It seems you included only the 5 star data from 2006.
Michigan Recruits: 4 vs. 3 stars
Those are the five stars. Fours:
|Jeremy Van Alstyne||LB||4||2002||0||1|
And now the 3's:
For the record, that's
In the very least, under Lloyd, it's pretty clear that your star ranking mattered. My understanding is that the recruitniks who end up rating the recruits have plenty of contact with the best coaches, so I'm not surprised that the best programs have useful results. Past the top 25, it may well be a crap shoot. So it would seem the question is: do the recruitniks still give Michigan that kind of credence? I doubt they lost it in two seasons (not like Rich was an under the radar hire either), so I'm guessing we should probably care about recruiting rankings.
and obviously i guessed on schilling. i think i'll leave them, just because there's so few 5s in the first place. which is what i was probably thinking when i left them on there.
You've got Quinton McCoy listed twice.
This also tells me that talented players tended to play well while players that needed developed languished. Can you imagine the records we would have had in the last 15 years if we would have had the players RR had in WV and had to develop nearly all of them from midling 3stars and under. We would have stunk for a very long time. Everyone would love a prepackaged MNC contender every year, but RR built a BCS program the old fashioned way...I dont see anything wrong with that.
is call into question the scouting net actually cast by Rivals. star rankings are useful for Michigan, but not for Iowa? that's a scouting problem.
But I wonder if something other than the NFL draft would be better for these kinds of analyses -- like making an NFL roster (more stringent?), making an NFL practice squad (less stringent), or attending an NFL training camp (even less stringent).
Anyone else see the '1' in the "Drafted" column next to Ryan Mundy? That was all Rich Rod's staff.
/LOCK THE THREAD
Rivals has come out and said that they rank players on NFL potential, not on college potential. Since there are so many different offensive schemes in college this is a good way of attacking it. It also should tell people not to be hooked up on with stars for the Richrod spread offense, 3-3-5 defense. Michigan has positions now that require different types of players than the pro-style offenses of the Carr era.
They've said NFL potential is a factor they didn't say it was the only factor or that it supercedes college potential.
I was curious as to what Michigan's draft performance looked like... from the surface it looks like Lloyd was closer to Joe Pa than to Mark Richt...
However, I would be careful casting a final judgment on that, as our 2008 implosion really destroyed the chances of 5th year seniors from 2002 and seniors from 2003 from being given a serious look from the NFL... this would disproportionately affect people who need a year or two of extra physical development (3-stars more likely?) while the 2008 record was irrespective of those seniors' talent as they were a part of a turbulent coaching change at the twilight of their careers.
Clayton Richard was drafted, just not in football. He probably made the right choice, seeing as he's in the bigs.
i did consider making the baseball draft good enough
The thing is that Rivals for the most part rate guys that fit in traditional offenses and defenses highly. Since we don't have traditional schemes our players aren't rated as highly because according to Rivals they aren't "NFL" matieral.
but not as the best pros still get 4 stars.
This may have already been stated, but could the lack of 4 or even 3 star athletes being drafted have anything to do with the lack of development players received under Carr? Maybe Carr did a good job with the top rated athletes he had but he wasn't able to develop the lower rated athletes?