Rivals Team Rankings 2010

Submitted by backusduo on

Rivals released their first team rankings for the 2010 class recently.  You can view them at http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/.

 

In 2009 you will remember we finished the year 8th with 22 recruits, 1 5-star and 13 4-star, meaning 4-star or better 64% of the time.  Our avg. star rank for 2009 was 3.59 good enough for 10th overall.  We are currently ranked 9th in 2010 with 16 recruits, 5 of which are rated 4-star and no 5-star.  That gives us a 4-star or better 31% of the time.  If the percentages hold true that means we should plan on adding 2 more 4-stars before the end.  I would predict landing a 5-star recruit this year probably a long shot if you look at the interest lists of the top recruits unless one of our 4-stars move up like Devin or fingers crossed Cullen when he hopefully commits.  When you look at avg. stars per recruit we are 3.31.  That drops us to 19th overall, still good enough to stay ahead of little brother at 24, but a little bit of a drop when compared to previous years. 

 

2010 – 3.31 ytd – 19th

2009 – 3.59 – 10th

2008 – 3.67 – 7th

2007 – 3.4 – 10th

2006 – 3.63 – 6th

 

Right now I think the larger concern than stars is that we finish this class with the right recruits.  Somewhere we need to pull out a DT or two, DB’s are always a need but things are trending well, and I’d like to see one more OL with all the defections – Seantrel would do just fine.

Comments

Tha Stunna

July 29th, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^

Nice analysis. "Right now I think the larger concern than stars is that we finish this class with the right recruits." Exactly. We have a lot of spots and a lot of vulnerabilities; if we can avoid having open scholarships again by filling up at places of need, I'd be reasonably satisfied. One side benefit? of filling on lower rated recruits is that they are less likely to decommit, so we should avoid a lot of the nonsense from last year's class.

teldar

July 29th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^

Most likely DG is going to move up into the top 100. Don't know if this makes a difference on Scout. However, is it likely he will move to a 5*? That would raise the star ratings minimally but add to the points and average. Also, the recruiting sites take away from players who are "too small" to play in the NFL. These are players that RR recruits because they are fast and athletic.

backusduo

July 29th, 2009 at 2:14 PM ^

Only the top 17 are currently ranked 5 star (33 in 2009, 30 in 2008), so jumping from 171 to top 30 is probably not realistic, but we may see 10th's of a point change when they do the reranking in the fall. Unfortunately I fear that the glow of the Elite 11 will have worn off by then. I wish they had waited for the re-ranking to occur after the Elite 11.

BlockM

July 29th, 2009 at 2:16 PM ^

There can't be that many teams that would pull in a 19th ranked class after going 3-9. The players we've gotten so far appear to be well-suited for our system, and I can't wait to see what kinds of kids we can pull in next year once we prove we're starting something special.

robertzurbuch

July 29th, 2009 at 3:39 PM ^

to our recruitment of Dior Mathis? We were leading for the longest time and now we are 3rd behind Oregon and Sparty. Are we still actively pursuing him? I still think that after Warren leaves it would be nice to have a pair of Cass Tech kids locking down the corner spots. In this article I agree as long as RR is getting the recruits he needs for his system to be a success then the star rating means nothing. I am paying closer attention to the 40 times and shuttle times. GO BLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!

robertzurbuch

July 29th, 2009 at 3:55 PM ^

Mathis has won numerous MVP awards at the various camps he has been attending. I would have found it interesting, I am not trying to rewrite the depth chart or anything. But the nice thing would be since we are going to be running 3 CB's on defense, he could still get a nod if he was at Michigan.

UNCWolverine

July 29th, 2009 at 4:13 PM ^

I just wanted to point out to everyone that committed players' star ranking fluctuations do not affect that player's speed, elusiveness, strength, etc. For example if DG "earns" a 5-star ranking at some point per some experts that get paid based on subscriptions to their websites he won't become faster, his accuracy will not increase, and the recruiting class will not be any better from a pure talent standpoint than when he was a "4-star" recruit. From a macro level I understand (barely) the concern that average star levels are lower than most would like. But I'm much more concerned from a micro level regarding positions of need. Just sayin.....

mjkaiser09

July 30th, 2009 at 1:42 AM ^

while it is undoubtedly helpful for us fans to size up how well we're recruiting relative to osu and sparty, i think in the grand scheme of things, the star numbers are pretty arbitrary. i doubt that richrod, or any other coaches for that matter, are constantly scrolling on rivals or scout looking up the newest intel on so called 'hot' recruits. simply said, they dont care where rivals ranks them. like someone said earlier, they look for players that fit their needs and their system. richrod focuses on speed and at times he does sacrifice size for this. sometimes players are rated lower than they are because their talent doesnt translate well to the nfl. sometimes rivals rankings are just flatout wrong. if i recall correctly, they had mike hart as a 3 star recruit. if only all 3 stars played like that...

Captain

July 30th, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^

Just in case you're playing Mundane Regurgitation Bingo at home, I'll help you fill out your board. Let's see...we have Mike Hart was a 3 star, check. Rankings don't matter, system players do, check. Lack of size and NFL projection negatively impacts rankings, deflating the rankings of superior athletes, check. Nice start. That leaves: lengthy argument that higher-rated players empirically out-perform lower-rated players, so stars = important; committed players have reduced mobility in rankings; Michigan is not losing the in-state recruiting war because UM has no interest in many of the recruits MSU targets; and...uh...Roundtree got contacts. Those of you who took commonly held ideas, and expanded upon them with personal insight (e.g. BlockM, Jrt336, backusduo)...kudos. Those who stopped just *before* adding any personal insight, the only thing I can say is: BINGO!