2009 Rivals 100/250 recruiting chart
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=909860
Michigan is actually ranked 4th in this chart. Only OSU had more top 250 recruits - which is surprising because I didn't realize we had gotten that many 250 recruits. BUT, we only have two top 100 which is relatively low compared to our company at the top of the rankings.
Obviously this can only be predicative of our future success to a certain degree, however it is just more evidence to support RR in that he did a pretty darn good job recruiting this year despite all the negativity directed towards our program.
To echo many other people, "the future is looking bright."
February 8th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
I think the lack of top 100 recruits is indicative of the 3-9 season. If UM has a good year in 2009, I bet you'll see around 5-6 top 100 guys. There definitely going to be room on the defensive side of the ball at LB, Line, S to fill with top talent.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^
That site has some pretty intersting charts besides the top 100/250... Like how we got ripped on for not recruiting the state when it seems we are pretty much on par with a lot of the years under Carr... I also wasn't aware that we also got the #1 players from Michigan and Ohio in a year as recent as 2003. Charts. If only there was a pie chart.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
top 100 and top 250 is measurables. Guys like Gallon, Forcier, Robinson and C. Gordon a usually in top 250 and not the 100 because they are a couple of inches too short or have yet to define their position at the next level.
it would be nice to have more top 100 guys, but if we're consistently filling the roster up with top 250 guys I think we'll be alright.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:04 PM ^
2 top 100 is indicative of the type of players RR goes after. A lot of the really small ninja slot type guys just don't get rated all that high because they are more of a system player. In terms of fitting the system more of the guys we picked up are def top 100 talent, but its verrrrry difficult for a guy under 5'10 to get a ton of love from the scouts.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:40 PM ^
That's true; the ranking system is definitely flawed in that is pretty generalized and cannot take into account the (or a)specific system in which the player may best be recruited into - at least offensively for us. On defense I'm hoping (as I'm sure most of are) that we can pull in some rockstar type guys in next year's class.
February 8th, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^
It doesn't matter if Alabama brings in 10 5 star players or Utah brings in 20 one star players. For all the star-rated talent, Utah kicked Alabama's ass when it counted. If the stars mattered, TCU, Boise State and Fresno State shouldn't even bother fielding teams. And for the level of talent brought in year after year, and the level at which it's rated, Les Miles should take incredible heat for 5 losses last year.
What matters infinitely more than the star ratings are (1) weight training and conditioning; (2) keeping your players in a program so that they contribute as juniors and seniors; (3) keeping continuity in your coaching staff so players are used to their system; and (4) finding players with the inner drive to succeed.
Those factors are why Boise State and Utah have outperformed teams like Notre Dame and Florida State in the past few years. Honestly. Read Mitch Albom's column from the Freep today and stop obsessing over high school rankings. They're so stupid that one service has Will Campbell in the top 30 and another doesn't have him ranked top 150!
But, what do we know about Big Will? Great physical specimen, motivated, enrolled early, working his tail off. 4 years with this program and barring injury I'm fairly confident Campbell will be an All-America candidate. That's way more important than what ESPN subjectively thought of his performance while at Cass Tech.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:38 PM ^
IMO it's contradicted by what some posters (one very recently in a diary) and Brian as well have shown through research--that while recruiting does not predict championships in any way, it does in fact tend to predict overall success. Meaning that there is a general correlation between recruiting success and success in terms of top 25 finishes and being at the top end of conference. Recruiting being just an inexact science the correlation would never be 100%, but there seems to be enough evidence to point that rankings matter--I agree there is no difference between say #7 and # 10 in a year, but IMO plenty of difference between a class ranked 30 and one top ten.
As far as Boise and Utah, while your point can't really be contradicted with authority, (the record book is the record book, and they beat Bama and OK after all), I will try. I would argue that they did NOT beat Bama and OK "when it counted". The BCS being what it is and no game but the title game really counting, for teams like Bama, that lost out on the chance to play in the title game, there is very little motivation to get up for a game against a Boise or Utah. IMO if either Utah or Boise had played Bama and OK in the regular season, or better yet, in a playoff, they would have won, and quite handily.
And by the way, having a friend in LA I can tell you that Miles is taking a lot of heat there, though its subsided with this year's recruiting class. And so the cycle goes on...
February 8th, 2009 at 7:43 PM ^
I kind of disagree about Bama not having motivation to play hard against Utah. They would seem to have plenty of reason to knock them off their undefeated perch, and shut up nay-sayers. I could be wrong of course, but that would make me want to get up and play.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:58 PM ^
First off, heres a link posted by Brian a little while ago.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Hug-your-fr…
Teams that recruit better, do better. Yeah, Utah did well this year, but that is fluky. Things happen, kids slip through, the system isn't perfect, but saying that they mean nothing simply because you can point out anecdotal evidence to the contrary is stupid.
I can't even go through and list the counterpoints to Utah over Alabama because there are too many. The Alabama's of the world beat the Utah's of the world more than they lose to them, because they recruit kids who have more talent. There are other factors to a teams success, but recruiting is how you get the foundation you build your team on.
Also, I hate when people use anecdotal evidence to try and disprove something that is statistically correct. I hate it more than just about anything. Please, everyone stop doing it.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^
and if we go 5-7, the number of top 250 guys will drop.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:15 PM ^
jg:
I really like your post, especially the list of four important attributes to a good program, but I disagree that the rankings "mean nothing."
Utah's defeat of Alabama doesn't neccessarily mean they are a better program; it just means that they beat them on that day. Also, Utah and Boise State, for the most part, play teams that are in the same boat as they are in recruiting rankings.
And if the rankings truly meant nothing, then Utah and Boise State would be the rule instead of the exception.
The four attributes that you list are indeed essential, but they don't do a lot of good if you don't have the talent to begin with.
Utah and Boise State play one or two good teams a year and have plenty of time and energy to get "sky high" for their bowl games.
Do you really think that either of those teams would even be a .500 team in SEC conference play?
In the SEC, you beat Alabama, and all that gets you is someone like GA, FL, or LSU the next week.
Utah and Boise are nice, uplifting stories. But they are anomalies, not norms.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:46 PM ^
Personally I think that because of the recent success Utah and BSU have had as of late I think they should join the Pac 10 and make it a super-confrence like the B12, ACC and SEC. Do I think that these teams could compete in a major confrence like that? NO but it would at least end all of the speculation over it. While I am on the subject of Super-confrences, does anyone out there have any thoughts on adding one more team to the B-11 and making it a super-conf. You could divide it either north south or east west and would have the potential to have a second UM OSU game every year. I just can't think of a good team to add. ND might be an option if it were not for their contract with NBC. Any ideas?
February 8th, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^
..for the sake of the conversation.....West would be Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern and ?, East would be Indiana, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan and Purdue.
Maybe North Dakota State? I don't like many of the options to add to the conference.
And Notre Dame has no reason to join the conference, as they already play 3 Big Ten conference games a year.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:26 PM ^
I agree it would not ever happen but just for the sake of my crazy imagination. The North would be Minn, Wisc, UM, MSU, Northwestern and for arguement sake ND. The south would be OSU, ILL, IND, Iowa, Purdue, and PSU. Hey it never hurts to dream.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:08 PM ^
Personally, I'd like to see West Virginia added, if any (aside from Notre Dame). The state borders both Ohio and Pennsylvania, so we're expanding our footprint logically, and it is major public university with both a good basketball and football program. Also, they'd have at least one natural rival. ;)
February 8th, 2009 at 5:06 PM ^
...would have been a team comparable to Ole Miss or Georgia last year if they were in the SEC. That wouldn't be that bad.
I agree with you as to Utah and Boise's anomaly status. Here's a better example: as a hypothetical, based on performance and keeping what happened in mind, who do you think would have won a mythical 2007 matchup between Michigan and West Virginia? Thinking back, I think West Virginia likely would have won that game. My reasoning is that WV had superior speed, an offense that would have given Michigan fits, and a veteran team (basically, I think my points above "point" to WV winning). I say that not as a guarantee, just as what I think.
However, if one were to look at the teams' respective rosters, Michigan should, SHOULD blow out 2007 WV. So, why wouldn't they? Well, superior conditioning and speed, more sophistication in the schemes, stability in the system, veteran players (though I realize Michigan had the latter two in place).
Now, I think that these attributes are going to help Michigan greatly. Rich Rod, I believe, has his crew, and outside of Hopson, we may see stability in the coaches. The offensive system is in place and the players will grow within it. If Michigan didn't have mass defections after a 3-9 season (let's hope it still doesn't happen), it sure as heck won't happen when they're 8-4 and the team buys into RR and Barwis. And last year we saw that the team had a conditioning, if not a talent, edge against most teams. That will improve this year.
My point is that I think RR could win here with a plate of 3 star athletes because he's an innovative coach that knows what kind of players he needs, not what Rivals says he needs. The fact he's pulling 4 and 5 stars is going to only improve the team, but it's not vital to our success, and I'm tired of Tom Lemming trying to convince us otherwise.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:31 PM ^
I really do not agree with the rankings systems that we use. RR made the comment in a press confrence that basically he does not care how rivals or anybody else ranks a kid or our class. He said that he feels that he got the 2 best dual threat QBs in the nation.
In keeping with the comments made about a person's height impacting their star rankings. I did not follow recruiting when Hart came to UM so I do not know how many stars he got. I would guess with him only being 5'9" and with his lack of true speed 4.6 or so. I would think he probably only got 3 stars but when you think of what he meant to the team for the 4 years he was here in hind sight I would say that he should have had 5 stars. True passion is not reflected in a star ranking and that is something that makes so much of a diffenrence.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:25 PM ^
First off, Michigan recruited four players from Michigan this season. On that page the history over the past five or six years of the Carr era showed he only averaged about five or six in-state recruits. Some folks liked to claim/bash RR for not recruiting in-state, yet he really didn't do any different than Lloyd.
Second, I know there's always a running joke here about the number of kids North Carolina recruits, but did you see Mississippi on that list? 37 recruits for this fall? 37?!? WTF?!
February 8th, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^
Rankings in general are flawed. They are merely estimations on how good a team or player is based on previous observations and statistics.
Recruiting rankings are one obvious example of this (Mike Hart was a 3-star, Kevin Grady was a 5-star). However, team rankings also are often flawed (Utah over Alabama). In the end, only large gaps in rankings mean anything. A top ten team almost always wins against a team not in the top 25. A 5-star recruit is almost always better than a 2-star recruit. But even then exceptions to this rule are fairly common.
Finally, the biggest problem with recruiting rankings is that the top 100 players are scattered across 50 states, the D.C. area, and Canada. They don't play against each other in most cases. Furthermore, the talent they face is fairly weak in general. Consequently, rating them is exceptionally difficult.