure that your theory presents that strong of a case. A 5.9 would be a 4 star. A 5.7 would be a 3 star. Using the star rating to assign points to these hypothetically equal players actually creates a bigger disparity than if the point values would have been used.
Wow, our ratings averages are damn near identical with MSU. Nebraska is really close too if you throw out ESPN.
I wish I could just white out MSU from the list.
Tim - what are the asterisks in the first table for?
Everything being equal, and ignoring the fact that Wiscy and Iowa somehow manage to periodically field good teams with less than stellar recruiting, how in the world can we expect to beat OSU with lesser quality talent? Unless Hoke turns recruiting around next year, and he might, the future won't be bright. Add Nebraska and ND to the list of potential problem schools due to the caliber of their recruits. With Weis, even with good talent, coaching was inept, but that won't be the case with Kelly.
If Michigan can lose to schools with inferior recruiting, presumably Michigan can beat schools who out-recruit them. It's a function of coaching and how motivated the players are for the game. Don't write off the team just because we don't have any 5-stars this year.
be bigger, tougher, smarter and out-execute.
-Lloyd Carr and Brady Hoke
be bigger, meaner, and dirtier
-Bert Bielema and Mark Dantonio
-Charlie Weis and Rich Rodriguez
- everyone else
Are Charlie Weis and Rich Rod in the don't column? If not, they should be
Thanks for the list and doing this all year Tim. Your in-person evals throughout the season are especially valuable
OSU gets an exception for a LS rated 5.2, 2, 73 - which I agree with. But M's avg star ranking is also brought down by our kicker rated 5.3, 3, 73 (by far our lowest recruit). This penalty doesn't seem appropriate given kickers are always rated lowly, and it's a position of desperate need. We'd look better without him or replacing him with a so-so LB, but he's one of the best adds in the class. Maybe he shouldn't bump us up, but the #4 kicker to Scout shouldn't hurt us.
ND is higher in average ranking by two of the services, but they remain behind OSU even though they have their own special teams player bringing down the average.
I don't know what logorithm you use to distill the overall rankings from the Rivals-Scout-ESPN rankings, but you're clearly a MSU spy.
ranges from what is frankly a gold-colored-glasses perspective of "you can't tell by recruiting rankings, look at such-and-such class from years gone by" to the more common "wtf? srsly?"
By most accounts so far, Hope is completely overmatched at this level, and this class does nothing to disprove that. The mishandling of the A.J. King situation didn't help either ... given the issues Purdue has had with knee injuries in football, men's and women's basketball, and women's volleyball, I find it hard to understand why Hope and his staff waited so long to drop King.
They now lead the Big Ten in players with the first name Akeem.
but I'm pretty surprised that Purdue only brought in two kids from Indiana. You don't want to turn off HS programs in-state, and given the kind of ratings of the out of state kids they got, surely they could have found some Hoosiers. Lots of Jucos, so Hope obviously must feel he has to win now, and needs bodies.
Thanks for helping out an old friend of mine!
Gonna have to disagree with you on putting State in front of michigan in the rankings. Rivals has state at 31 and Michigan at 21. Also Scouts also has state at 29 and Michigan at 31. Not only that but Michigan also has a Higher average star per recruit, and that is with a Kicker in the class when state does not have a kicker in theres. Other then that it looks great.
or at least theres no overwhelming reason why they shouldn't be. I'm surprised people want to call the outcomes of a such a subjective process "bizarre".
I'm not sure they have a better class, but Rivals is the only service I've seen that puts M's class in the top 25 - so they're probably overrating our class a bit.
I haven't seen MSU in many top 25s either, but Maxpreps has MSU in theirs (and not UofMs).
Getting too caught up on the average rank is a little silly because adding a couple 3-stars at the end of your class shouldn't cost you. Drop the lowest guy from MSU's class and their average star rank and totals would be right next to Michigans. Do you really want to ding a team for having an extra recruit? No, you want to reward them. I agree with Tim's ranking from an objective standpoint.
What's silly is the observation that Tim was objective. I find it amusing you ignore the three most respectable recruiting services team rankings and justify Tim's weak reasoning by citing MaxPreps. Brilliant! Let's hope Tim rids us of Rivals, ESPN and Scout and simply rely on MaxPreps henceforth since they got the rankings right this year!.
Rivals is the only site that ranked M ahead of MSU (that I'm aware of). MaxPreps had the opposite opinion.
The logic for M over MSU is average rank, which is of limited usefulness. A 6 person household making $240K has a per capita income of 60K. Meanwhile a single person making 70K would have a higher average income but by most common sense standards would have less wealth.
Rivals and Scout are the 2 main recruiting sites. Both rank M ahead of MSU
ESPN is an emerging third, and as you see above our average player rating is much higher
at least for final rankings would be
I think the average star ranks are really misleading when comparing classes of different sizes, so some supporting metrics that show how much high-end talent is being brought in would be informative. Most schools in the Big10 can land a class full of 3-stars, so the differentiators is how many higher ranked players you get (and for the lower tier schools, how often they fail to get 3 stars)
haha, you guys complain about the dumbest things sometimes
This is not a conspiracy. Tim isn't revising the average ratings of the major services to fit some agenda. His opinion is also a factor in his ranking.
I often disagree with Irish but he's spot on here. Getting your panties twisted up over this is absolutely mind numbing.
And the stuff about "bias" and "agenda" is, frankly, really stupid. Please go away and comment on another blog, then. Thanks. There are plenty of options. Or better yet, start your own blog(s).
I guess I just think this reeks of tinfoilhat-ness, frankly, for people to really give this much of a shit about a wholly subjective ranking (Tim's), where, to my eyes, the teams are pretty much equal in recruiting classes after having looked at the numbers again as you requested. And you've got people like DesmondBraylonWoodsonness or whatever his name is linking to comments where he is essentially accusing the blog of having some sort of vast conspiratorial bias, etc., when, after having read this blog since 2006, I think he should shut the fuck up, go somewhere else, and stop polluting this blog with his complaints about this blog. The WLA guys did it. Magnus has his own blog, etc. I guess this is just where this blog has come by becoming so popular, which kind of sucks. But then again, that's kind of the life cycle of anything that gains popularity, be it a band, a movie, a news source, an online community, etc.
Looking at prospects rated 5.7 (RR scale) or greater:
Let's move on.
ND - 10
Neb - 11
M - 6
MSU - 2
I have a couple problems with these rankings:
1. You should just exclude ST players from the average ratings b/c even if they are the best K/P/LS in the country they will be no higher than a 3 star. You shouldn't have your rating hurt b/c you decided to give a scholarship to a ST player.
2. Figure out the actual positions these players are slated to play at their school. It will give a more accurate picture of how a school did recruiting various positions. All the recruiting services project the players based on a 4-3 defensive scheme when more and more schools are using 3-4 schemes (ND in particular in these rankings).
A team could have a ton of talent in one class but miss at a crucial need position like QB or or along the OL and in reality the recruiting class isn't as good because it doesn't address a team's needs.
think Coach Hoke and the rest of the staff did a very good job in less then 2 weeks.Now i can't wait to see what the 2012 class looks like.GO BLUE!!!
Hoke did a great job with the time he had, imagine what he could have done if he had a lot more time. For 2011 I see Michigan winning 7-9 games and only improving. I would say the Wolverines first 6 games are winnable before they play rival Michigan St on the road. Check out chatwolverines.com Built by fans. Builf for fans. Diehards welcome. GO BLUE!!!
|September 3||Western Michigan||TBA||TBA|
|September 10||Notre Dame||8:00 PM||ESPN/2|
|September 17||Eastern Michigan||TBA||TBA|
|September 24||San Diego State||TBA||TBA|
|October 8||@ Northwestern||TBA||TBA|
|October 15||@ Michigan State||TBA||TBA|
|November 5||@ Iowa||TBA||TBA|
|November 12||@ Illinois||TBA||TBA|
|November 26||Ohio State||TBA||TBA|