Is this current recruiting class as good as we think?

Submitted by wolverine1987 on

This year's recruiting class to date has drawn near unanimous praise, and some M fans are damn near ecstatic over the results so far. In particular, the last month's or so results have been undeniably strong. The dominance of Michigan based talent, in-roads into Ohio, and the list of top ranked recruits still listing us highly are all seen (rightly so) as a terrific start for the coaching staff. But is the overall quality of the recruits as top notch as the consensus estimates of the fan base? 

To examine that, I looked at Rivals data for every year since 2002, when they first started rating. I looked at the total number of 4 and 5 star recruits each year, and then calculated that as a percentage of the overall class. As we know, 4 and 5 star recruits are what fans think of as "elite" recruits, and if you look at elite recruits as a percentage of the overall class, you can get a rough idea of the "quality" of that year's class.

There are major caveats with this approach, starting with a huge one; this year's class isn't finished being rated, since none of have even played a game as a senior in H.S. Also, the class isn't, like, complete. Finally, the usual caveats of recruiting ratings apply as well. But since fans are typically using ratings to proclaim their happiness with recruiting, it seems fair to at least look at the early ones, just as we do around here in Tim's "Hello' posts. So here goes:

YEAR- #4/5* of # in class (%)

2002- 11 of 21 (52%)

2003- 13 of 17 (77%!) 

2004- 13 of 22 (59%)

2005- 10 of 23 (44%)

2006- 11 of 19 (58%)

2007- 7 of 20 (35%)

2008- 17 of 24 (71%)

2009- 14 of 22 (64%)

2010- 6 of 27 (23%)

2011- 6 of 20 (30%)

2012 to date- 7 of 16 (45%) 

So of the 11 years that Rivals has recruiting rated, there have been 4 of those years that, by looking at 4 and 5 star percentage of class, this year's class so far has beaten. And of course 6 that had a higher percentage of the class rated as elite by Rivals. Again, I don't draw any conclusions here because of the above caveats, but I do find it interesting. What do you think?

EDIT: some asked about how this would compare to Scout's ratings. Here goes:

2002- 8 of 21 (39%) 2003-11 of 17 (65%) 2004- 10 of 22 (44%) 2005- 14 of 23 (65%) 2006- 10 of 19 (53%) 2007- 14 of 20 (70%, major outlier vs. Rivals) 2008- 15 of 24 (62%) 2009- 9 of 22 (40%) 2010- 9 of 27 (33%) 2011- 5 of 20 (25%) 2012 (56%)

So M this year so far, has a quality rating that has beaten 6 of it's past year's ratings, and trails 4 years. 

Comments

MichiganWolf

June 14th, 2011 at 1:58 AM ^

Maybe this years class won't be in the top ten(most likely 11-15) but overall I would be satisfied given the hard work and determination our staff has put in.Next year though is a different story.If we get at least a 9-3 season I think 2013 class will be in the top five.Right now I wouldn't sweat these rankings as of now

MichiganWolf

June 14th, 2011 at 1:58 AM ^

Maybe this years class won't be in the top ten(most likely 11-15) but overall I would be satisfied given the hard work and determination our staff has put in.Next year though is a different story.If we get at least a 9-3 season I think 2013 class will be in the top five.Right now I wouldn't sweat these rankings as of now

MichiganWolf

June 14th, 2011 at 1:58 AM ^

Maybe this years class won't be in the top ten(most likely 11-15) but overall I would be satisfied given the hard work and determination our staff has put in.Next year though is a different story.If we get at least a 9-3 season I think 2013 class will be in the top five.Right now I wouldn't sweat these rankings as of now

MichiganWolf

June 14th, 2011 at 1:58 AM ^

Maybe this years class won't be in the top ten(most likely 11-15) but overall I would be satisfied given the hard work and determination our staff has put in.Next year though is a different story.If we get at least a 9-3 season I think 2013 class will be in the top five.Right now I wouldn't sweat these rankings as of now

MichiganWolf

June 14th, 2011 at 1:58 AM ^

Maybe this years class won't be in the top ten(most likely 11-15) but overall I would be satisfied given the hard work and determination our staff has put in.Next year though is a different story.If we get at least a 9-3 season I think 2013 class will be in the top five.Right now I wouldn't sweat these rankings as of now

Omally

June 14th, 2011 at 12:15 AM ^

there is serious potential in this class, definite consideration for a top five when its all said and done.  I just hope for a kid like keith marshall or a beckham-green.  I feel like it would have and immediate one two punch with denard.  it would be a pick your poison situation.

rice4114

June 14th, 2011 at 12:36 AM ^

The OP or anyone for that matter could look at signees committing by June 15 since 2002. I think that would also be a great comparison. I really think there is a good advantage to signing a majority of players early as it frees up time for other things (watching tape, meeting local coaches, recruiting etc.)

dahblue

June 14th, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^

That's an interesting look/comparison.  Is the class as good as we think?  I guess that all depends on how good we think it is.  I think we've got a top-10 class without doubt, and possibly a top-5 should we land 1 or 2 5* players.  

To me, what's so good about this class is that players are excited to come to Ann Arbor.  We aren't hearing about kids "waiting to see how the season plays out", nor are we crossing our fingers that we get a 4* as signing day approaches.  We're actually in a position of worrying about whether or not we'll have enough room for all of the 4* who seem likely to commit.  We've also begun our 2013 recruiting with a kid (who might be) the top QB in the nation.  

We might not be back to the height of "Michigan" recruiting yet, but it sure seems like we're on the right path.

kfullenkamp

June 14th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^

I think one of the biggest reasons why this class is being looked at so highly right now is how down Michigan's name has been, and the sudden interest that Hoke has sparked, and how the staff is getting kids to completely change their decision timeline.  It's not so much that we are racking in the 5 stars, but more of getting interst from people who had very little to begin with like Se'Von Pittman, Adolphus Washington, Tom Strobel, and even guys like Zeke Pike and Gunner Kiel who at one point were just pipe dreams, and then out of no where, we're dissapointed that we didn't/most likely won't get them.  

hfhmilkman

June 14th, 2011 at 1:12 PM ^

Personally I have been kind of put off by what recruiting evaluating has turned into.  A number of posters have pointed out the numbers of bombs through the years.  I know that recruiting is a statistical operation and your attempting to project how a kid will do as a man.  Because of the politics, the need to get the big aluni bases excited, and just the fact evaluations often go through a chain of people, distortions happen. 

I think what it comes down to is a coaching staff has the ability to determine the real value of a recruit because they can spend way more time evaluating a player then any recruiting agency can.  I believe this is what has really helped OSU over the years.  Not only are they in the middle of a huge pool of football talent, but they are close enough to evaluate and have a better idea of the true value of that player.

Conversely, a school like Notre Dame gets hurt because practically every recruit is most likely to come from a long ways a way.  A coach at OSU is going to have a lot more info on a kid from Glennvile then a coach from Notre Dame is on a kid from LA.   I believe the Florida schools and to a lesser extent all the SEC has the same advantage.   They have a better chance of picking the 3 star slipping through the cracks then taking a dud on the fake 4/5 star.  The duds can be picked up by the schools 2500 miles away that do not know better.

I believe that Michigan has benefited in the fact that this was a good football year.  I would not be suprised if the State of Michigan generated twice or even three times as much big time talent then in some of the bad years.  So there are more picks and being closer UM coaches have a better chance at that pick being what they expect.

The last thing I look at is the coherence of the class.  If ratings meant everything Notre Dame would compete in the BCS every year and Wisc and Iowa would always be average.  Yet somehow Wisc and Iowa have out performed Notre Dame the last five years despite tougher schedules.  A class has to fit what you are trying to do.  We will have no idea if what R^2 was trying to do will work because his best players were true sophmores and redshirt freshmen.   The whole point of any value system be it trading stocks, or recruiting 17 year old kids to play football is to find value where everyone else missed.  We will know in the next 2-3 years.  What are people going to say if several of R^2's 2 and 3 star picks get NFL interest verse most of the Carr's staff's picks bomb into oblivion?

I will end this thread in that for this thread in that this class does appear to go back to the Carr heyday.  However, I have two huge concerns.  One is QB.  UM absolutely needs a QB in my opinion.  If we wait one more year that will be a three year gap.  If anything happens to Gardner, your looking at disaster.  I am presuming he will get his redshirt.  The 2nd item is defensive tackle.  Last year UM recruited no DT's.  This year UM has one lightly regarded DT.   There are claims that some of these DE's can go inside.  I would rather we had a true DT prospect then someone who "might" work out.  When ND koolaid drinkers were talking up their big Weise led classes, I kept asking where are your DT's.  But all the ND faithful would do is point out all their uber LB'ers. 

If UM can pick up that Dtackle and QB I think this class will have very good coherence and fit our needs.  The class will be balanced.  I would expect if Hoke's staff were to repeat this cycle, UM would be competing for Big10 championships.  However, sans DT's and QB's, UM could hit a rough patch regardless of the talent loaded at other positions.  DT's and QB's are positions that do not do well when stocked with freshmen.

NOLA Blue

June 14th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^

the services will be expanding their rankings to include more four stars by the end of the year.

Given that Michigan currently has 11/16 recruits listed as a top 250 player on at least one site's list, the ceiling is probably 69% of the current recruits earning 4-stars or better when the dust settles.  Of course, a 5-star QB, 5-star WR, 4-star RB, 4-star Safety, a 5-star and 4-star DT, and a 5-star and three 4-star O-linemen will take our percentage to a high end of 81%.  Book it. 

DanGoBlue

June 15th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^

I've been lurking for a bit and finally decided to chip in with a couple of thoughts. FIrst, as I believe a couple have already pointed out above, the rankings we are comparing for this class are in progress relative to the final rankings of the previous classes. Not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Also, spurred by one of the above comments, not all star rankings are equal as some 3-stars are rated 5.7, and others are 5.5, et al. So I thought I would average the ratings from Rivals for the sake of comparing this class relative to the previous without the somewhat arbitrary or misleading separation into stars. Here's what I found (hoping the formatting works…):

Year  # class     avg     5/4/3/2-stars

2012     16        5.75     0     7       9     0

2011     20        5.63     0     6     13     1

2010     27        5.65     0     6     20     1

2009     22        5.54     1    13      6     2

2008     24        5.78     0    17      6     1

2007     19        5.70     2     5     12     1

2006     19        5.77     2     9       7     1

2005     23        5.71     1    10    11     1

2004     22        5.75     1    12      8     1

Rivals only provided their ratings info through 2004, so I couldn't use the same data set. Based on this take, the current class compares relatively well thus far with previous classes and will likely compare better (hopefully) by the end of their senior year in high school and after we add a few more highly rated recruits.