In advance of having to having to hear "Pat White was a 2*" eleventy billion times, please read these.
If you don't read part 3 you are only contributing to Magnus' hypertension.
There was some good info there, so thanks.
As a blog, can't we come up with an ethos about this stuff? A general agreement for how we handle recruiting rankings? Some sort of "I-ching of Stars"? For my money, we can all agree on something like this:
Recruiting rankings matter, both individually and as a class. As a general matter, higher-ranked players are preferable to lower-ranked players, based on the probability of success. However, coaches will have a higher opinion of some guys than the recruiting services, either from first-hand impression or based on how they fit our "system." In those cases, we should consider departing from our strict "higher ranking = better" presumption.
That's 100% my take on it as well. I just want the people who stumble over from MLive, post "OMG our class is ranked 15th we're all gonna die" (ps the 2002-2007 classes averaged 12!) can gain some perspective.
If M's 2010 recruiting class rank = 2010 Michigan's final BCS rank, only RR haters and the insane would be pissed.
OMG we're all gonna die!!!
The problem this year from my perspective is that our current ranking of 15 is based on the multiple of the number of stars times the number of players. Indeed, from the perspective of talent, the ranking of 15 is misleading. We get our ranking from the quantity or recruits, not their quality.
When you look at the talent level - Avg. Stars on Rival - Michigan ranks about 25. Our 2010 recruiting has no five star players and relatively few four star players compared to previous years.
One positive is that if a player is considering Michigan this year, he might look at his competition and feel that he stands a better chance of being a starter.
Just wait till we drop a little bit (as a result of teams jumping us. See: OSU) and then they'll really go nuts.
It is incredibly misleading to rate recruiting classes using the prevalent metric of total stars that multiplies the average star rating times the number of recruits. Under this system University A with 25 recruits averaging 3 stars has a total of 75, while Univ. B with 15 studs averaging 4.5 stars is rated at only 67.5.
How can anyone pretend that this is a serious way of comparing the potential of those two classes. Given the fact that star ratings are at best only guideposts to the potential of a recruit, this ridiculous way of measuring class strength distorts the process even further.
To paraphrase Churchill: the star rating system is the worst possible measure of a recruiting class.... except for all of the others. So if we must rate classes based on the star system then at the very least we should use only average stars as the baseline.
Yup. When I think of college football recruiting, Winston Churchill is the first thing that comes to mind.
About all of this is the myth that has taken over the Intranets that Michigan seemingly brought in Top 5 talent every single year since 1752.
If you are a RecruitGeek like myself, you'd know that Michigan's recruit rankings have always been extremely fluid--one year #2, the next #19. One year #12, the next #5. Some years, not even Top 20.
In the long run, Rodriguez may have more consistently higher numbers than Lloyd because Rodriguez doesn't call it a day sometime in July after camp. Rodriguez doesn't have to go running off to read Kipling or Milton (not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact, Rodriguez may not even know how to read. But I digress.
We are probably talking about 22-25 recruits every year. I remember Lloyd with classes of 12-16. WTF? Mack Brown already has 12-16 recruits for the class of 2020.
But starzz Do matter, though they may not be the be all, end all. Every coach wants the bestest players in the whole wide world.
Many of article's points are well-taken. However, the choice of 2002 as the year to begin looking at the stats begins with OSU's best year (12-0). Why not choose 2001, when they went 7-5? Why not choose 1997, when UM went 12-0?
The choice of a period of team performance to look at will heavily affect how well teams appear to do.
the rankings started in 2002
2002 is the first year for Rivals data IIRC.
2002 is the first year for Rivals data IIRC.
It would be really interesting to look at "overachievers" in order to analyze how their 'lower ranked' recruits turned out - especially when contrasted with underachieving teams' lower ranked recruits. I'm guessing some coaching staffs are better scouts, and/or are better at identifying certain traits in recruits that they can utilize in a system.
It would also be interesting to me to see how a coaching change affects performance on a class-by-class basis.
I wonder if Cincinnati is the biggest over-achiever to-date in terms of recruit ranking, record and strength of schedule?