CBS Sports: A look at Recruiting Rankings

I guess I've always seen recruiting like poker. Sure occasionally a 7-10 hand (3* recruit) will beat pocket aces (5* recruit), but if you consistently get the latter, you're setting yourself up to be pretty successful over the long haul.

hey, evidence and data works.  who would've thought?

...but not crazy about seeing Clowney and Spurrier right upon opening the link.  Wish they could have found a different example. 

BraveWolverine views recruiting just I like do. I see the star ratings as probabilities. A team made up of 5 stars will beat a team made up of 3 stars 9/10 times, maybe more. 

This is why I get excited for our past recruiting classes. We have pulled in two top recruiting classes back to back (tomorrow will confirm). Recruiting is a part of what makes a solid team, the rest is coaching and intangibles. 

We are in a good spot and I'll get excited over 4 and 5 star prospects every time, and I'll root for the 3 star and under guys as underdogs every time. 

Good article and I like how they say its a useful predictor for success if looked at as a whole and not to disect the data and look at individual cases too much. For example, "oh we signed one 5 star amazing WR we are going to BCS this year!" kind of thing.

are almost too depressing for words.  

 Recruiting doesn't matter. Le'Veon Bell was a 2 star. QED

I read the article without checking the author's name and thought, "man, this guy is totally stealing Matt Hinton's stuff!"  Turns out it IS Matt Hinton... 

And oh, Matt, you gotta get your greater than and less than symbols right! 

Interesting, I think it is impossible to debate that getting higher rated recruits leads to more success on the field. 
 

One things that was interesting was the ranking of the schools.  The B10 is really falling behind in recruiting vs. other conferences.

'Big Six' Conference Teams by Recruiting Class*

• FIVE-STAR (≤ 10,000 points): USC, Florida, Texas, Florida State, LSU, Ohio State,Georgia, Oklahoma, Auburn, Notre Dame, Michigan.

• FOUR-STAR (6,000–9,999 points): Miami, Clemson, Tennessee, UCLA, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas A&M, Stanford, North Carolina, California, Ole Miss, Nebraska, VirginiaTech.

• THREE-STAR (4,000–5,999 points): Washington, Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Penn State, Michigan State, Texas Tech, Missouri, Arizona State, Maryland, Mississippi State,West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Utah, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, TCU, NC State, Illinois.

• TWO-STAR (2,000–3,999 points): Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Louisville, Wisconsin,South Florida, Boston College, Baylor, Georgia Tech, Oregon State, Kansas State,Kentucky, BYU, Vanderbilt, Purdue.

• ONE-STAR (≥ 1,999 points): Cincinnati, Washington State, Duke, Northwestern,Syracuse, Indiana, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Connecticut, Temple.

We have 2 teams as 1 stars, 4 as 2 stars, 5 3 stars, 1 4 star, 2 5 star.  As a conference overall we are definitely falling behind in recruiting to SEC/B12 and even Pac10.

Very exciting to think about our level of recruiting right now, but some people are being overly optimistic about the time it will take for the 12 and 13 classes to have an impact. Sure, Derrick Green will probably contribute early, along with a few others, but the quality of your team is made up mostly of  juniors and seniors i.e. your classes from 3, 4 and 5 years ago. When you look at it from that angle, it will still be a few seasons before our roster is actually comprised of the top-end talent we have become accustomed to bringing in the last two classes.

If you look at our 2010 class, it's pretty weak. It had six 4-stars, of which the highest rated two aren't even with the team (Christian, Dorsey). Now we got Ryan and Gardner as stars, but for a class signed four years ago, it's short on stars and even meaningful contributors.

So I love following this stuff, it's a lot of fun, and there is more than a good chance that the 12 and 13 classes will allow Michigan to pull away, along with OSU, from the rest of the big ten. I'm just saying, don't expect to happen any time soon.

Its obvious that recruiting rankings matter in one fashion or another.... At the very least, having a highly rated class is positive mojo for the team and will attract future recruits or uncommitted players to the class. If you dont think that recruits look at Rivals, Scout and 247 frequently...you sir, are out of your mind.

Recruiting doesn't matter......Mike Valenti told me so.

So Alabama would be 6 star?

Another thing that article underscores is the importance of the number of recruits per class.  (read: oversigning, but we'll ignore that elephant in the room and yes I see what I did there)

If one in every six five-stars becomes an All-American, there is certainly a palpable difference in getting 20 guys vs. 18 - there's more chances to find a diamond in the rough.  That's one of the big strengths of this Michigan recrutiing class - the mere fact that we have 27 guys.  I'd have to imagine that this won't happen often; I gotta imagine that the size of this class is very much attributable to the massive attrition we had during the dark era.  Even still, the consistent star power should stay the same as long as Hoke and Mattison are at the reins.

The All-America status doesn't differentiate signee talent vs development, but the other takeaway is the critical importance on finding the right 3* and 4* guys who will mature into elite status.

Too early to say, but Hoke & co seem like strong talent evaluators. Will Da'Mario or Channing or Hurst or anyone develop into a top tier player? IMO Hurst has NFL potential.

With the idea that rankings and stars do matter which is better, a team with more 4-stars or a team with more 5-stars and less total 4 & 5-stars?  So, is it better to have more quality guys or have a few of the top guys?  This sort of seems like the difference between UM and OSU's classes.  UM has more guys in the top 300, but OSU has more in the top 100.  Is it better to have volume or be top heavy?  It probably depends on depth, needs, etc. but I'd still be curous some thoughts anyways.