Mr. Yost

June 7th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^

...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.

Monocle Smile

June 7th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^

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.

Don

June 7th, 2013 at 1:46 PM ^

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.

 

Farnn

June 7th, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^

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.

Farnn

June 7th, 2013 at 2:11 PM ^

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.

True Blue Grit

June 7th, 2013 at 2:23 PM ^

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. 

Don

June 7th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^

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.

1464

June 7th, 2013 at 1:50 PM ^

One qualifier:

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.

AngryAlum

June 7th, 2013 at 1:56 PM ^

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...)

 

Ron Utah

June 7th, 2013 at 2:08 PM ^

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.

Callahan

June 7th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^

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.

LB

June 7th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^

They are going to need another free promotion. All this one did was allow more people to peek behind the curtain.

Gobluegr

June 7th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^

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.

gwkrlghl

June 7th, 2013 at 7:21 PM ^

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