A Different Way To Look At Ranking Our Commitments/Recruits...

Submitted by blueadams on

I've never been a big fan of looking at rivals, scout or espn star rankings. I've always thought that a prospect's talent was better indicated by the level of the offers he had recieved. So, below, I've rated our commitments/recruits on the basis of such.

I realize that scout/rivals aren't always accurate in listing a player's offers, but hey, it's the best we have to go with here. If you notice anything that's wrong, please let me know.

I've ordered the players based on their BEST offer, and listed others if I thought there was a debate about which offer was the best. I was thinking about BEST along the lines of who typically turns in the best recruiting classes (North Carolina), as opposed to who has the best ranking (Cincy/TCU/Boise).

It basically breaks down into three categories: 1) superstars that the best programs across the country all wanted. 2) middle of the pack guys who have solid, but not elite offers. 3) guys that might sort of be a reach for us. *And 4) guys listing no other offers than UofM...though this is probably more of an issue of scout/rivals not listing other offers accurately.

*COMMITMENTS:

...superstars: 4/5 stars.
M. Robinson - Florida/Ohio State/USC
Hagerup - Florida/Ohio State
Miller - Florida
Jackson - Florida
Gardner - Notre Dame/Oregon...Florida?
Christian - Ohio State
White - LSU
Johnson - LSU

...middle of the pack: 3/4 stars.
Wilkins - North Carolina/Wisconsin
Pace - Florida State/Stanford/Pittsburgh
Talbott (DT) - Wisconson/UCLA/Cincy/Arkansas
Talbott (CB) - Wisconsin/Cincy
Jones - Stanford
Hopkins - Stanford
Avery - Stanford
Dileo - Stanford
J. Robibnson - MSU/Cincy
Paskorz - Pittsburgh

...reaches: 2/3 stars.
Vinopal - Bowling Green

...lack of info?:
Drake - none.
Kinnard - none.
Williamson - none.

*RECRUITS:

...superstars: 4/5 stars.
Wilson - Alabama
Hankins - Florida/Ohio State
Beachum - Florida
Ash - USC/LSU
Parker - USC/Penn State/Oregon/Notre Dame/Georgia
Anderson - Ohio State/Miami/Georgia
Grimes - Ohio State/Miami/Georgia/Oregon
Furman - Oklahoma/North Carolina/Virginia Tech
Boyd - Notre Dame/Georgia/Miami/North Carolina

...middle of the pack: 3/4 stars.
Bryant - Oregon/North Carolina/UCLA
Knight - Auburn/Ga Tech/Ole Miss
Murphy - Wisconsin

MinorRage

December 7th, 2009 at 8:34 PM ^

As you mentioned the biggest downside is that rivals/scout are nowhere near up to date on the actual offers. I personally like to see the different skills sets that commit to us have offers from schools that are powerhouses at that position. e.g. Penn State and linebackers, safeties and osu, running backs and USC, etc. Some of these schools always have a sick player at a particular position, they may coach it well but they tend to have pretty solid evaluation of it too.

maizenblue92

December 7th, 2009 at 8:41 PM ^

The way to measure the success of a recruiting is 'Did you fill your needs?' If we measure it that way then I say this class is successful (if we get Tony Grimes). If we land him we have 6 DB commitments (counting Adrian Witty), a big time QB, and WR. The only place that is a disapointment is LB.

jamiemac

December 7th, 2009 at 8:45 PM ^

I dont mind seeing us being competitive in that 3/4 range with Stanford, Pitt and UNC. Those have been three darkhorse recruiting schools for a couple of years and the proof is in how well they're doing on the field.

Those three have really done a good job at eyeballing talent within that level of recruits so i like seeing them having offered our commits in that range.

Simi Maquoketa

December 8th, 2009 at 3:16 AM ^

I'm not terribly confident in future greatness for Rodriguez if he is going to be competing with Stanford, Pitt and UNC for anything. If the proof is in the pudding, the pudding is pretty mediocre--probably yucky tapioca pudding.

I'm hoping you mean in a "baby steps" fashion. As in Michigan first has to get to the Stanford/Pitt/UNC level before, well, you know, having this thing really rolling along.

BrianinGR

December 7th, 2009 at 8:50 PM ^

It honestly is a combination of position of need, offer lists, and star ranking. I too am on the band wagon of thinking scout, rivals and espn don't really know what the heck they are talking about, but truth be told, I would rather have tons of 5 stars every year than tons of 3 stars. USC has made a living off of that type of recruiting and I think they are doing well for themselves.

Every recruiting situation is different, but for us, getting players into the system as quickly as possible and at positions of need, will probably yield the quickest sign of effective recruiting.

Just because we don't have as highly rated class as years past, I am not going to start saying star ratings are useless or even not a good judge of talent. The proof is in the pudding, all the recruits Rich gets are all high school studs...we just have to do a better job at coaching than everyone else. That's how programs like 90's Nebraska could constantly put out top 5 teams with 3 star talent. 5 star recruits don't necessarily run the show, but they sure (usually) make it easier.

BrianinGR

December 7th, 2009 at 8:56 PM ^

Oh, also, camp offers are imo the best offers. Coaches get to watch kids perform in person and see exactly what they are like and how they will fit in their specific program. By far the most trustworthy type of offer.

The Bugle

December 7th, 2009 at 9:17 PM ^

Absolutely - If it hadn't been for camp offers we never would have gotten the Coner!

In all seriousness - very good point. With all the HS players in the country it is impossible to see the vast majority of them play. Camp commitments mean the coaches have liked how they play and how they interact in a football environment.

The star system provides a decent starting point, but they are by no means gospel.

StephenRKass

December 8th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^

Theoretically, it makes sense to offer at camp. You have the player on hand, and can see for yourself what he can do.

However, iirc, Carr and crew were ripped on for camp offers to guys that weren't that good.

The implication was that they were lazy that way.

The other issue is how good is your staff at evaluating talent. I think camp is important, but only part of the pie.

MichMike86

December 7th, 2009 at 9:04 PM ^

The thing that really peaks my curiousity is what the recruiting board looks like that the coaches have made. Who is in their top 5 for each position? If they can consistently get the players from their top 5 per position then I would think that that would be a great determinent for recruiting success.

blueadams

December 7th, 2009 at 9:49 PM ^

can you imagine how well a book written by a big name ex-coach featuring all of his recruiting big boards would sell?

...i've got a friend with a famous unlce that got him access to the lions personnel room on an off day. he said there were boards ranking every single current nfl player on a scale of 1-100, madden-style. pretty awesome stuff! that i would love to get my eyes on.

clarkiefromcanada

December 7th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^

In the big picture ESPN, Rivals, Scout are selling a product in which satisfying the "fan" means assigning a grade...a grade to the player and to the school via recruiting class rankings. If you could easily analyze at home (as you have done) then work they are marketing is less relevant. Of course, most "fans" don't want to go to the effort you have and/or seek the external validation from the recruiting services.

I suspect your analysis would be about as accurate as any from the services. One might ask ND what a bunch of 5 star recruits equals in terms of wins/losses over the past half decade or so...

ironman4579

December 7th, 2009 at 9:47 PM ^

I would say that typically 5 star recruits have a better chance of being successful/high draft pick worthy players than 4 stars, 4 stars have a better chance than 3 stars etc. That's not to say that you can't find success with 3 star players, but statistically, you have a much better chance of finding a successful player with 4 and 5 star players than with 2 and 3 star players.

I did a study a couple years ago (which I'll have to redo at some point), that showed that from every recruiting year, the 5 star prospects basically had a 50%+ success rate. 4 stars was a drop off down to about 25%, from 4 to 3 was less of a drop off down to about 15%.

These are all just my rough estimates from memory, but your likelyhood of finding a stud is certainly far higher with a 5 star than a 3 star.

Although all of this may just be common sense.

blueadams

December 7th, 2009 at 9:57 PM ^

"Although all of this may just be common sense."

- yes.

by ranking the prospects by their best offer, i wasn't trying to re-write the start system, i was just trying to guess at how the coaches were ranking prospects as opposed to the services. i'd imagine that the coaches are much, much better.

robpollard

December 7th, 2009 at 10:30 PM ^

Even w/o the LSU offer, I would consider Minny/Utah to be the equivalent of MSU/Cincy (i.e., two middle of the road Big 10 teams, and two non-traditional programs that have had high-levels of recent success, such as Utah finishing #2 last year and Cincy getting up to Top 5 this year).

BiaBiakabutuka21

December 8th, 2009 at 1:07 AM ^

I think that is the case with Dileo but I am not sure about Carvin. It would make sense for most LA kids to cherish an LSU offer, though.

I am currently not worried about him decomitting although it could be comparable to the current situation with Hankins where the local team gets in at the end and makes a push.

We will see. If anyone has any info on this I would love to hear it.

BrianinGR

December 7th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^

One of my favorite Wolverines of all time, Mike Hart, was a camp offer...just sayin.

I have absolutely nothing to back this up, but for some reason, I have really high hopes for Carvin Johnson. Obviously I haven't done any form of concrete observation like the coaches have, I just really like the info I have read about the kid. Dude can play and lets face it, he is gonna get his chance at Safety.

Maize.Blue Wagner

December 7th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^

Do elite teams (such as Michigan)ever offer unheard of recruits (say, Ray Vinopal) for no other reason than to promote the kid around the country? He only has interest from MAC schools, then gets a big offer from and commits to U-M. Later he decommits for whatever reason, but now he is on the radar of other programs which wouldn't have noticed him before (smaller BCS schools). U-M still has room for a major recruit, the kid gets a better opportunity, and a great relationship is maintained between U-M and the HS coach and local community to help with recruiting in the future.

Perhaps this is an overly cynical idea, and I have no basis for this happening, but I am curious to know if anyone has seen/heard of this happening.

BrianinGR

December 7th, 2009 at 10:39 PM ^

I really hope that doesn't happen. I like to think that if coaches offer a scholarship to a player that they truthfully want that kid to play for their school. Idealistic I know...

Maize.Blue Wagner

December 7th, 2009 at 11:15 PM ^

I guess I wouldn't condone or condemn such a practice; it doesn't seem like it would be harmful to anyone. Though I suppose the disingenuousness would get old. For what it's worth, I only used U-M as an example because it's what I know. I imagine it could happen at any major program.

That said, I firmly believe that the coaching staff is smarter than I am, and I trust that they are bringing in the right kids for our team, no matter how other teams or recruiting gurus value the Ray Vinopal's and Carvin Johnson's of the world. This was just one novice fan's attempt to reconcile why these supposedly lesser players have been added to the 2010 class.

Irish

December 7th, 2009 at 11:52 PM ^

I fully agree with offer lists being much more interesting than star ratings. A couple of recommendations though:

1. Certain teams are good at developing certain personnel groups, like nebraska, not always that top level offer across any position but if ND beats them out for a lineman I am very happy regardless of his star rating.
2. Geographically speaking when you see a team like Texas go outside the south (or texas for that matter) after a recruit that makes that offer a lot more interesting.
3. Watch out for teams like Stanford and Tennessee who carpet bomb the entire country with offers. Especially with Stanford where the offer is not a measure of acceptance academically or even being actionable. If Stanford is the premier offer, I wouldn't put them above a 3 star

blueadams

December 8th, 2009 at 12:10 AM ^

Stanford probably has the third best program (behind usc and oregon) in the second best bcs conference right now, a great coach, and they have been recruiting very well.

i dont think that an offer from them is meaningless.

...but still, a good point about the academics. in most cases where stanford had offered, there were some other solid middle of the pack big10 and sec offers as well.

Tacopants

December 8th, 2009 at 1:30 AM ^

I am in favor of using recruiting rankings on a scale from 1 grit to 5 grits.

1 grit being not very gritty at all, 5 grits being so gritty that they're made out of sandpaper.

Simi Maquoketa

December 8th, 2009 at 1:42 AM ^

My my, again we stoop to levels of thought tht are just above groveling for some kind of hope.

The offer sheet might be a pretty good indicator. But we all know that pub begets pub. Once one "Biggie" offers, it catches the eyes of other big schools.

Also, how many kids does each school offer--and especially late in the game (OSU is notorious for last-second offers, see LSU with Carvin Johnson). We've offered what, nearly 200 kids? Sounds almost like tossing a lot of dookie against the wall and hoping something sticks.

In the last couple years Michigan fans (here and on other board$) have tossed out stars, 40-yard times, size, and just about every other thing we used to talk about WRT recruits. Now, it's pretty much down to "Welp, if Rich Rod got 'im, the kid must be the Super Secret Spread Type Guy that ONLY Rich Rodriguez, with his patented Keen RecruitSpot Identifier Technologies can identify, and I trust Rich Rodriguez more than anybody in the whole wide world because he beat Georgia and Oklahoma"

Funny thing is, the last two classes Rodriguez has either finished off (2008) or brought in himself (2009) just appear to be classes that have talent and ARE highly regarded by all the star gazers and recruitniks.

So 2010 appears to be a lil heavy with "Fliers"--the recruiting services think pretty highly of it, think it's a solid class. There's no reason to overthink it.

MGoBlue22

December 8th, 2009 at 9:00 AM ^

I like your analysis. It makes a great deal of sense. The only intangible is a team's need. A player may be skilled enough to earn an offer from a top tier program, but the player may never receive the offer because his position does not meet that program's need. However, more likely than not, at least one top tier program will have a need for that player, so your analysis appears to be sound.