God knows what their criteria were, but the fact that Mattison, Hecklinski, and Manning aren't even on the list and Mallory is sitting at 32 makes me highly dubious of the methodology. To be kind.
somehow we're only 124th
Yet Montgomery is #4? Ranking credibility thrown in toilet, flushed
The biggest recruits landed in the 2014 class have all been after Montgomery went to Oklahoma. If he were such a miracle worker, I would assume he could have flipped a few of them...
...all it does is take who's the primary recruiter on a target and when that kid commits it assigns a value to the coach.
It's not truly ranking anything. It just means Montgomery signed a big name recruit.
The thing is, all recruits don't have a key recruiter listed. So it's at the mercy of whoever puts in the information. For example (and this isn't an actual scenario), if Da'Shawn Hand commits to Michigan...if Greg Mattison isn't listed as his "recruiter" then he doesn't get any points. If a lesser recruit commits to Ohio and Vrabel is listed, then he gets those "points."
Also, Mattison may not be the primary recruiter for a lot of the guys in our class...he may be the closer or secondary guy. But he's still in the picture and obviously he makes an impact.
This list is really nothing, thus it's nothing to get bent out of shape over.
Also, it's been around forever...so not sure why it's news today.
how good our recruiting classes would be IF WE ACTUALLY HAD COACHES THAT COULD RECRUIT?!?
I think the person who put it together had a stroke of some kind. I'm genuinely worried.
But much like our Big Ten Recruiting Ratings, this is all based off of a formula. Whether or not the formula works is up for debate.
If you narrow it to the conference, you get this:
7) Curt Mallory
13) Al Borges
20) Dan Ferrigno
24) Greg Mattison
25) Fred Jackson
31) Jeff Hecklinski
34) Darrell Funk
I, for one, would love to meet the 20 non-Michigan coaches in the B1G who are superior recruiters to Greg Mattison. I have a feeling Urban Meyer would, too.
247, like the other recruiting sites, is generally very lax about attaching the name of a specific recruiter to the schools of interest for most prospects. Go to any highly-touted recruit's page and see how many of their prospective schools have a recruiter's name actually listed.
They are giving Montgomery credit for Michael Ferns, Wilton Speight, Bryan Mone, Mason Cole, and an Oklahoma commit.
I'm canceling my subscription on December 31 based off this. Total bullshit!
I see what you did there..... Nice. That'll show'em.
They should think about that system again. Makes no sense at all.
I'm not one to get bent out of shape over stuff like this, but this is one of the most idiotic lists I have ever come across in my forty-five years of following college football.
If I were Hoke I'd print out this list and tape to the wall of the main coaches' meeting room, and then have a good laugh with the rest of the staff.
Did anyone actually look at the methodology before criticizing the ranking? It's based on the score of committed players for the 2014 class. Michigan is hurt by the fact that the first four commits had Montgomery listed as their recruiter, and the rest are spread out across the other coaches so they don't rank high. You don't often have your head coach as a players primary recruiter so Hoke shouldn't show up.
That's the crux of the problem. Their methodology is dumb, therefore GIGO.
How do you propose they do their list then? Subjectively based on impressions from reporters? By number of mentions of a coach by recruits? No one had brought up the methodology yet and peoplel were just bitching about the list thinking the makers were smoking crack when they had a legit reason behind the order they listed.
premise of making a list based on ONE partial year of recruiting results is completely worthless and stupid. They should never even have published this article. Let's see them compile results over a 5 year period and maybe most of us would pay attention to it. Evidently, no one at 24/7 studied statistics in college.
Dave Cohen of Rutgers is listed at #98. He's recruited two 3-star players for an average of 86.02 pts.
#144 Mattison has recruited two players: one five-star—Jabrill Peppers—and one 3-star (Pallante) for an average of 89.74 pts.
Yet Cohen is awarded 30.24 "points" while Mattison is given 22 pts, apparently due to the supposed inactive vs active recruiting profile, which discounts Greg's role in recruiting Peppers—who made no secret of his eagerness to play for him.
I bet that neither Mattison or Hoke or any other UM coach gives a damn about this list, nor do any of the players who've signed with Michigan, but the notion that there are 143 more effective recruiters in the country than Greg Mattison is comical.
It's purely a raw calculation based on what coach is listed in the "recruited by" section for any given recruit. It's hardly updated and in a number of cases no coach's name appears.
Don't care, moving on. Next five star please.
This list is forumlaic and not opinion based. Obviously their formula needs some work, but that is slightly better than someone specifically and intentionally ranking Mattison so poorly.
What are they doing all day, sitting on their hands?
Really stupid list. What list is next? College Football Best Coach Voices? Coaches with the Best Halftime Motivational Speeches? Mock Draft Boards? (Oh wait we already have those...)
On all accounts!
Chaz lived with his mother till he was 40. She tried to poison ha oatmeal.
Love that movie!!!
Are they attempting to prove that their own metrics suck? Or are they trying to demonstrate that these measurables are useless? I guess what this proves is that the "primary recruiter" thing isn't nearly as important as it's made out to be.
The marketing genius who figured out that you can drive web traffic by creating rankings of unquantifiable things so people will bitch about it wins again.
A travesty, a sham, and a mockery! It's a traveshamockery!!
They are going to need another free promotion. All this one did was allow more people to peek behind the curtain.
Just to clarify, the reason the Michigan coaches are ranked so low is because over a third of their commits had Jerry Montgomery as their primary recruiter which really hurt their numbers. Here's a breakdown of which coaches were given credit for each commit:
Curt Mallory: Jabrill Peppers, JBB
Dan Ferringno: Drake Harris
Jerry Montgomery: Mason Cole, Michael Ferns, Bryan Mone, Wilton Speight
Fred Jackson: Lawrence Marshall
Al Borges: Moe Ways
Darrell Funk: Chase Winovich
Jeff Hecklinski: Ian Bunting
As you can see, the commits have been spread out among various coaches, which isn't a bad thing at all. Also, last year Jackson, Montgomery, and Mattison were all named top 50 recruiters by 247 sports with Mattison being one of 10 finalists for recruiter of the year.
While I'm sure Jerry Montgomery is a great guy, somehow I doubt that he was the main coaching reason that a QB would choose Michigan.
The whole thing is goofy, and therefore perfect off-season message board fodder.
Don't our coaches have a region they hit? It seems it had been that way in the past but I can't process your list fast enough to see if that's still true. If so, the coach might not be able to make up points in this "system".
Irony is ironic.
I hate the offseason.
They try to assign numbers to this by tying the lead recruiter to how many recruits they've gotten, but how many recruits actually have their lead recruiter listed? I think 247 wanted to make this list, probably realized it was junk after making it, and published it anyway to get some good ol' page views
I doubt anyone on staff at 247 would argue that having no one from Michigan in the top 30, while Michigan has a top 5 class, is silly
Well, Jerry Montgomery is #4 with 4 of his 5 commitments being Michigan commits. That's probably why