More Attrition Fun: Why We're Not So Good (Charts? Charts.)

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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."

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?

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.)

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.

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

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.

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!"

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.

Touche.

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.

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?

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?