Number 11 in the B1G? Sparty no. Have fun coaching up those three stars, Mark Dantonio. Hoke continues to coach up our five, four, and three star recruits. We'll see who wins. Drake Harris opened up his commitment with MSU when he realized he couldn't realistically play basketball and football in college, and wanted to choose football. I believe he said something like, "I'm starting to look at more of the bigger football schools since I'm just playing football now." Oh wait, that was a direct quote. Ouch.
Big Ten Recruiting Rankings 2-11-13
Note: I know these rankings are a little simple, so if you want to know how I'd personally rank these classes, my favorite method is The Mathlete's.
It was a relatively quiet Signing Day, but there was still some movement in the B1G rankings, especially at the bottom of the board. While the top five remained steady, Purdue leaped from 10th up to 5th and Indiana jumped to 9th, leaving a couple big names (and Minnesota) to bring up the rear. Changes since last rankings:
2-3-13: Purdue picks up Keith Byars II.
2-4-13: Ohio State picks up Dontre Wilson. Purdue picks up Dalyn Dawkins. Wisconsin picks up Tanner McEvoy. Minnesota picks up Daletavious McGhee.
2-5-13: Nebraska picks up Dwayne Johnson. Purdue picks up TyVel Jemison. Iowa picks up Reggie Spearman. Wisconsin picks up Donnell Vercher. Minnesota picks up Donovahn Jones.
2-6-13: Notre Dame picks up Eddie Vanderdoes. Ohio State picks up Vonn Bell and James Clark. Taivon Jacobs decommits from Ohio State (Maryland). Maryland picks up Taivon Jacobs and Jacquille Veii. Purdue picks up Da'Wan Hunte. Iowa picks up Jonathan Parker. Indiana picks up Maurice Swain, Laray Smith, and Chris Cormier. Nigel Tribune decommits from Indiana (Iowa State). Minnesota picks up De'Vondre Campbell.
2-7-13: Johnny Townsend decommits from Ohio State (Florida).
|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 Michigan - 27 Commits|
|Maurice Hurst Jr.||DT||MA||3||4||4||3|
No change for the Wolverines.
|#2 Notre Dame - 24 Commits|
|Torii Hunter Jr.||WR||TX||4||4||4||4|
The Irish add five-star CA DT Eddie Vanderdoes on Signing Day.
|#3 Ohio State - 24 Commits|
|Corey Smith (JC)||WR||MS||4||4||4||4|
The Buckeyes land five-star GA S Vonn Bell and consensus four-stars FL WR James Clark and TX RB Dontre Wilson. P Johnny Townsend (Florida) and WR Taivon Jacobs (Maryland) decommit.
|#4 Nebraska - 26 Commits|
|Randy Gregory (JC)||DE||AZ||4||4||4||4|
|Matt Finnin (JC)||OL||IL||3||4||3||3|
|Chongo Kondolo (JC)||OL||CA||3||3||3||3|
The Huskers add TX OL Dwayne Johnson.
|#5 Illinois - 26 Commits|
|Abens Cajuste (JC)||DT||CA||3||3||3||3|
|Dallas Hinkhouse (JC)||OL||IA||3||3||3||2|
|Martize Barr (JC)||WR||IA||3||3||2||3|
|Zane Petty (JC)||S||CA||2||3||3||3|
|Eric Finney (JC)||S||CA||2||2||2||3|
No change for the Illini.
|#6 Purdue - 24 Commits|
|Keith Byars II||RB||NY||2||2||3||3|
|Ra-Zahn Howard (JC)||DT||GA||2||NR||3||3|
The Boilermakers move all the way up from #10 after adding KY RB Dalyn Dawkins, IN CB TyVel Jemison, FL CB Da'Wan Hunte, and NY RB Keith Byars II (son of the former NFL RB).
|#7 Rutgers - 22 Commits|
|Delon Stephenson (JC)||CB||NY||3||3||3||3|
No change for the Scarlet Knights.
|#8 Maryland - 22 Commits|
|Deon Long (JC)||WR||IA||5||3||4||4|
|Silvano Altamirano (JC)||OL||CA||2||2||2||3|
The Terps flip in-state WR Taivon Jacobs from Ohio State and add in-state ATH Jacquille Veii.
|#9 Indiana - 22 Commits|
|Steven Funderburk (JC)||LB||IA||2||2||3||2|
|Jordan Heiderman (JC)||DT||IA||2||2||2||2|
|Chris Cormier (JC)||DT||AZ||2||2||2||NR|
The Hoosiers land NY RB Laray Smith, FL RB Daryl Chestnut, GA OL Maurice Swain, and AZ DT Chris Cormer, and lose CB Nigel Tribune to Iowa State. They jump Iowa, Michigan State, Northwestern, and Penn State on the big board.
|#10 Iowa - 19 Commits|
|Derrick Mitchell Jr.||S||MO||3||3||3||3|
|Damond Powell (JC)||WR||UT||3||2||3||3|
The Hawkeyes pick up IL LB Reggie Spearman and MO RB Jonathan Parker, jumping MSU and Northwestern in the final standings.
|#11 Michigan State - 18 Commits|
No change for the Spartans.
|#12 Northwestern - 19 Commits|
|Anthony Walker Jr.||LB||FL||3||3||3||3|
No change for the Wildcats.
|#13 Wisconsin - 18 Commits|
|Tanner McEvoy (JC)||QB||AZ||3||3||4||3|
|Donnell Vercher (JC)||S||VA||3||2||3||3|
The Badgers add two JUCO signees, AZ QB Tanner McEvoy and CA S Donnell Vercher. They move above Penn State in the rankings.
|#14 Penn State - 18 Commits|
|Tyler Ferguson (JC)||QB||CA||2||2||4||3|
No change for Penn State.
|#15 Minnesota - 14 Commits|
|Jordan Hinojosa (JC)||DT||KS||3||2||2||2|
|Damien Wilson (JC)||LB||MS||2||2||3||3|
The Gophers add KS LB De'Vondre Campbell, GA S Donovahn Jones, and GA S Daletavius McGhee.
MSU'S CLASS OF 2013
THE PBR OF RECRUITING
This kinda knocks Mgoblog's credibility right? For a Michigan site to publish a ranking with Michigan on top when pretty much every site in the country has ND and OSU with superior classes...it looks like bias. If you're an MSU or OSU fan, you just LOL.
If even the author of the methodology admits he prefers a different method, why not change it? At the very least switch to using the avg recruit rank. That would maintain the simple approach and pass a basic smell test.
I think it only makes sense to change a methodology in between seasons, but not in the middle. This is the methodology that was chosen for this year, so why change it based on the result? That's not a good reason.
Isn't it possible, that by some calculation, we had the best class of these teams? It's all subjective anyway, and who says that Rivals' or Scout's methodology is the correct one? They had these teams very close anyway.
You can't use only avg recruit rank, otherwise USC just had the best class ever and we know that's not the case. This one emphasizes class size more than Rivals, but does that make it wrong? Quantity needs to be factored in, because we don't know that one of our 3-star guys isn't a star, and bringing in more of them ups the chances that one of them is.
You complain about this so much, and I feel like you want OSU's class to be better than ours. You seem to be convincing yourself of it very strongly. How about you do your own rankings and make a diary? Or just keep complaining about it, whichever.
A) This methodology was already changed mid-'season' Check the ratings from Summer - they didn't include a total.
B) Changing methodology from that which rewards quantity (when Michigan has a lot) to rewarding quality (when Michigan is down in quantity -- next season) looks biased too.
C) Changing it anytime is better than not changing it. The methodology has been bad all along. Ace has defended it again and again saying basically "it is what it is". He admits Mathlete's approach is superior. How about collaborating? The sooner it is improved, the better.
D) The ratings are based on the idea that recruiting service evaluations are worthwhile. If you disagree with that, there's no point in aggregating the results anyway.
E) Quality alone (avg.) isn't perfect, far from it - but it's better than going on what is, more or less, a measure of class size. [Please note, my whole frustration with this method is that historically I thought Michigan got the short-end with this approach because we had more stability and therefore smaller classes.]
F) USC had a good class, working within the constraints they had. There are worse things than 'overrating' the talent they're bringing in. Low quantity can mean sanctions - or it can mean low turnover, lots of red-shirts, and overall program stability.
G) You're right - I should stop complaining so much. I'm frustrated with the direction the Mgoblog message board has been going (a lot more like what that MSU site Brian used to rip a few years ago). My comments aren't going to change that though.
H) If I had Mathlete's database of recruits, I'd be happy to rank classes in a more meaningful way. It's not hard to run a calculation.
I)The classes weren't as close as you indicated. Look at average rank and Michigan's is significantly below OSU/ND.
J) No way do I want OSU's to be better. But I'm not going to tell myself what I want to hear just because I want to hear it. The sites could be wrong, but in general their analysis is valid, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
Size of the class is bogus...motion in the ocean is the true metric.
I also agree that this Blog (blessed be its name) has started to show some herd mentality characteristics often reserved for our friends in Ohio and puking along the banks of the Red Cedar (example: blaming officiating for every loss the Basketball team suffers).
C'mon people, we are better than the Gap.
But the classes really aren't all that different. Let's say we used a Rivals-type rule where only the top 24 players counted (since that's how many ND and OSU had). Then our total points would be 91.00 (I'm just assuming we'd take off 1 2-star and 2 3-stars, fair?), compared to 93.75 and 94.00. That's a pretty small difference still.
Now, in my opinion on these things, those three recruits we just dropped off have value, right? You have to admit that if ND or OSU added a 3-star player to their current classes, it would make the class better in at least a small way, right?
So let's say, for fairness, that all players over the 24 count for half. Then, our total would be 95.00, compared to their 93.75 and 94.00. That's arbitrary, so pick whatever fraction you like, and we're either slightly above or slightly below their class.
My point? The classes are so close it's not hardly worth arguing over. If there was an actual award for this, then we could get into splitting hairs. But in reality this is like arguing over who should be ranked higher in the preseason poll. It's better to be #1 than unranked, but not between being #4 and #5.
A) Differences are inherently small for the range we're talking about (top 20 classes), but thats just the math. A similar argument is "it's just one star" and arguing that a 3-star and a 4-star are nearly equivalent. For one recruit - maybe, but in aggregate the numbers are significant. Would you rather swap 3 or 4 or your 4 stars into a 5 stars -- of course. If one of those guys is a heisman winner that can be a serious swing. I wouldn't necessarily pooh pooh the difference here. If you gave slid the scale and made all the 3-stars equal to 0 and the 5-stars equal to 2 then the percentage stat would look a lot different. And, for M's peer group that'd be a meaningful number. Zero points for 3 stars that don't move the needle.
If the numbers said Michigan had 20 points and OSU had 24 that would look more relevant -- but it's the same analysis.
B) I don't believe in punished ND (for example) for having slightly more stability than Michigan. UM is still trying to recover it's numbers. Next year we might have a small class and hopefully the year after that it'll be closer to 20 than 25. I don't see that as a bad thing and when/if it happens it will annoy me that M's class is underrated by the sites. Wisconsin's program has been a well-tuned machine the last decade and they've cycled through fewer recrutits -- that's a good thing.
I do agree with you that debating who is #3 vs who is #6 is largely pointless. However, I do think it's significant if OSU is getting more off their A-list and we're left to the B-list. The head-to-head battles are meaningful, IMO, and more telling then most rankings.
I think it's fair to say that OSU appears to have done a little bit better of a job recruiting. I also think that indicates Michigan has a lot of ground to make up. Now, that's news to no one, except for the fact that a lot Michigan fans seem convinced that Hoke's recruiting is going to change things when, in regards to OSU, it's status quo.
I have to disagree, this is not BCS rankings or some other official ranking that needs to stay consistent throughout the year. If the rankings are obviously skewed and dont accurately show who actually is leading, then they need to be changed.
It should not matter when the change takes place, if it does not work, it does not work, pure and simple.
As much as I would like to think so, OSU class is better then Michigan's. That is just how it is.
By almost all accounts Michigan was number 3. I think it looks bad to have this blog have something that seems this misleading/wrong. I understand maintaining the same method throughout the season, but maybe you publish that in a seperate table and have a different one on the front page that is probably a better reflection.
It seems particularly crappy and out of place when Brian often has interesting things to say about KenPom rankings and metrics like these more generally. I've been making this case for awhile, but I think it's hypocritical for this site to be critical of other rankings methodologies and then put out such an obviously flawed ranking of its own.
Ace's current methodology treats a class of five 3-star players as equivalent to a class of three 5-star players. Yet numerous studies have shown that recruting three 5-star players produces one All-American about 75% of the time. Recruitng five 3-star players produces one All-American about 9% of the time. There are similar studies about the correlation between star rankings and team wins. If Ace wants to include a measure of quantity in his rankings, he needs to first find a way to better account for the drastic differences between individual player star ratings.
Would make a class with 1 5* recruit rank above one with 25 4* recruits.
I don't know why people get worked up by adding quantity. Used to be all the recruiting services used to do that and it was better to have a big class than average rank. We used to get screwed by this all the time. Now that it favors us people want to tear it down because the services have flip-flopped their methodology.
Michigan has to have the most self-loathing fanbase...
No one is ever comparing a class of 1 vs a class of 25 in the end.
Quantity shouldn't matter because, generally speaking, over time every team will have the same quantity due. That's the nature of the 85 scholarship limit. Yes, this argument ignores attrition, but attrition can be good or bad.
For a more realistic scenario - a school grabs 15 one year, and then it grabs 25 the next. Does that mean they had a good class one year and a bad class the next?
Michigan, when it is more stable, will again have lower quantity than most schools, so fans are anticipating, not self-loathing.
A ranking that inflates teams for something that doesn't matter are bad, even if they're inflating your team.
You're ranking one years recruiting class. 25 good players IS better than 15 good players. More good players, more depth, more ability to cover errors. Comparing 25 one year to 15 another isn't what you're doing. You're comparing one year's classes. And there's no guarantee that if you get 15 good players one year you'll get 25 good ones the next. So it's better to have them than assume you'll get them next year.
Shane Jones will be a beast though
I know you're probably sick of questions about your methodology, but I don't see a good argument that Michigan's class is better than either OSU's or Notre Dame's. They have significant star average advantages, and Michigan only has an extra 3 guys in its class.
I have an argument. The difference between their star average and ours as a percentage (6.5%) is less than the difference between our class size and theirs (12.5%).
Does this favor class size a little more than it should? That's a subjective question. It does so more than some of the sites, but I don't know if that makes it wrong. Personally, I don't like that Rivals limits the classes to 20 players, because a 25 player class is certainly better than a 20 player class with the same players.
All (unsanctioned) teams are working within a scholarship cap. If you're a team loaded with red-shirted players - a 20 person class might be a heck of a lot better than a 25 person class. You just might not need those 5 extra 3-star guys because you've avoided attrition. And maybe you want to bank some scholarships for next year because you can. No reason to knock a team for that.
But no recruit ranking takes into account what a team needs. None. And it shouldn't, that's purely subjective. It ranks how good the recruiting class is. You can't say that because USC could only take 15 guys, their 12 man class is somehow better than our 27 man class.
Under no circumstances can you say that a 20 man class with a star average of 3.5 is just as good as a 25 man class with the same average. Otherwise you're just being completely subjective and that's a rating not a ranking.
to make the case that USC's class is better. I don't think it is, but I think I could certainly make a strong argument that given the circumstances (needs, sanctions, etc.) they did a better job with what they had that many teams ranked ahead of them.
What if there are two identical teams. One recruits a 20 man class this year and 25 next year. The other team does the reverse. Can I not say that the 20 man class was just as good?
I don't think it's subjective to weight quality over quantity.
Looking through your posts I've never seen a Michigan fan defend OSU as much as you do. Why don't you come clean and admit you're a buckeye fan? I don't hate osu fans but I despise douchbags who pretend to be fans of other teams.
I don't think that's fair. Mat has never been a glass half full guy around here, but his arguments are usually reasonable enough, it's healthy to have voices like his in the mix, and I see no reason to believe that he's not a Michigan fan.
But half of it is hot air.
As much as I cant stand Dantonio and Sparty......as long as Narduzzi and Dantonio are there the D will not be a problem for Sparty. They have shown a very good ability to find very good players in the back 7 the last couple years.
Offense on the other hand could be a problem.
Check your math
Total points in the product of the number of commits times the average average
Then for instance Wisconsin has 16 commits and an average average of 3.00 = 48 points
Only one lineman is sure gonna come back to bite Sparty in the ass in a few years.
(first post on any board so apologies if this gets translated into Swahili or blinks red and green like a Christmas tree.)
I can't find it now but didn't someone recently (last few months) do a huge piece on average impact of players by their recruiting rankings, by year in the program? We should be able to leverage that into an Expected Value based on star ranking. We could grade the overall quality of the class as the sum of the EV ratings of the players in it.
This would account for large class vs. small at the same time as more stars vs. less in a meaningful way. Notre Dame and Ohio have more average stars than us. We have more recruits than them. But what matters is how many good players does each class project.
I am not at all a stats guy so if this method is flawed please reply. It seems to me, though, that the hard part is establishing an EV rating based on stars, but I think the hard work for that has already been done.
Can someone less interweb-challenged than me find the post I'm referencing? I believe it was used to show that we have a couple more years of struggle in front of us but we look great after 2014.
Granted Mathlete's way is great, but personally I liked when Ace did an arbitrary rating of the teams. You can't expect a scientific mathematical aproach every time these rankings are posted, so what's wrong with the commen sense method?
I'm very happy with the class Hoke and his coaches were able to recruit. This will be our second consecutive top 10 class and I'm sure future 10 plus win seasons we will start attracting more elite skill players.
Before his injury is still the most dominant back I can remember seeing play in college. (I can't help I was raised by Buckeye/Boilermaker parents.) He seems to be OSU's Berkley Edwards of 2013. Was there any sentiment in Columbus to have him in this class?
Ace - kudos for the work on this. As I have seen you say numerous times over the year.."This is only one simplistic way to look at class rankings". I recall you changed the methodology mid-year because people said it was too subjective, now it is not subjective but still not "fair". Can't win, but please don't stop trying.
To be honest, this is the first I've heard of Keith Byars Jr in a long time. He certainly wasn't frequently talked about amongst OSU fans.
That being said, his dad was a beast. Hopefully his son turns out better than his teammate Cris Carter's son.
why they keep including Notre Dame. There was a time when we thought they could possibly join the B1G - now that we know that not to be the case I think they should be omitted from this list. In two years we stop playing and they will be out of sight, out of mind. I really don't care about ND, and I really don't care how their class compares to ours. They won't be having so many lucky last second wins this year.
They're useful as a local/regional measuring stick. Michigan's place within the big 10 isn't too meaningful because they'll almost always be in the top 3. So, it's good to have another peer (besides OSU and PSU) to compare against.
I like to think of Michigan as competing nationally, not just regionally. I personally don't care what Minnesota or Purdue are doing recruiting-wise unless something unusual is happening. But ND - that's a team we're competing against head-to-head for a lot of blue chip players. AND, as a historical midwest power their recruiting results are more meaningful to me, even if we don't play them and they're not in our conference.
I didn't know The Rock still had college eligibility left.
Is it possible to list the players who have decommitted (just the ones mentioned in the updates) somewhere with their position and rankings? This makes it easier to see what was lost by that team.
Call me a simple-ton, but if you simply take the average ranking across the four major sites the picture is pretty clear. If you all want to get down to a blow by blow grind it out analysis of each recruit against OSU's and ND's, that seems like a lot of wasted time. We are talking about organic beings who will do a lot of mental, emotional and physical maturation over the next 3-5 years.
Class Rankings for 2013
I mean, seriously, are people on here trying to argue their way to being the best recruiting class, even though it is clearly not by every national recruitng services aggregate standards? That is pretty sad.
A top five class, with our coaches, I think we will be just fine. It is a very good class, with depth and filling needs, but we still need skill position players and as close to can't miss prospects as possible in the coming years. Tradionally, OSU and ND have out recruited us (i.e. grabbing a few more "highly rated prospects"), but we would win with great player development, coaching and good experienced players at key positions. We had two, at the time, top ranked recruiting classes in the late nineties, and although we did well in the early 2000's, by no means were we juggarnauts. Perspective, patience, enjoy the ride.