Bosch, Taco, Dawson all get bumps in new 247 update.

Yeah, especially considering some of our higher rated prospects - Isaac, Treadwell, various LBs, etc are still uncommitted.

Hate to be Debbie Downer, but we don't have the scholarship numbers for a #1 class this year (at least for Rivals).  That being said, I don't know how many teams have started with 10 of 11 consensus 4* guys.  That is pretty freakin' incredible.

...that when recruits see this, questions cease.

Actually,  this sort of builds on the discussion about Michigan's momemntum  from last night in that the positive nature of last  season's results is breeding a positive perception of the program and the people who commit to it, and that hopefully sways others. 

I too think Bama comes out on top again this year.  But, 2013 looks to be a legendary class.  I can't say this enough, but Shane Morris is doing work for us right now.

I think it will be Bama #1 but Ohio and Michigan will fight for that 2 spot 

I do not have as much faith in Bama this year. We beat them out for three OL recruits. I know they have the Scholarship #s behind them but I think our quality will be better.

No, 247 is just being proactive in "bust"-ing ND players. 

If Charlton starts over Ojemudia it will have nothing to do with this rating bump... Or ratings in general.

Carefull you might get a death stare from Mario.

I don't think anyone is taking anyone's spot since neither guy is even there yet.  They are both being recruited for essentially the same position, so they'll compete with each other.  However, Beyer and Clark are there now, and both will be sophs this fall, so neither of them will be needed early on.  This is good, since both Ojemudia and Charlton will need some time to develop, Mario because of weight, Taco because of technique. 

Based on body type, it sounds like Taco has the higher ceiling, but Mario has a motor that has been raved about, and he's been crazy productive as a high schooler. 

It will be interesting to see how Mattison plays both of them.  I could see Mario going in as a pass rushing SAM in passing situations, and Taco being better in run defense based on his size.

He is a 4 star to 247.  Scout hasn't even come out with a full list and who knows about ESPN.

At least watching his highlight film, I'm more impressed with Lewis' athletic ability than the previous Cass corners.  If he goes to some combines, I bet he will move up.  I also wonder if his slight build is dropping him a little.  I'm more happy that he has some height.  Weight can be added, height not so much.

Rivals rates him higher than they rated both Richardson and Hollowell...

IMO, 247 has the least lazy approach.  They view their entire list as being fluid and they make moves up and down based on new tape, live analysis of games/camps/combines. 

I'm not saying they are better than the others, but they update their rankings the most.  While the other services only update them once every couple months. 

Realistically, they probably review film again when players commit in addition to periodic reviews of everyone. This helps keep the list fluid (which fans love) and ensures that no one's getting ignored. After all, all of these kids will commit eventually.

Turn it around when you have a 3 star with big offers he probably should be bumped up.

calculates their team rankings is suspect when trying to anticipate the final class comparisons. It would seem their rankings should factor in a variable for time remaining before signing day. The shorter the time frame, the more weight a school's recruiting class size should bear on its overall team ranking.

You are correct about that.  Michigan has already accumulated about 90% of the points it will eventually earn in that system.  I believe they mentioned it's set to count the top 17 commits in a class.  They may adjust that number later in the year after most teams have surpassed that amount of commits.

"Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we used the value 6 for σ because this was the standard deviation for total number of commits between schools as they were ranked during the 2011 recruitment year, the year this formula was developed. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team."

So basically it de-values depth, diminishing the relative increased value of our 4-star recruits Vs A&M's 3-star recruits the further down the list you go.

Explanation

Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.

Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we used the value 6 for σ because this was the standard deviation for total number of commits between schools as they were ranked during the 2011 recruitment year, the year this formula was developed. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team. 

So basically, it's a numbers thing. We have a much higher average. It's not something to be too concerned about this early in the process.