TomVH: How Michigan's Recruiting Compares

Tom do you feel this is more of a perception issue? i.e. it looks bad to throw out a ton of offers and strike out a lot? 

What was your overall impression of RR's recruiting ability?  We'll never know what would have happened had he stayed, but if RR keeps Dee and a few others isn't that a top 15ish class?

I guess what I'm saying is do you feel that building Michigan's recruiting prestige back up is a long term project? or something that could be "fixed" with 1 or 2 excellent classes?

I think the advantage that you mentioned OSU having is a huge advantage. The state of Ohio would probably be considered the fourth most talent rich state in the country football-wise, yet there is one BCS school in the entire state. That situation exists no where else. Michigan will still recruit well in Ohio, and this staff has a chance to get a top five guy from Ohio to come to Michigan in Chris Wormley. But it'll always be a huge advantage in OSU's favor.

As far as the previous coaching staff, they had a lot of in-roads in Florida and the south in general. That's where many of RR's best players came from, and even when we weren't playing very well he held the interest of many of Florida's better players. Some postera have stated that we are not the attraction we used to be, which is a very short-sighted view. Recruiting success can change completely in a year, and there are no constants that you can rely on pertaining to recruiting. It's the most fluid, obvectively cluster-fucked situation in all of sports, which is one of the reasons we love following it.

Obviously winning works wonders when it comes to recruiting (i.e. Auburn's finish this year), but even on a smaller scale like a school such as UCF, who was literally the worst program in the country a few years ago and who are now winning 9-10 games a year and pulling in three of four 4* recruits every year, you can make a relatively quick turn around. Michigan has a much higher chance of a quick bounce back than UCF. Winning obivously isn't the only factor (i.e. Clemson, UNC, Miami), though, and Michigan has great pull in other areas of recruiting (Big House, academics, facilities, Ray Lewis' coach, etc.). I think we'll really see Hoke and co. go out into the midwest, pitch those aspects, and pull in a class that competes with OSU's, and a class that's made up of mainly midwestern guys in 2012.

Michigan doesn't have an obligation or a right to be good, but I mentioned in a thread yesterday that coaches can walk into a kid's house and say "we have academics, tradition, facilities, fans, etc. We have all of the tools to be great again, but we need players like you in order to do it." That's a very good pull for kids and parents, and by all accounts, Mattison and Hoke are the kind of coaches who know how to convince recruits that UM is a great opportunity. The downfall of a program in any facet can't be accomplished in a matter of three years, so we're going to have to wait and see what happens over the first few years of Hoke's tenure before deciding where exactly Michigan stands.

Up until recently, I believed Michigan sold itself as far as recruiting.  Academics, the Big House...say the name "Michigan" and the pearly gates open and the recruit walks in.  The numbers say otherwise.  OSU has two huge advantages.  The first, its location, is what it is.

The second is winning...three years of sub par performance has shot us in the foot and, obviously, helped OSU greatly. The RichRod factor is also what it is....simply don't know the type of sales job that was being done. 

Hoke can do a lot to improve things, but better W-L's will help a ton.  I also think the new style of offense may help too.

The number of offers relative to the number of recruits is very sobering and another reason to dispell the sense of security that we once had.  The brand sells itself, but only so far.

A couple thoughts/inquiries jump into my head when I look at this data:

• What caused the significant jump in offers tendered from '05 to '06
• Why the apparent "offer palooza" following the very successful '06 season
• How does MSU come out with the 3rd lowest offers while closing at 28%
• When you over lap OUR offers with those of MSU/OSU/ND, how many kids did we offer that weren't offered by THOSE schools.
• How many kids that WEREN'T offered by those other schools excelled for us

Some of these questions would be difficult to answer without intimate knowledge of the entire process.  However, on the surface?   Ugh.

I do believe, thought, that Hoke will buck this trend.

Not sure if the nmbers are exact but directionally they tell a story.....

Thanks Tom! I think this confirms what we've all known for some time. But keep in mind that We are looking at these numbers after a historic 3 year run which ranks right up there with the worst on field Michigan football results ever endured by the program. I don't think it's a surprise that these recruiting numbers would reflect our on-field fotunes. If you go back just 5 years and look at the 2006 numbers I suspect you'd see a very different picture. The bottom line is Michigan recruiting has slipped (and the slip started before Rodriguez fot here btw). Winning cures all. Brady Hoke needs to take a long hard look at these numbers and implement a plan to counteract the trend. I would also add that Cornflakes Brown might have helped in this area. Not considering him is an opportunity missed...

One thing to consider is that both in 2007 and this year we were going through coaching changes.  I suspect that when RR arrived he added 20 or so offers in the last few recruiting weeks of 2007.  Hoke probably added a dozen this year.

I realize that that wouldn't make a significant difference, but it does skew the numbers.  

I seem to recall that a big difference between Carr and RR was that Lloyd made a lot of offers through the camp process, while RR was working the out of state pipelines, beating the bushes and workig a lot of recruits. This points to a difference in recruting strategy. Note that Sparty numbers look a lot like OSU-- Dantonio recruited with Tressel and likely built his strategy on the OSU model.

Seems likely that Hoke will be more like Carr. He can "touch" more kids and their coaches by developing a strong camp model. This helps in a number of ways-- provides an evaluation opportunity, helps develop local talent, improves network among coaches, provides young players with an awesome experience at Michigan. All of these factors should point to a lower offer/acceptance ratio and a more consistent talent base.

The piece that will put us over the top in my view will still be the abiility to recruit nationally and fill in some elite talent. I like the model of building your foundation first-- much like buiding your team from the line. Without the program consistency, there will be no big draw from elite players.

All that matters is winning on the field.  We get to beating teams up , fix the defense also and things get back to norm.   Let's go and kick Ohio State's ass this year !

I'd be interested in Texas' numbers. It seems that Mack fills up his slots quickly each year (already has commitments for 2012) and probably doesn't have to give out a ton of offers in the talent filled state he is slap dab in the middle of. How's that for a run on sentence?

Tom, I usually love your posts.  I appreciate the hard work you put in.  But, this attempt at statistical analysis to draw a conclusion about perceeption of the program is just too fundamentally flawed to be reasonably relied upon or even posted about.

First, obviously RR's method of throwing out "offers" was much different than Carr's approach. Apparently, RR was more like Florida and the SEC (and often went down there to compete for recruits).  He threw out a blanket of offers.

That is similar to the method for Auburn, Florida, Alabama....are you saying those programs have lost perception amoung recruits?  We competed in the south for the same kids that got those SEC offers, so why should our blanketing of offers be seen as a negative, while theirt strategy is fine and their perception from all accounts is strong?

Which makes me wonder why you compare us with OSU?  The other teams you list have recruiting classes better than OSU (typically).  OSU and PSU just do things the way Lloyd Carr did...focus on a handful of recruits.

I really don't see how acceptance rate shows how recruits perceive a school, especially since your chart shows that the HOTTEST schools in the country right now have about HALF the acceptance rate of OSU and MSU.  Seriously, if the acceptance statistic were reliable at all for the conclusion that it reflects how kids see a program, then Michigan is in the same type of national failure in perception as Auburn, Alabama and Florida.  Your attempt to distinguish each of those schools is weak, especially  in light of the competition in this area and the fact that Michigan was part of the competition down south too.

(Plus, the 500 lb gorilla in the room is that many some schools offer the best kids regardless, and others only target those who they think reciprocate interest from the begining.  PSU's accpetance rate may be high (and by your conclusion, their perception as well) simply because they go after kids they know already have a good perception of them.  That variance in how schools approach offers makes the idea of an acceptance statistic almost meaningless....Also, some schools may make it clear to kids that a verbal offer is not the same as a written.  Other schools may not.)

If the point of your post is that RR tried to recruit like an SEC school, then we can agree on that.  If the point of your post is that acceptance percentage has any correlation to perception or reputation, then I think you are WAY off base.

I am not saying Michigan's perception is great or horrible, just that these stats don't answer the question better than a wild guess.

every coach has a network of HS coaches that they talk to routinely.  Extending large amounts of offers preserves, starts and builds these relationships I would think.

Do the athletes really look at the perception of the program wrt to how many offers are on the table?  I honestly don't know.  I understand stretching the coaching staff - but much of the recruiting biz is now online - or progressively is getting there.  Extending large amounts of offers doesn't tax a program like it would have in 2005.  I would imagine this varies still by the tech chutzpah of individual coaching staffs.  

As mentioned above - we are changing the style of play (again) which probably adds some offers to the pot with regime change.

The key stat, I would think is how many athletes you get on campus - either at Jr days, unofficials or as one of their 5 officials.  I would like to see that stat.   The coaches, I'm sure, are tracking their work vs. success ratio - but so much goes on under the radar - even with the enormous change in media coverage on recruiting.

I'd like to give some input here...     perhaps the reason why our recruiting hit rate took such a large hit from 2005 to 2006 (and then 2007), it was said that Les Miles was telling recruits we were going head to head with that Lloyd Carr had Parkinsons and would be retiring soon.

A top recruit CB Jai Eugene who flipped from M to LSU, was supposedly told this by Miles, and supposedly for it, Bo was beyond irate, and told Miles he was never welcome back in Ann Arbor because of it. And if Miles was telling recruits this, this can be catastrophic in recruiting if it spreads among the top recruits since many of them talk. It'd be interesting to know how many recruits we were going head to head with LSU that year, that signed with LSU.     Going from 41% to 24% is quite significant. 

"there is historically more talent within Ohio, which might make it easier for Ohio State to land the kids they want."

Tom, but is only marginally true, that Ohio tends to have more talent than our state.  BUT what is far more remarkable, is that  OUR STATE OF MICHIGAN has two major programs in UofM and MSU, then a bunch of mid-majors like Central Mich, Western Mich, Eastern Mich.  What does the State of Ohio have?  One major in OSU, then Cinci and Toledo. WHOOPEE !  Fact is, if our state only had one major program like Ohio has, we'd crush them, and then the perception of the talent in Michigan would go WAY up.

Good idea Tom, but what are you trying to show? That a large number of offers and correspondingly low number of commits makes a program "sub-elite?" Don't the Auburn/Florida/Wisconsin percentages defeat that argument from the start?

If that were the case, lower-ranked schools would have offer/commit numbers like Michigan. USC had 142 offers, per Rivals. Miami(FL) had zero. Nebraska lists 158 offers, Arkansas lists 212, Stanford had 176. EMU has 66. I think there are more variables to consider in addition to the ones you picked out. This one seems to be statistically insignificant.

-As you said, how many of those offers were to out-of-state kids? You know, the "I really want to go to Ann Arbor, but it's really cold" offers.

-what was the ranking of the kids they offered? If MSU offers a bunch of 3-star in-state kids, then yeah, I wouldn't be surprised that many of them would accept. But firing at the top 5-stars from Texas/where ever doesn't hurt anything, and you might just talk one of them into coming. Michigan had offers out to almost all the #1s at every position, just to see. That's about 10 offers right there that I'd be willing to bet they didn't expect to pan out. I don't see anything wrong with that. If it opens the door, so much the better.

I like the idea of trying to quantify a signing percentage, but I think there's too much other data to try to make a correlation. Michigan offered 142 in 2010, 121 in 2009, and 125 in 2008, so this year isn't evidence of any pattern by the coaching staff. I think all you can say with the data presented is that the RichRod staff had a different approach than Lloyd's staff, and had lots of holes to fill. But it doesn't seem out of line with other team's approaches.

that came right to mind...

1.  Seems pretty obvious that teams with the larger pool of recruits to select from tend to have more offers on the table.  Even SDSU (in my opinion, not on the same level as the other listed schools) offered 108, but again, look how much talent is in California.

2.  175 is still a lot!  That number blows my mind.  Imagine how busy the staff must have been.  Trying to recruit mid west for "Tradition" yet RR had to tap the south for Speed & Spread guys to fit his system. 

3.  I know somebody in an aforementioned post mentioned the fact that schools like PSU recruited guys that were heavily interested in their school.  I also agree with this statement.  That came to mind when first looking at Tom's table and stats. 

4.  I think the status of the current program in place has much to do with it.  Teams with solid recruiting over the course of 3-5 years, have less need for totally revamping one or more phases of the game.  Teams like OSU/FL have been consistent for so long because they had a recruit-and-develop program with natural attrition.  We did not have that luxury over the past few years, much to do with the transition.  I was on board, and I do believe RR was capable and beginning to put some continuity in place, but I was still not totally convinced.    

Again, I can't wrap my brain around why we had 175 offers on the table???  Although there are many different scenarios out there and the statistics are pretty ambiguous...this seems tangible enough to base the assumption that the status of the program may have not been as far along as originally thought.  Regardless, I’m happy with Hoke & Staff, to be recruiting in the Midwest again, and to have a foundation of strong, competitive guys with natural leadership qualities.  And Denard…

I suspect that's the reason behind the large number of offers. It could also be style, as other posters have alluded to.

I don't think we have enough information to see what's really going on, though. I'd think you'd want as much data as you can get on BCS conference teams. I'd be particularly curious to see what's going on with Notre Dame, as they've also gone through a coaching change recently.

i guess the more offers you give out, the less time you can spend with each kind.  creates a self-reinforcing cycle downward.

Great breakdown Tom.  I do think that recent trends have worked against UM in terms of recruiting, but that is likely due in large part to having so much instability at the head position these past few years.  Hayes to Cooper to Tressel has worked so well recruiting because none of them have really had to rock the boat - they grab the best talent in Ohio, always win enough games, and identify a couple of highly-rated kids nationally and then bring some of them in.  That worked for UM too, but the danger (as we saw with Carr and what happened toward the end of Cooper's time) is that you become complacent and if the next guy doesn't come in and keep the gravy train going, it can jump off the rails.  For better or for worse, RR showed up and tried to change the way things were done at UM, and because he inheritted a tough situation and didn't keep on winning (I think a first season of 7-5 probably would have kept recruitng up), recruits turned off UM a bit.  Now, that can change at any time, and I think Hoke and particularly Mattison will help immensely with getting more kids into UM.  But while I personally liked RR and what he was trying to do here, his hiring disrupted the recruiting cycle enough that we are now seeing the negative results nationally.

It's like my NCAA09 Dynasty (though later versions may be different I'm assuming consistently bad data from this post) - It's the year 2036 and if I try to recruit 30+ 5* prospects then I can only quick call them a few times before they want to visit and I don't have time to figure out what they want.  There's really only 5 minutes to talk and then offering the damn scholly takes 15 min.  Hoke can't possibly get a kid on the hook in 5 minutes.

I think Hoke should try my method:  18 5* recruits and 2 4* (only if you must).  20 Is a managable number each year.  Then just hard sell them on whatever they already like for 20 minutes and invite them to a Rivalry game you dominate (thank god for the Little Brown Jug!) and you're solid.  Yeah once in a while you'll miss out on a 5* this way but then there's always that damn 5* who ends up being a 79 overall and you wish you hadn't wasted the time promising him a MNC his first year.

I don't mean to sound like I have all the answers but I have won every MNC for the last 25 years so... well, yeah.

EDIT: Yes it's on Hiesman mode so this should be even easier for Hoke in the real world

Your concluding paragraph is very interesting.  I'm assuming that your experience observing recruiting is what informs it the most, so taking it with that in mind, it suggests that casting a wide net suggests three key reasons to me; 1 - laziness, 2 - desparation, 3 - rebuilding/strategic talent shift.

It is tempting for me to assign laziness, or lack of effort, as the reason for the change from 2005 to 2007.  I'm not trying to bash Lloyd Carr, but actually to leverage his own statement during his retirement announcement that he had "lost something" in his passion for coaching. I'm also adding in some of the information from Jon Falks book, in that Bo was back in Schembechler Hall from 1993 onwards.  I have to think that around 2004-2005 when Lloyd was losing his passion, a lot of it had to do with Bo starting to lose his energy as well.  From the time Lloyd took the head coaching job, it never seemed to me he completely, passionately wanted to do it, but having his best friend around, and down the hall probably helped quite a bit.

Certainly with Rodriguez, he had to quickly assemble a rather different talent pool, and of course fill in a lot of gaps from the tailing off of Lloyd's recruiting.  It of course is hard to tell if this was all the reason or if he did not really have a sharp enough plan in place, the midwest relationships, etc.  I think he did have a plan, because how could he have gotten to his level of success at WVU without one?  I think the biggest thing hurting him was the obvious lack of support from the fanbase and University, and all that uncertainty is a big liability to inexperienced 18 year olds making their first lifelong decision.

This next recruiting cycle will be very interesting.  Thanks again for your insight.