More Attrition Fun: Why We're Not So Good (Charts? Charts.)
So we're not who we thought we were. Well, we're who we thought we were in August, but definitely not the team we thought we were in early October. Is it really all that horrible? Are we doomed for the next decade? Will there be a "Weis Diet" before we are in a New Years Day bowl game? Will JoePa say "You know what? I think I've done this long enough, I have other stuff in my life that I can do besides stomp around on the field and act like a coach" before we win a Big Ten title?
Very possibly. More so the latter than the former, but still. We're not good. Not even that close, really. We'll get better and better, but if the attrition rates continue to be what they are, it might be some time before we're going to have a double-digit win season.
I know the issue of attrition has been beat to death lately, but I figured I'd take one more whack at that dead horse with some colorful, insightful-
Charts?
Charts.
Original table and rankings is derived from Scout's ranking service, and the Modified Rankings I did by myself. If you don't agree, that sucks. Make your own damn diary.
NC stands for "Not Contributing" and can mean anything from "transferred" to "kicked off the team" to "buried so deep on the depth chart we're not even sure he still plays for us".
2006 Recruiting Class
Not a bad class by any means, half of the 20-man class was 4 and 5 star prospects. Then this happened:
Again, not a bad class at all. Fourteen 4* prospects alone in this one. And a nice, big 25 player class. Things are looking up in Ann Arbo- SWEET JESUS NOT AGAIN.
Very possibly. More so the latter than the former, but still. We're not good. Not even that close, really. We'll get better and better, but if the attrition rates continue to be what they are, it might be some time before we're going to have a double-digit win season.
I know the issue of attrition has been beat to death lately, but I figured I'd take one more whack at that dead horse with some colorful, insightful-
Charts?
Charts.
Original table and rankings is derived from Scout's ranking service, and the Modified Rankings I did by myself. If you don't agree, that sucks. Make your own damn diary.
NC stands for "Not Contributing" and can mean anything from "transferred" to "kicked off the team" to "buried so deep on the depth chart we're not even sure he still plays for us".
2006 Recruiting Class
Not a bad class by any means, half of the 20-man class was 4 and 5 star prospects. Then this happened:
|
Schilling- 5* to 4* |
|
Graham- LB to D-Line |
|
Slocum- NC |
|
Mouton- 5* S to 4* LB |
|
Boren- NC |
|
Brown- 4* DB to 4* LB |
|
Patterson- NC |
|
Mixon- NC |
|
Cone- 3* to 2* |
|
Mathews- 3* to 4* |
|
Banks- NC |
|
Patilla- NC |
|
Ezeh- 3* RB to 4* LB |
|
Dorrenstein- NC |
|
Wright- 2* to 3* |
|
Kates- NC |
|
Woods- NC |
Andddd we got this:
We lost nine players, including four 5*s and both secondary players. Some pretty good foreshadowing for a few years down the line. And this is after both Greg Mathews and Obi Ezeh were bumped from 3*s to 4*s.
2007 Recruiting Class
Another pretty darn good recruiting class, with 14 of the 20 prospects rated 4* or higher. I wonder how this could get messed up. I mean even losing a few players here and there.. we had 12 4* prospects for god's sake- OH DEAR GOD
|
Mallett- NC |
|
Helmuth- NC |
|
Williams- 4* to 3* |
|
Clemons- NC |
|
Watson- NC |
|
Webb- 4* to 3* |
|
Rogers- NC |
|
Herron- 4* to 3* |
|
Babb- NC |
|
Panter- NC |
|
Evans- NC |
|
Chambers- NC |
|
Horn- NC |
|
Huyge- 2* to 3* |
|
Sagesse- 2* to 3* |
And that led to this:
We dropped from fourteen total 4 and 5*'s to FOUR. I mean jesus. That's just awful. Half of the entire 2007 recruiting class is either gone or not being used. And besides Donovan Warren, the last two recruiting classes have now combined for a grand total of two 3* players in the secondary. Again, I am starting to see why we're not doing too well this season.
2008 Recruiting Class
Again, not a bad class at all. Fourteen 4* prospects alone in this one. And a nice, big 25 player class. Things are looking up in Ann Arbo- SWEET JESUS NOT AGAIN.
|
Cissoko- NC |
|
Smith- 4* to 3* |
|
McGuffie- NC |
|
Fitzgerald- 4* to 3* |
|
Wermers- NC |
|
O'Neill- NC |
|
Witherspoon- NC |
|
Robinson- 4* RB to 3* WR |
|
Mealer- NC |
|
Cox- 4* to 3* |
|
Hill- NC |
|
Floyd- 3* to 4* |
|
Morales- NC |
|
Feagin- NC |
I don't want to look at it, either. But that led to..
Ten fewer players yet again, zero 5*s (thanks, Boo-Boo) and six 4*s. And that's because I gave JT Floyd a fourth star. Just horrendous stuff.
So in those three recruiting classes (I'm not doing '09 just yet), the eight 5*s are now two, the thirty-one 4* players are now sixteen, and the 65 players total are now 36. Not exactly what anyone had in mind when the classes were actually coming in.
If the '09 class turns out to be a good one, and we lock up a few high-caliber players in 2010, I think we'll be alright in a few years. For this season (and potentially next), however, it's kind of easy to see why we're struggling against the likes of Indiana and Illinois.
We don't have the depth that we should because our stellar signing day lists are down to almost nothing a few years down the line. I don't know what RichRod or any of the coaching staff can do to make sure future players stay out of trouble and on the field, but if these numbers don't improve significantly over the next few years, it's going to be a while before we're playing in January.
Any and all comments are welcome. Thanks for reading.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:23 AM ^
the recent outbreak of charts to describe our attrition is very informative, and these too are well done.
I think at this point, though, what would be more helpful would be to compare normal attrition versus recent attrition.
I mean, I can look at your charts and say, oh, that looks bad. But if I don't have normal year comparisons, I can't really tell how much worse than normal it is.
Just a thought. Still, great work. The charts tell me that we shouldn't be this bad for a while, assuming that there aren't mass defections/dropouts.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:41 AM ^
Comparing UM's attrition to the attrition at other schools after a change in head coach would also be interesting. I remember the enormous attrition that occurred when Weiss took over at ND, even when the system changes were not nearly as great as when RR took over at UM.
This comparison would not be as relevant to our immediate future prospects. But it could put into perspective the "sky is falling" reaction to the UM attrition.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:46 AM ^
Where's Barnum and Mealer in your 2008 class? Dont know about Scout, but they both were 4-stars per Rivals, with barnum being a top-5 center and Mealer a top-25 taackle?
Hold on, I see Mealor on the list as a NC......did you expect him to contribute at this point? That fact he's climbed the depth chart tells me that he is overcoming that injuries from the terrible car accident and that he'll be a factor on our line for his final three seasons on campus.
Sticking with OL recruits from 2008, you're quick to downgrade guys from 4 to 3 stars because theyre not contributing yet. Howver, maybe add a star to someone like Omameh who appears to be on the verge of playing this week.
Attrition is one thing, and is illustrated very well in your charts.....but I dont think we're anywhere close to writing a chapter, let alone a book on the 2008 class, from an attrition or NC standpoint.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:19 AM ^
Mealer is just a RS Freshman, correct? Furthermore he played during the Delaware State game, IIRC. Also what you said about the injuries.
Also agreed too early to write off the '08 class except those who actually transferred.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:54 AM ^
is that unlike in the NFL where bad roster decisions and draft mistakes can doom your franchise for a decade (Thanks Matt Millen!) due to the salary cap, in college football since you get a quarter of your team new every year, the recovery CAN be relatively quick... As much as the doom and gloomers around here pontificate against the current path, realistically, we're one good recruiting class (good being players who actually stay and provide impact) away from getting back to Big Ten title contention. I'm starting to roll around to the Penn St dilemma of earlier this decade, where JoePa was getting ready to be buried after a 4-7 2004 season (following a 3-9 2003 season), but a hot shot class of recruits led by Justin King, Derrick Williams, Deon Butler, and a 3rd yr (2nd yr starting) Michael Robinson blast through to a 12-1 record, validating JoePa's zombie Head Coach for life (ever after) status. BRAIINS!!!
I'm pretty sure we're not going to go 12-1 next season, but I just think that things aren't as bleak as we make them out to be and one impact class could change things on a dime for us....
November 4th, 2009 at 9:20 AM ^
My only quibble is with the OL rankings. It takes usually 3 years for an OL to se the light of day so to give them a NC just because they don't start is a bit harsh. Also Dorrenstein got a NC, he currently starts and has another year of eligibility so I think you at least gotta give him 3 stars.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:21 AM ^
Sorry, but your ignorance of the current team probably makes these charts less useful than you hope.
Dorrestein is a non-contributor? He's starting at right tackle.
Banks is a non-contributor? He's actually played pretty well as Van Bergen's primary backup.
Meanwhile, people like Brandon Smith (limited to special teams)and Mike Cox (our 5th string running back) are given star rankings by you, and JT Floyd is given a fourth star by you despite the fact that the coaches put a walk-on (Kovacs) on the field and moved Woolfolk to CB in order to keep Floyd off the field?
Yeah...I'm not buying this analysis. The charts are pretty, though.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:42 AM ^
Haha.. wonderful constructive criticism. I missed Dorrenstein, and actually had him listed on another version of the chart that I didn't update when I made the post. My mistake on that one.
As for the other ones, they're my personal opinions. If you don't like them, feel free to call me ignorant on an internet message board. Go you.
You don't think Smith and Cox should be given star rankings at all? I moved Smith down to three stars, because he hasn't really proved himself but it isn't fair to call him a non-contributor.
Cox is deep on a great RB depth chart, but when he's been in he has showed that he'll be competing for the starting job by the time he's a senior. He absolutely deserved to be given more than a NC.
And JT Floyd was right between a 3* and a 4*, I even mentioned in the post that I struggled to bump him up. That was my call, on my post.
I didn't realize I had to make sure you agreed with my view on things before I posted them, I'll be sure to shoot you an e-mail next time I want to make a post just to be sure it's "Magnus Approved".
November 4th, 2009 at 10:24 AM ^
This and Decimated Defense are good ways to look at how we got here. The problem still remaining is why? Many trolls, whiners and panickers out there are saying (this is a paraphrase, not my view) because Rich Rod ran everybody off we suck / it's all Rich Rod's fault. This is probably true for 10 - 15 or so of the 29 listed above.
The other part of this is how many left in a normal (stable / no coaching change) two year period when Lloyd wasn't about to retire? Say 2004, 2005, 2006 ...
In the end, it would be nice to say "Lloyd lost an average of xx players a year to attrition, Rich has lost yy, zz of those directly related to the coaching change, and other stable programs loose aa, and other coaching changes loose bb, and Bo lost cc. So stop whining and be patient."
The other response we need to start using is "Remember that Lloyd lost embarassingly to USC, App State and Oregon with seemingly no response. Not to mention Ohio State, and typically his secondary was the point of failure. So this is not a new Rich Rod problem. This problem is how we got to where we are."
November 4th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^
I'm fine with you rating Cox. I'm even fine with you rating Smith.
But when you deem one starter a non-contributor and a key backup a non-contributor while giving a star ranking to a guy who plays strictly special teams (Smith) and a guy the coaches are desperately trying to keep off the field (Floyd), then hopefully you can see why that dings your credibility.
You don't have to be sure that I approve of things. But you should be ready for people to criticize your thoughts once you put them out there. And saying Floyd deserves to be a 4-star because "it's my opinion" is a cop-out. I could say that Nick Sheridan should have been a 5-star because IT'S MY OPINION AND THEREFORE IT'S RIGHT, but honestly, isn't that ridiculous?
November 4th, 2009 at 1:39 PM ^
Again, Dorrenstein was ranked on another draft of the chart, that was my error in posting the wrong one.
Would you say Floyd deserves to be a three star? Or even a 3.5 star if there was such a thing? That's right about where I had him pegged, and just decided to round up since the rest of the class looked so pathetic already. I don't know why you're so hung up on one player being ranked a little higher than you think he should be.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^
I like the system you use regardless of your adjusted rankings. Comparing the published and adjusted star values of each class quantifies the impact of all the attrition. The obvious next step is trying to figure out what can be done to minimize this type of situation in the future (I would imagine the coaching staff is generally aware and working on this).
As for the rankings themselves, without dwelling on whether Player X should be re-ranked higher or lower, I would stay away from ranking anyone still on the team as NC. Maybe drop them to a 2 or even 1 star. With the lack of depth, anyone that puts the uniform on is making a contribution, even if only to to push the marginal talent in front of him on the depth chart. You may also need to add some value for walk-ons to further true up the picture. Kovacs may not be All Big 10, but he is definitely making a contribution. Just think: if he wasn't there, the product on the field would probably be worse.
(Also, maybe list Boren, Clemons, Wermers... as negative #'s instead of just NC, since running their mouths had extra Neg. impact. Just kidding... sort of.)
November 4th, 2009 at 2:03 PM ^
Okay, since this is about the third time you've done it, his name is Perry DORRESTEIN. There's no "n" except the one at the end of his name.
I understdood your comment about Dorrestein the first time. Mistakes happen. But when you make mistakes, again, that hurts your credibility.
Considering the fact that you made Greg Banks a non-contributor and Brandon Smith a 3-star and Terrence Robinson a 3-star (even though he never plays), I have no idea what "3-star" or "3.5-star" means to you. No offense, but your scale is so haphazard and random that it's impossible for me to figure out what you consider a 3-star. But if Greg Banks is a non-contributor to you, then Floyd should be a non-contributor as well.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:52 PM ^
Call my credibility into question all you want. This isn't the New York Times or Sports Illustrated. It's an online post. I don't make money doing what I do. So call me out for misspelling a players name or because you disagree with the rank that I give a player. Whatever you need to do to get your e-credibility up.
Wouldn't it have been just as easy to have said "Nice post, but I think Dorrestein and Banks should be ranked this, and I don't know about Floyd being a 4*."
But then you couldn't have flexed your e-muscles and called my "credibility" into question.
Oh well, I guess I won't be putting this post in my portfolio when I apply for a job at a major publication.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:29 PM ^
Well, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. Don't get all pissy because you got some facts wrong and your logic doesn't make any sense. That's nobody's fault but your own.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:09 PM ^
You're a joke. I misspell a player's name and give star ratings, a totally flexible way of rating players that can easily vary from person to person, that you disagree with, and I don't know what I'm talking about and my logic doesn't make sense? Quite the conclusion you drew there.
Nice blog, by the way. I may have spelled a single college athletes name wrong in a diary post but at least I don't spew recycled MGoBlog content on my own blog and pretend I'm original.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:24 AM ^
Actually, I don't steal anything from MGoBlog. If that were true, you might have hurt my feelings.
I've explained to you what's illogical over and over again. It wasn't that you spelled Dorrestein's name wrong (although that doesn't help). It's the fact that your "star ratings" were completely haphazard and seemingly pulled out of a hat.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:05 AM ^
Magnus - I'm not sticking up for this post because I didn't read it, but you wrote:
"....your "star ratings" were completely haphazard and seemingly pulled out of a hat."
That might indeed be true. However, it also qualifies the OP for a job with Scout, Rivals, or ESPN's recruiting site.
/only partially sarcastic.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
OK, so we've had a lot of attrition..but just look on the sunny side. We have a young team and nobody, except maybe Warren, who will be leaving early next year for the NFL. While we will have the inevitable senior departures, next year promises to be a monster year for Juniors coming out early to beat the collective bargaining agreement anticipated for the following year (when they would stand to make much less $$$$).
Other schools stand to lose much more than we will. Just consider ND. Clausen is likely gone, possibly with G Tate..the OL is gone...no decent RB...and their backup QB will have almost zero experience and be recovering from ACL surgery. All this in the year they were scheduled to return to glory! In fact, I'd bet we have a good chance of beating ND next year in SB.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/hayes/1863166,CST-SPT-neil04.article
November 5th, 2009 at 12:00 PM ^
Plenty of the guys we lose come from the "O" line, and that concerns me some. Tate will be better next year, but is he and the RB's going to have the protection it takes to make the offense go?
November 4th, 2009 at 7:00 PM ^
Nice point about projected attrition. If things work out right, UM's ascent back to where we all feel they belong should be helped greatly by the projected exodus of players next spring, trying to beat the rookie cap.
UM will lose some, but other schools will lose a lot more. so, basically, the upside to being so young is that UM has a lot less to lose than a few of the teams who are trouncing them right now. Maybe revenge will start coming sooner than many of us think.
Since revenge is "best served cold," maybe that game at the Big House in a few weeks would be a nice place to start.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:03 PM ^
Magnus wrote:
"his name is Perry DORRESTEIN"
Not only is the point valid, but this is reminding me a lot of Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein: "My name is FRONKENSTEEN!"
November 5th, 2009 at 2:32 AM ^
Ranked by Rivals RR (OK, I'm lazy)
2005 Grady, Moosman, Savoy, Mesko, Ortmann
2006 Graham, Schilling, Brown C, Mouton (jr), Brown S, Mathews, Minor, Ferrara (jr), Dorrestein (jr), Ezeh (jr), Wright(jr)
2007 Warren (nfl?), Van Bergen, Webb, Williams, Molk, Sagasse, Huyge, Woolfolk, Herron, Watson
2008 Stonum, Fitzgerald, Koger, Shaw, Smith B, Martin, Roundtree, Odoms, Floyd, Omameh, Barnum, Demens, Hill, Mealer, Cox, Khoury
2009 Campbell, Forcier, Roh, DRob, Smith V, Gallon, Stokes, Emilein,Gordon, Lolata, Lewan, Schofield, Toussaint, Washington, Bell, Hawthorne, Jones M, Jones T, Gordon
That's a significant rolloff from the quality contributions we're getting from the 2006 (senior elgibility) class. If Warren goes, the contributions from the 2007 class will be rather weak for a true senior class.
Uggh. I don't think we can get a decent read on RR until after the 2011 season.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:21 AM ^
Touche.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^
We lose Ortmann and Moosman. Moosman is a good guard, but there are capable backups behind him at guard (Ferrara, Barnum, Omameh, Mealer, etc.). Ortmann could be replaced by guys who already have starting experience as well (Dorrestein or Huyge), and frankly, Ortmann hasn't been great.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:06 PM ^
We have more OL talent on the bench right now, than we do on the field. Dont you think?
Barnum would probably be playing had he not had the wrist injury in the summer. I dont know, that's just e-speculation.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:18 AM ^
Well, Barnum will probably be good and I think Lewan is going to be great. That's not to mention Schofield, Omameh, etc.
But these starters are pretty talented, too. Schilling was a 5-star, Moosman a 4-star, Molk a 4-star... We're losing a 4-star in Moosman and perhaps replacing him with a 4-star (Barnum) while Ortmann was a 3-star (I think) and we're replacing him with Omameh (a 3-star). So I don't think the talent disparity is that noticeable. Perhaps the more important thing is that Barnum, Omameh, Lewan, etc. were recruited specifically for this offense, while a guy like Ortmann is a bit of a square peg, in my opinion.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
Ok, what am I missing about the spelling of Dorrestein's name? I am not trying to start trouble, but who prepared the charts?
Collegefootball13 is taking heat for spelling Dorrestein's name wrong, if I understand what is going on, and somehow that affects his credibility.
Look at the chart below 2006 recruiting class. Dorrestein's name is spelled "Dorrenstein". My question is who prepared the chart? Whoever that person is, apparently spelled Dorrestein's name wrong, at least on the web I am viewing. Does that call the credibility of the charts into question? Or the comments of the creator of the charts? Or does it standards one holds oneself to compared to the standards one holds others to?
For my part it makes no difference. We know who Dorrestein is, in this instance, no matter how his name is spelled.
Am I reading a different chart than anyone else, or did Collegefootball13 prepart the chart?
December 5th, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
Nothing like being late to the party, huh. The line that doesn't make sense should have started "Or does it say more about the ..."
What do the point mean? More prizes? Discounts on merchandise? Credibility boosted by verbosity?
Comments