Where can ESPN's unsorted top 100 be found?
Edit: and how many are Blue?
With three of the recruiting services releasing their initial rankings and over half the Big Ten now possessing at least one commit, it's time to debut to Big Ten Recruiting Rankings for the class of 2013. I give you zero guesses about who is number one. Congratulations. You somehow won anyway.
ESPN is not included for now since they haven't released anything beyond their Watch List and an unsorted top 100 that they don't link or acknowledge anywhere else on the site, including individual player pages.
|Big Ten+ Recruiting Class Rankings|
|Rank||School||# Commits||Rivals Avg||Scout Avg||24/7 Avg||Avg Avg^|
^The average of the average rankings of the three recruiting services (aka 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.
NOTE: Unranked recruits are counted as one-star players. This may be a bit unfair this early in the process, considering there are many unevaluated recruits out there at this stage, but that's life.
On to the full data, after the jump.
|#1 Michigan - 14 Commits|
All but two of Michigan's 14 commits earn four stars on at least two recruiting sites, with three recently earning five-star ratings from Scout. Every player save Colorado's Chris Fox is from the Midwest (or at least a Big Ten state, depending on how you view Pennsylvania). I don't need to tell you this, but things are going rather well in Ann Arbor.
|#2 Ohio State - 5 Commits|
Urban Meyer's class doesn't have the same quantity as Brady Hoke's, but the quality is certainly there; all five commits are at least universal four-stars, and Jalin Marshall is the only player committed to a Big Ten school with five-star ratings from multiple sites.
|#3 Penn State - 3 Commits|
Bill O'Brien's first full class at Penn State is off to a strong start, and it could get a major boost if top-ranked TE Adam Breneman chooses the Nittany Lions tomorrow, as expected. At this stage, they're the only school even remotely posing a threat to the "Big 2, Little 10" recruiting situation in the conference.
|#4 Michigan State - 4 Commits|
State has an argument for the three-spot just based on having an extra commit compared to PSU, but I like the overall quality of PSU's class more.
|#5 Notre Dame - 2 Commits|
Notre Dame picked up Matuska—who's listed as a tight end, but says he'll come to South Bend as a DE—this week. Michigan was recruiting Matuska as a TE.
|#6 Nebraska - 2 Commits|
The Huskers are just a hair behind the Irish at this stage.
|#7 Wisconsin - 1 Commit|
The Badgers are on the board with Illinois LB Garret Dooley.
|#8 Minnesota - 1 Commit|
The Gophers aren't in last. Rejoice, Minnesotans!
|#9 Illinois - 1 Commit|
Illinois, at least, can say they're better off than the four schools—Indiana, Iowa, Northwestern, and Purdue—that have yet to pick up a commit. Slackers.
Where can ESPN's unsorted top 100 be found?
Edit: and how many are Blue?
You can find it here, though it's insider. Michigan has five commits in there: Morris is a five-star, while Bosch, Fox, Kugler, and Thomas are four-stars.
Thanks, Man! It will be interesting to see how those rankings evolve over time.
Hahaha, we have almost as many recruits as all the other teams combined. That is absurd. Hopefully this weekend will bring us some more good news, and bump up our average rating scores.
If you take all the commits from teams 2 (OSU) through 5 (MSU) you get a class that is competitive with Michigan's.
I see getting top talent from your region as a benefit, yes, but area is not factored into the rankings. Just stars and quantity. At this point, it's very easy to sort through.
i see what you did there
for Dukes and Hill as 3 stars is a 3.86
Indiana has a commitment in Reggie Spearman.
Thanks. Rivals didn't have him on their commit list, and that was the first service I was checking. Will adjust the rankings in a second.
EDIT: Actually, Spearman decommitted from the Hoosiers yesterday, two days after he committed. Womp womp.
Early contender for the Jordan Payton "My Word is Stronger than Oak" Award
And not the number of commits? In that case OSU has a far hgher caliber of recruit in their 5 man class (so far) than we do. Don't get me wrong, I love our class so far, but numbers are numbers.
Do I honestly have to explain why Michigan's 14-member class with three five-star players is better than Ohio State's five-man class with two?
Depth is a good thing in recruiting, especially when that depth is almost entirely four-stars. Ohio State's average ranking would go down even if they added exclusively four-star commits. That doesn't make their class worse.
Which is why the recruiting rankings change each week. Depth and quality are taken into account as the recruiting season progresses.
Exactly. This isn't an attempt to forecast the final recruiting rankings; it's a look at where things stand at this moment.
Again, the recruiting rankings are only looking at how good the committed players in each team's classes are right now. If you value an open scholarship over a consensus four-star, I'm not sure what to tell you. I'm not sticking purely by total commits, and quality is heavily factored, as you pointed out by looking at my final rankings for last year.
Having a team with five commits over a team with 14, given Michigan has more five-star recruits (or an equal number, if you want to count Marshall twice) and more four-star recruits makes absolutely no sense to me. Also, to counter your McCray argument, Michigan offered Evan Lisle but "passed on him" by taking five other offensive linemen. Teams value players differently and have their own recruiting boards that look differ from what is on the recruiting sites. These rankings just use the information that is actually available.
You can also look at each commit in the class and how they're ranked, so draw your own conclusions. Not even Ohio State partisans think the Buckeyes have a better class at this moment than Michigan, however. That's what these rankings reflect, and that's why they get updated weekly.
That's a good point. Since Northwestern has zero commits, everyone is tied at zero. I took their top zero and compared it to our top zero, though, so no worries.
which is why I believe I said I was thrilled with our class. I just recall a lot of focus on this blog previously on average ranking, and many people discounting higher ranked teams around the country because they had more commits than another team that had a higher average rating. Many have criticized the Rivals of the world for giving weight to sheer numbers in their year end rankings of teams. Hence the question. Not sure why it was annoying.
Apologies if I came off as snarky. I was mostly just surprised anyone on mgoblog would be arguing that Ohio State's class should be ranked higher than Michigan's, especially with such a large disparity in the overall numbers.
I wasn't arguing that, more asking a general question.
But you're right. You can't put OSU in front of us and say, "but if they fill their class with a bunch more 4 and 5 stars they'll be better than us" because that's not how it works.
Last year, Wisconsin's first four commits were all 4 stars, a couple of them high 4 stars. I believe those were the only 4 stars they ended up with, or close to it.
Because it's futile to speculate about how the classes will fill out, the only thing we can do is compare what the classes look like right now. Hell, Indiana doesn't have a verbal from a single 4-star or below, does that mean that because they still could fill a class with 5-stars that they should be above Michigan?
These rankings ARE NOT predictive. If you want, you can make a post about where you THINK the recruiting rankings will end up. That post will either be entirely subjective and depend on your "feelings" about how well OSU and UM will recruit for the rest of the year or it will be a massive research-heavy post including prospective targets and the likelihood of their future verbal commitment to that school. In the latter event, you would probably realize that having a four star in the bank is better than having a four star selecting between a few schools. These rankings are basically for our entertainment, but they give us a good idea of where the rest of the big ten stands by aggregating lots of data that would take a while to find on one's own.
And a bird in the hand....
Penn State has a tradition of recruiting well, and had some good commitments....how did that class end up last year? OSU was the reverse....looking like a disaster, fixed at the end. Projecting is a fool's folly. You can only go on what is there now, subject to change. A commit is better than an empty scholarship. You can't assume that 4 and 5 star commits are going to be replaced by higher 4 and 5 star commits.
And most recruiting sites put heavy emphasis on numbers over just average. So it's following the way things are normally ranked.
I understand what Mat is trying to say, it's just not the best application of the argument.
Both Michigan and Ohio State can fill an entire class with 3 stars at will. The "replacement" level of an OSU/UM recruit is three stars. If, for example, MSU has 24 3 star recruits and OSU has its current class, then yes, I would argue that OSU, with 5 recruits, should be ranked above MSU with 24. OSU would easily fill up with 3 stars and end up above MSU.
However, this doesn't work in this case. It's harder to assume that OSU will fill the next 9 scholarships with close to all 4 star recruits.
It's really way too early for this discussion. Numbers will eventually even up and the rankings will be much easier to discern.
Not sure where to begin. Honestly, I'm trying to find a place to begin.
What you're saying is that Michigan's class is worse because it has some recruits that OSU currently doesn't have. I know exactly how you're thinking this way, but I am positive that you are wrong. OSU could very well have a better class than us by the end, but that will only be the case if OSU recruits amazingly from here on out (something michigan has done ALREADY).
You're basically the guy who looks at baseball standings and thinks that a 42-34 record is better than a 45-35 record. You assume best case scenario and penalize the team that has played more games.
With 14 recruits, you would expect michigan to have far more 3 stars in their midst. You have to assume that by the time OSU hits 14, they will have some 3 stars in their midst. When they get there, we can compare them a little more fairly, but at this point michigan has a figurative baseball-analagy record of 42-18 while OSU has a record of 4-0. Which team would you guess would have the better record after 80 games? Oh wait....I know you're answer. "That team is gonna go 80-0."
The biggest problem with your argument, Mat with one t, is that you assume that each school will recruit at the same level every year, but that's not the case. Some years a school will have en especially good class, and some years a school will have a bad one. We don't know how the schools will fill out there classes, or if they'll fill them at all. Last year ND and MSU didn't even have guys for all their spots (in fact, either did we). So ranking teams this way is actually the most objective way to do it, because it assumes nothing.
Your practice analogy was bad because you knew both teams would practice the same amount. A better analogy would be the home run derby. We have used 6 of our 10 outs, but we've hit 25 homers, already a good total. OSU only 2 outs, and they've hit 7 homers. They could catch or pass us. But they also might not, so for the time being, we're in the lead.
Data pulled from Rivals. Obviously these rankings are as seniors. The star rating of the first commit is reflected by the row on which it appears.
2012: 5* - 2
4* - 14 9/1/10 - 1st commit
3* - 8
commits by the end of 3/11: 3 (2-4* & 1-3*)
2011: 5* - 1
4* - 9 8/31/09 1st commit
3* - 13
2* - 1
commits by the end of 3/10 5 (3-4* & 2-3*)
2010: 5* - 0
4* - 8
3* - 9 - 9/11/08 1st commit
2* - 2
commits by the end of 3/09 2 (1-4* & 1-3*)
2009 5 - 2
4 - 15
3 - 8 9/1/07
2 - 0
commits by the end of 3/08 7 (5-4* & 2 -3*)
Over this period:
5 - 5*s 5%
46 - 4*s 50%
38 - 3*s 41%
3 - 2*s 3%
So comparing apples to oranges (since we are using junior rankings for 2013). Meyer's first commit was a 5* on 1/19/12 and at this point he has 5 commits with 4 4*s. You could argue that he is on or slightly ahead of pace despite starting late because of his recent hire.
However, if you want to argue that Ohio can expect to fill out their recruiting class with a overwhelming majority of 4*s or better based on the past performance of the school, the last few years don't support that. Meyer may make that possible not the history of the program under Tressel.
No one is trying to have a discussion with the rankings. And neither Ace or Mat are trying to be predictive. It's just a glimpse at a moment in time. That's why he does it every week. And right now, that's where they rank. And in your example, I'd rank MSU's 24 recruits higher, because even if OSU guys are 7*'s, a team with 24 guys on it is going to beat a team with 5 on it. It's not saying how well these teams will do....it's saying how they've done SO FAR. (would rather italize than cap there, but on mobile)
is a very strong point. UM didn't offer him because they thought they could get guys they wanted more at his position. Guess what? They did. And Dillard is still out there. OSU is using the same strategy with McCray. But they haven't gotten the LBs they like more and McCray is off the board. The teams might be following the same strategy, but at this point in the process we're ahead.
Just to throw in a Buckeye's take: Michigan's class should be ranked higher. They've torn it up so far. OSU has obviously gotten some ridiculously good recruits, but not even we would say that 5 awesome recruits can beat out 14 similarly regarded players. When the class numbers are within 4-5 of each other, then we'll discuss.
Favorite thing about this class is that it's revealing A LOT about Hoke/Borges/Mattison want to do long term (big lineman, tight end heavy, taller receivers, hard hitting quick LBs, etc)
Ace, I hate to nitpick, but it's Bill O'Brien.
No need to apologize. I should be spelling his name right. Thanks.
Dukes, Lewis and Dawson are all in Scout's top 300. Last year all of the recruits in the top 300 on Scout were ranked as 4-stars. So, I would expect all have a good chance at getting their 4th star by the end of the recruiting cycle.
Did we even have a commit at this point last year?
DOES THIS CHART ACOUNT FOR SILENT COMMITS? HA!
How about including Michigan's chart from the same time last year as an additional team? I'd like to see how this year compares.
Michigan didn't get their first commit until March 24th last year. So, I guess technically I did include last year's chart. It's in the blank space below this year's.
I knew this was a good year, but I didn't realize how good until now.
That helps put some of these starts in perspective and makes PSU's start even more impressive. It's difficult to have a coaching staff start in January and make a big early impact in recruiting. There's not enough time to figure out who's who and who to offer.
There's no reason for Dantonio to get worked, but it does help explain the relatively slower start of a place like Illinois, or even some of the slow in state offers coming from OSU.
will get there players,but Michigan class will be better this year.TY GO BLUE!!!
Looks like were going to be back to the little 10 big 2 very soon once this class and last years see the feild
The addition of Isaac will only help our rankings. Sure hope projectM is a success.
dear god i hope our recruits aren't going to a house party in farmington hills that's basically going to be national news 12 hours before it begins. there'll be cops at every entrance to the subdivision asking people what they are doing there.
Pardon me but what is projectM
I'm sorry, this just makes no sense. You admit it yourself ("this may seem unfair..."). "That's life" is not an answer when you are the one doing it. The point is, your system is just not as accurate as it could be, and I don't know why you would prefer a less accurate estimate.
Every one of the people committed to these schools will be at least a 2 star, and 97 percent will be 3 stars. Why don't you default to that?
The other option would be to take them out of the calculation, because they haven't been evaluated. Giving someone a very bad score because they haven't been given a score is the worst possible solution.
Think about it this way: why not default everyone to -10? Because that would make no sense and it would skew the results against people with unevaulated recruits. Well, using 1 as a default does the same thing, to a lesser degree. Why not make that error as small as possible?
Yes, I know I care about this way too much, but if you're going to do it...