wants to even think about committing to Iowa?
somehow we're only 124th
This week's rankings include Ohio State passing Illinois and a good deal of movement in the bottom half of the big board. Changes since the last rankings:
12-2-12: Indiana picks up T.J. Simmons.
12-4-12: Illinois picks up Kyle Kragen.
12-5-12: Minnesota picks up Nate Andrews.
12-6-12: Danny Mattingly decommits from Notre Dame. Indiana picks up Marcus Oliver.
12-7-12: Ohio State picks up Gareon Conley. Nebraska picks up Antoine Miles.
12-8-12: Michigan State picks up Michael Geiger.
12-9-12: Notre Dame picks up Greg Bryant. Ohio State picks up Donovan Munger. Iowa picks up Damond Powell. Penn State picks up Zayd Issah, Anthony Smith, and Jonathan Walton.
|Big Ten+ Recruiting Class Rankings|
|Rank||School||# Commits||Rivals Avg||Scout Avg||24/7 Avg||ESPN Avg||Avg Avg^||POINTS*|
^The average of the average rankings of the four recruiting services (the previous four columns). The figure is calculated based on the raw numbers and then rounded, so the numbers above may not average out exactly.
*The product of number of Commits and Average Average
NOTE: Unranked recruits are counted as two-star players.
On to the full data after the jump.
|#1 Notre Dame - 22 Commits|
|Torii Hunter Jr.||WR||TX||4||4||4||4|
The Irish lose a commitment from WA TE Danny Mattingly but gain one from FL RB Greg Bryant. James Onwualu gets a fourth star from Rivals, Torii Hunter Jr. gets a fourth star from Scout, and Jamel James drops from four to three stars on 247.
|#2 Michigan - 22 Commits|
|Maurice Hurst Jr.||DT||MA||3||4||4||3|
Channing Stribling and Da'Mario Jones each earn three-star ratings from Rivals.
|#3 Ohio State - 19 Commits|
The Buckeyes land OH CB Gareon Conley and OH DT Donovan Munger. Tim Gardner is bumped to three stars on Scout and four on 247. As a result, Ohio State passes Illinois in the rankings. Hey, remember this?
Yes, Ohio State's class is better. No, I'm not changing the rankings. Remember, this isn't a projection, it's a snapshot, and it's almost a certainty that the rankings will correct themselves come signing day, when they actually matter.
|#4 Illinois - 24 Commits|
The Illini continue to add JuCo prospects—this week it's CA DE Kyle Kragen, their fifth JuCo player in the '13 class. Miguel Hermosillo, Zane Petty, and Eric Finney each pick up two stars from Rivals; Jesse Chadwell and Hermosillo both get bumped to three stars on Scout.
|#5 Rutgers - 20 Commits|
No change for the Scarlet Knights. Positions updated for several players—thanks to Jon from On the Banks for the corrections.
|#6 Northwestern - 20 Commits|
|Anthony Walker Jr.||LB||FL||3||3||3||3|
Xavier Menifield is upgraded to three stars on Rivals, Macan Wilson gets three stars and Marcus McShepard two on Scout, and Raymond Davison gets three stars on ESPN.
|#7 Nebraska - 16 Commits|
The Huskers pick up OH DE Antoine Miles.
|T-#8 Maryland - 17 Commits|
Jermaine Carter is bumped to three stars on Rivals.
|T-#8 Wisconsin - 16 Commits|
Corey Clement and Tyler Foreman jump to four stars on Rivals, bringing Wisconsin into a tie with Maryland for eighth place.
|#10 Penn State - 16 Commits|
The Nittany Lions pick up a trio of commits in PA LB Zayd Issah, AL LB Jonathan Walton, and PA CB Anthony Smith. Penn State passes Michigan State and Iowa for tenth place.
|#11 Michigan State - 15 Commits|
The Spartans add OH K Michael Geiger. Jay Harris is upgraded to three stars on Rivals. MSU passes Iowa, moving to 11th in the rankings.
|#12 Iowa - 16 Commits|
|Derrick Mitchell Jr.||S||MO||3||3||3||3|
The Hawkeyes pick up unranked JuCo receiver Damond Powell.
|#13 Indiana - 16 Commits|
The Hoosiers land FL LB T.J. Simmons and OH LB Marcus Oliver. Clyde Newton gets three stars from Rivals, Isaac Griffith gets three from Scout, and Myles Graham gets three from 247.
|#14 Minnesota - 12 Commits|
The Gophers add AL WR Nate Andrews, moving past Purdue and out of the basement.
|#15 Purdue - 11 Commits|
wants to even think about committing to Iowa?
Lloyd's of London ponies up insurance for AIRBHG coverage.
Interesting to note that Maryland has no recruits from Pennsylvania. As much as Penn State poaches Maryland players, you would think they could do the same (albeit for lower caliber players) to Pennsylvania.
MSU's class and soft recruiting on the heels of 2 11-win seasons and coaching stability. Almost ideal conditions for them.
The average quality of their list is comparable to the middle of the pack and they only had to focus on 16 commitments. It's headlined by a legacy kid, a LB that we turned away, and an OL that we delayed offering until these last couple weeks. We seriously might want only 1 or 2 in their whole class for our final 25.
Any evidence that guys like Reschke or Harris are questioning the poor supporting cast?
...they have some quality talent in there.
By the way, Ace, Damion Terry is a 4 star on 24/7 sports. He has had a superb senior year...looks like a very solid QB prospect.
Rivals pegs the class at #37 so far this year after #41 last year.
There are only a couple of offers from top recruiting staffs (Finley from OSU, Cooper from ND, etc) beyond Reschke and the late UM offers.
No one selected for the Army or Under Armour games (obviously a little duplicative with the ranking services).
No sarcasm, I am shocked that Dantonio couldn't do better than 2 classes ranked ~40th with consecutive 11-win seasons.
I'm not saying that MSU has been recruiting particularly well, but they have always been an average big ten recruiter but, until this season, seemed able to compensate with player development. Other than 2009 when they had a decent haul, they've always been a mid-30's/low-40's in terms of recruiting rankings. Heck, #37 given the season they've had is not that bad, and could maybe grab one or two more kids before the season is out.
That said, the years of 11 wins are probably over, though 7-8-9 wins are always in the cards for them. They'll be a slightly worse version of Iowa under Ferentz, which isn't the worst fate for a program.
They've always been able to compensate with player development? Really? 2 decent seasons is an anomaly - not exactly a great track record of sustained success.
Under Dantonio they have been comparatively stable and consistent. This isn't a great team by any stretch, but it will be better than it was this year, just not 11 win quality
sparties. Their rise was due to our brief absence. They will now be forever average or worse. Next up ... their b-ball team.
The lack of quality recruiting after the Big Two is still disturbing. A top heavy conference is better than a deep conference (ex. SEC) but you need more than two nationally relevant teams to qualify as top heavy in the first place.
MSU, PSU, WISC, and NEB also have an avg of the avg of above 3- they just have smaller classes. I think when your recruits are all on average a three star you have a shot of putting together solid top 25 teams.
But I agree with what you are saying- it looks like OSU and UM may be the only two title contenders if things pan out similarly to how recruting rankings and general predicitions expect. But 2 title contenders is not a bad thing.
PAC-12: Oregon, Stanford, and USC- three title contenders and the rest never too seriously fit that bill
Big East- Zero contenders
ACC- FSU, Clemson and not much else consistently
Big 12- Oklahoma, OKST, UT, and KSU- I think this is the only case where you can say a conference that the Big Ten should be better than has more contenders- but KSU doesn't quite hold up to UM and OSU long term in the same way
Plus, if it weren't for sanctions PSU would be in the discussion, and WISC three straight BCS bowls is nto a bad number three team- although it remains to be seen what direction they will go in the future.
I don't think this is the biggest problem. Plus, even if it is totally true- as long as the rest of the conference is solid enough that the Big Ten winner has a decent shot at the title evry year that's not too bad a thing since it means best of those two has a good shot- and as a UM or OSU fan that's not a bad thing...
Is it normal for MSU to have more OH recruits and an equal number of PA ones, than MI recruits? Does that just speak to a lack of talent in MI this year or is Sparty just missing out on most of the secondary talent?
Not just because it would put Michigan back on top of the list (a nice bonus), but wouldn't it make sense to remove ND from this list now? It made sense to include them when we were playing them every year, but now they're the same as any random ACC team...
'After this year I'll probably remove them. For now, we still play them for two more years—meaning at least a few of the players in this class will have an impact against Michigan—plus they're good way to measure how well Michigan is recruiting in the Midwest.
"Also, it's free information. You are more than welcome to ignore it."
Expect a decommitment by Jamal James from ND. Communication has been frozen and its just a matter of time at this point.
What are your thoughts on doing maybe a monthly recruiting ranking for basketball? I found myself wondering how good Illinois was exactly when they were playing Gonzaga this weekend and I found out they've actually been doing really well on the recruiting trail. Just made me curious to know how the whole conference is doing.
"rankings will correct themselves come signing day, when they actually matter"
If they don't matter, and you know they are incorrect, what is the point? And why front-page them before they matter?
Most people like them.
It's to question the methodology that, Ace admits, is not very good for capturing how well teams are doing.
However, complaining every week is not going to change anything
Why not just go ahead and make the change.
In the long-run Michigan is going to be more stable than most and therefore have smaller classes, with higher quality recruits.
It's silly rank a 28 person Purdue class laden with 3 stars above a 19 person Michigan class, but that is indeed what will happen.
One of these years Michigan will fill the class up more slowely than others and will be smaller than others.
When it does, enough people will complain and the methodology will change.
Who is outperforming their historical norm? Who is moving the needle?
Who has filled up their class with sub-standard recruits? Who is struggling to improve?
Who is winning and losing the head-to-head battles within the conference?
Just giving a list that isn't much more than a count of total recruits, lightly weighted by quality, does indeed not tell you much other than who has most recruits at the moment - which will equalize, more or less, in the end, not to mention vary from year to year.