<insert general bitching about why team X is rated above team Y here>
Mount St. Mary's hired a private equity CEO to be their president. You'll never guess what happened next.
Very little action in the rankings this week—the lone new commit goes to Notre Dame, which is slowly closing the gap on Michigan at the top of the big board. Changes since the last rankings:
9-7-12: Notre Dame picks up Doug Randolph.
|Big Ten+ Recruiting Class Rankings|
|Rank||School||# Commits||Rivals Avg||Scout Avg||24/7 Avg||ESPN Avg||Avg Avg^|
^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.
NOTE: Unranked recruits are counted as two-star players.
To eliminate any confusion about how the rankings are determined (to be honest, they used to be arbitrary), team order is determined by multiplying the number of commits by star average.
On to the full data after the jump.
|#1 Michigan - 23 Commits|
|Maurice Hurst Jr.||DT||MA||3||4||4||3|
No change for the Wolverines.
|#2 Notre Dame - 20 Commits|
The Irish inch closer to Michigan with the addition of VA LB Doug Randolph.
|#3 Ohio State - 16 Commits|
No change for the Buckeyes.
|#4 Illinois - 18 Commits|
No change for the Illini.
|#5 Iowa - 16 Commits|
|Derrick Mitchell Jr.||S||MO||3||3||3||3|
Andre Harris picks up three stars from 247.
|#6 Northwestern - 17 Commits|
|Anthony Walker Jr.||LB||FL||3||3||3||3|
Tyler Lancaster is upgraded to three stars on Scout and four on 247.
|#7 Nebraska - 14 Commits|
No change for the Huskers.
|#8 Wisconsin - 13 Commits|
No change for the Badgers.
|#9 Michigan State - 13 Commits|
Demetrius Cooper earns three stars from both Rivals and ESPN.
|#10 Penn State - 9 Commits|
Jordan Smith picks up two stars from Scout.
|#11 Purdue - 11 Commits|
No change for the Boilermakers.
|#12 Indiana - 9 Commits|
Demetrius Hill gets three stars from Scout.
|#13 Minnesota - 6 Commits|
No change for the Gophers.
<insert general bitching about why team X is rated above team Y here>
Do you put Northwestern ahead of Nebraska solely based on the current class size? NU (IL) has 17 commits, only of whom are ranked 4 stars by at least one service and 8 of whom are ranked 2 stars by at least on service. NU (NE) has 14 commits, 8 of whom are ranked 4 stars by at least one service and only 1 of whom is ranked 2 stars by at least one service.
Despite the gross number of recruits, NU (NE) has a quantitatively and qualitatively better class, no? What's the rationale?
And this speaks to the general logic or calculation for placing one team above another, of course.
Ace, can you comment on the seemingly rather severe dropoff in average talent from the top three classes to everyone else? Does it pass your "eye test," and how much of that represents accumulated effects of ratings bumps for guys who commit to U-M, ND, or OSU?
There's usually going to be a gap between U-M/OSU/ND and the rest of the Big Ten, and that's been exascerbated by the implosion of Penn State's class—they were hanging right with the top group before the Freeh Report. There is the ratings bump factor as well, especially this long before the end of the recruiting cycle; the recruiting services are going to make sure they get out and evaluate commits to the big-time schools, and it takes a while to get to everyone, especially since the senior season for the 2013 class just got under way a couple weeks ago.
I think that gap will start to close as we near signing day and schools like Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Michigan State fill out their classes while the top group mostly stands pat. I'd be very surprised if Illinois and Iowa finish with the #4 and #5 classes, too.
I'm not Ace, but here are my two cents...
If U-M, ND, and OSU were getting previously unrated or lowly rated kids who then jumped to the top of the rankings, this would feel fishy. From my memory at least with Michigan's class, that hasn't been the case (with a couple of exceptions, like Gareon Conley). In general, these three schools are getting recruits who were highly rated and highly sought after before they ever committed.
Another observation: from what we've heard, it doesn't seem like Michigan aggressively pursued very many of the kids who later committed to schools other than U-M, ND, and OSU. There certainly are some (Christian Lacouture and Adam Breneman for sure; Darius Latham and Shane Jones, at least to some extent; a few others, I'm sure). All in all, though, it seems that the other Big Ten schools were much more interested in Michigan's current commitments than Michigan ever was in theirs. I'd imagine that holds true for Notre Dame and Ohio State as well.
Ace ranks by number of recruits and stars, so teams with large classes always rank high.
I have no problem with number of recruits being a big factor, all the recruiting services weigh that pretty heavily. But the fact remains a "big" class really just means the schools current roster dictates that it won't have a large number of spots to fill. It's not like they're falling behind or noncompetitive due to recruiting class size.
Case in point, in Nebraska's case, we're 3rd in the B1G for star average AND still have about 10 spots left. Does that mean we're going to have an awesome recruiting class? Who knows. Personally I think average stars matter more than raw numbers of recruits. you can only recruit to the size of your open spots.
I also don't take the recruiting services too seriously. They're in the business of selling and hyping, how else can they make money?
Yes, as a fan I'd rather have a 4-5 star laden class than a 2-3 star class, but I've always figured the coaches don't gives a rats ass what Rivals thinks. Lots of times there's politics and marketing involved in the player ratings. Notre Dame offers someone a scholie and they immediatey go up from unrated or low star to high star, or whatever.
Bottom line, you have a coaching staff you believe in and they are recruiting the guys they believe will live up to Michigan standards and play the game the Michigan way. That's all you can ask for as a fan, Rivals and Scouts be damned, they don't know shit about what makes right for Michigan or Nebraska, who recruit unique to their standard, scheme, and academics.
Sorry for the long rant on your board, as a "guest" rival fan I try to mind my manners, and Michigan certainly looks to have an awesome class lined up, no matter what you think about recruiting services, no disrespect intended to your current class.
Have a good time in Lincoln this year and may the best team win the game and the division, and no injuries to these young men.
Go Big Red!
It seems to me like the teams, particularly LSU and Alabama, are signing way more guys than we are. Since Saban has been there they have never given less than 26 scholarships in a single year. The past five years they have signed 32 (2008), 30 (2009), 28 (2010), 26 (2011), and 26 (2012) guys respectively. That gives them 142 commits in the last five years. In that same time we have signed 24 (2008), 22 (2009), 26 (2010), 19 (2011), and 25 (2012). That gives us 116 in the same time frame. That gives Alabama 26 more guys in the last five years. My question is if this is an obvious advantage, why aren't we doing the same thing? Why don't we offer the maximum every year? The advantage seems obvious and until those numbers even out I don't see how we compete, especially when there is more talent in the Southeast than the Midwest.
Why aren't we doing this? It's just the wrong thing to do. The practice of oversigning offers kids scholarships, only to yank it out from them before school starts in the fall. This is coupled with medical redshirts, grey shirts, and the like. Leaving the player SOL and the school loaded with ill-gotten talent.
I would take the way we recruit anyday over how Saban et al do it. We offer kids, make sure we have room for them, and do not yank their scholarships to make room for a better player. Quite simply, we're better than that.
Hit up oversigning.com for more info. There's a lot of good information about the subject.
While part of me agrees with that, the other part of me can't help but see the fact that the teams with most signees are winning the National Championship. I could be wrong, but to me that is the difference between the SEC and the B1G. I personally don't want to oversign, but I don't want them to either. And, you know Saban won't stop until he's forced to. So, how can we compete on the national stage with them if we don't also? I don't think we can. IDK...maybe it will be different in another 2 years when Alabama's 30+ player classes matriculate. I'm kinda just venting my frustration here, but sheesh it's frustrating.
I am totally against it. It's not fair to the kids to recruit them with that type of mindset. It makes recruiting more of a meat market than it already is. There are a lot of reasons why the SEC is better than we are, but that is definitely a substantial one. Lower academic standards, larger talent pools and recent success are also major factors. I think the NCAA should pass bylaws to outlaw this method of recruiting. The B1G has already stepped to make scholarships 4-year scholarship instead of a renewable one-year scholarship. This ensures that our schools are committed to the student-athletes for the long haul.
We will be at the elite talent level in a couple of years, but there will always be programs that are willing to push the moral envelope to succeed. I am comfortable with the way Hoke and Co. do business.
So, then the question becomes, if we don't oversign, the SEC continues to oversign (geographic talent and enrolling qualifications remain constant), and the NCAA does nothing further with rules, can we compete with them? And, if the anwser is, well we can close the gap but we're still significantly behind them, are we OK with never being elite again? Personally, that hurts my Michigan pride to believe we will never be the way we once were. Sorry if I'm being a little dramatic...just a little frustrated with it.
on this Blog. Bottom line what "Bama and other SEC teams do is unethical. In particular 'Bama has a huge number of "medical hardships" even compared to the rest of the SEC. (Brian did a front-page post on this.) On the glass half-full side at least the "Bama kids get to keep a (non-sports) scholarship unlike some of the other oversigning programs.
This is becoming more of an issue at the NCAA level in regard to bad press and I believe that the SEC has imposed a scholarship "limit" of around 28 per year and there are talks of the SEC adopting the 4-year scholarship model of the B1G. -- I think Florida and GA may already be doing this voluntarily.
It will not keep the teams who wish to bend the rules from doing so, but it should shrink the window and thereby close the gap between the SEC and the rest of CFB.
PS - Also noted elsewhere is that schools like Mississippi were signing 30+ player classes with full knowledge that a large percentage of these kids were not going to qualifiy academically. The new limit will at least force them to be a bit more careful when choosing who to accept LoIs from.