B1G TEN: 5 Star Athletes?
Last night I was trying to fill the MGoBlog-sized hole in my heart. I headed over to rivals to find out Mattison was (hide your kids, hide your wife, hide your husbands) snatchin' everybody up. As I was looking at the overrated recruiting rankings, I realized that no team in the B1G TEN currently has a 5 Star athlete committed. As for the conference as a whole, I am just wondering if this is the lowest ranked recruiting year.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
If it makes you feel better, there are few B1G schools on Scout with a few 5 star recruits..
January 26th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
January 26th, 2011 at 9:52 AM ^
I don't mean to insult TomVH, but he seems to be more into the "information" side rather than the "analysis" side. Maybe he's just holding back because of U Recruit, but he doesn't offer many opinions on the on-field strengths and weaknesses of players.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
That's a good thing. Opinion and fact reporting don't mix well. I think we've all learned that lesson especially well over the past few years.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
Completely agree with Magnus here. If he offered opinions on players who were signed up to his U Recruit service, they may not like what he was saying. It would also hurt his chances to get the info he's been able to share with us all.
There is enough fodder on the net these days to get some kind of analysis on these kids.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
that's too bad because we are short far too many opinion here on MGoBlog.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:24 AM ^
Scout has three 5-star kids going to Big Ten teams (2 for OSU, 1 for MSU).
But yeah, I think it's a down year in the conference. The usual suspects are a bit down (PSU, U of M) except for Ohio State.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
The northern kids don't play as much football in HS as the southern kids, so the northern boys develop their game more in college.
I think its not very flattering for the recruiting sites that there was only ONE 5-star left playing in the NFL playoffs, and that's a northerner by the name of Lamarr Woodley.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
January 26th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
I saw that factoid about the Super Bowl. I know Woodley was a 5* player, but I also thought Woodson was coming out of Ohio. Whatever. This shows that the 5* rating is overrated. I think a lot of these kids (although physically talented) get to the next level unprepared mentally for the level of competition and amount of work required. Look at Michigan's last two 5* players - one gone and the other still not starting.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
Woodson would've been recruited back in 1994-95. I don't think websites like Rivals and Scout were even around doling out star rankings back then. There weren't even that many websites in those days.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
I don't think tha'ts particularly fair.
A lot of 5-star and 4-star recruits end up being high picks (1st or 2nd round).
Meanwhile, Pittsburgh always seems to be picking at the END of the 1st or 2nd round (since they're always in the Super Bowl or close to it). Green Bay has been a solid team over the years, too. Not as successful as the Steelers, but they haven't been picking in the top 10 or 15 much, either, if I recall correctly.
According to TheRinger.com, 5 of the top 9 draft picks this year were either #1 or #2 at their respective positions coming out of high school.
Conversely, only 1 of the bottom 9 guys projected to go in the 1st round were #1 or #2 at their respective positions.
If you're a consistently solid team (like the Patriots, Packers, Steelers, etc.), the bottom line is that you don't have a chance to pick all the 5-star kids.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^
That the comment is wrong, but not for the reasons you stated, Magnus. That is, I think draft order has nothign to do with the dispersion of "5 star" talent at the NFL level. (1) the NFL has a ton of lateral roster movement, team to team (necessary because of the cap); (2) draft order fluctuates a lot because of parity (while I'd generally agree that GB/Pitts are successful organizations, they've seen the front half of the draft recently); and (3) draft position is shaped as much by roster need as it is "pure talent."
In other words, I agree that the comment that the fact that only one "5 star" is playing in the Super Bowl is meaningless - the fact that there are so few 5 stars (relative to all DI players) every year is consistent with their being far more 3/4 star NFL players.
But I don't think a HS ranking matters at the NFL level. It's predictive, to some degree, of CFB success... the NFL is another ball game.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:46 AM ^
The way that the Hoke / Mattison team are recruiting, I wouldn't doubt that next year we may end up with 1 or more 5* kids.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^
Well, by all accounts, OSU will ultimately end up signing Curtis Grant, which would give the Big Ten one 5-star player.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
So what kind of vehicles will Curtis be driving over the next few years
January 26th, 2011 at 7:19 PM ^
what else?
January 26th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
I understand abbreviating the conference name from "Big Ten" to "B1G" when we're talking about it. But if we type the whole name out anyway, why call it the "B1G Ten?" Isn't the whole point of the "B1G" branding that the Ten is assumed in it? And if you've got to type out all six characters, why replace the "i" with a "1" on an internet message board?
January 26th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
"The B1G (Big 10) Ten athletic conference that actually has twelve (12) teams, six (6) Legends six (6) Leaders, but it's called the Big Ten because it historically had ten teams and we all got used to calling it that. And its commissioner is a dick."
January 26th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
Intereing research on your part. Well done!!! I don't think it is a coincidence because I do think that northern schools and the Big Ten have some additional obstacles in the recruiting world. As stated, the number of stars is not the ultimate arbiter, but I think it is a good general indicator for high school talent which is very hard to measure.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
No kidding huh
January 26th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^
Why couldnt we get a D coordinator like him when RR was there? What was the problem?
January 26th, 2011 at 12:01 PM ^
Mattison said himself that the only reason he came back was because he was such good friends with Hoke.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
January 26th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
I can't check now because I am at work
January 26th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
Not that it mattered when it was all said and done.
January 26th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^
Time flies when you're not playing:
Will Campbell was a Class of 2009 recruit, not Class of 2010.
January 26th, 2011 at 11:43 AM ^
He has 5* written all over him after what he did in College football leading up to the NFL. I wonder if the sites look at who they gave 3,4, and 5 and think we messed up on him, probably deserved another star or one less star.