I spoke with RB Dillon Baxter tonight, and he has decided to stay with his commitment to USC.
Last Anchorman Reference- "You really know how to cut to the core of me Baxter"
Five-star athlete Tony Jefferson (Chula Vista, Calif./Eastlake) decommitted from UCLA following an official visit to USC and will now decide for either the Trojans or the Oklahoma Sooners, ESPN's Greg Biggins reports.
some interesting quotes in the link
Yeah, I put my two cents worth on the thread a couple spots down, "Jefferson to choose...".
Sorry, I hadn't made it down that far yet....
No problem, just pointing it out.
thread besides you piling on. I've always liked you as a poster but this IMO is piling on...
ask him what his problem is! Harbaughhhhhhh
everyone seemed to complain when I started threads on recruiting news as they seemed to think it was always bad news. So I decided to just post it in other "recruiting" threads, like this one.
You've been here for a while and should know to look on the board because we've probably already talked about it and especially by the time that it gets to a fan of a different team we probably already know about it.
It's on the front page, it's the 8th thread down. Come on Irish you were piling on. Also you could have posted it in the thread that was actually about him.. ya know..
"Jefferson to choose between OU and USC" but I'm sure that's completely different and it definitely should go here instead. Not that we haven't talked about it already... Again you're piling on and as the season has wore on and ND has sucked it up you've become ever more troll-ish.
your always good for a laugh bouje but no I don't go out of my way to bring bad news to Mgoblog readers.
As perfect as you may have thought I was, I too make mistakes and my original post was one of them.
He would of been nice to have, but I'm fine without him.
If for nothing else than if he were at Michigan it would have been a carte blanche excuse for gratuitous Anchorman references.
Better not let K063EM1 or whatever his name is hear about this.
He's probably revising his 2011 depth charts as I type this.
Runningback wasnt a huge need anyway. We have enough of them, baxter just would have been a nice bonus. Look at the bright side, thats just one more recruiting spot where we can add depth to the defense.
I think some people on here really got carried away after the OSU game. We're just not going to have a highly rated class this year. It's time to get over it.
That depends on what your definition of "highly rated" is. If you mean a top 10 class, then maybe not. If you mean a top 15 class, then maybe. I believe we're at #14 after the Cullen Christian commit (or at least we were last week).
I guess you can look at it a couple ways. For a team that's gone 3-9 and 5-7 this is a highly rated class. For Michigan historically, especially given the size of the class, it's easily the worst class since the dawn of internet recruiting.
But you're completely wrong:
Year Rank 5* 4* 3* Notable players
2002 16 1 11 9 Watson, Breaston, Avant, Gutz, Harris, Barringer
2003 17 2 11 3 Burgess, Crable, Englemon, Hall, Long, Woodley
2004 5 1 12 8 Arrington, Branch, Hart, Henne, Trent
2005 6 1 10 11 Grady1? Harrison?, Manningham, Moosman, Zoltan, Ortmann, T Taylor
2006 13 2 9 7 Boren, S Brown, C Brown, Graham Schilling, Matthews, Mouton
2007 12 2 5 12 Mallett, Warren, Van Bergen, Webb, Williams, Molk, Huyge
2008 10 0 17 6 I got bored
2009 8 1 13 6
2010 14 0 5 14
So um... This is hardly the "worst class in the history of Michigan Internet recruiting". I've followed this shit for a long time and it's not even the end of the year our class could get leap-frogged by a bunch of schools or they could pick up a bunch of good players too. And while 04, 05 had stellar classes frankly they didn't pan out (I'm not trying to say that star rankings don't matter just that our #5 class and our #6 class had tons of attrition or guys that didn't pan out at all).
Edit: Bouje, class size completely distorts the team ranking numbers you put up. And the raw numbers reinforce my point, this is the worst ranked recruiting class since rivals and scout. I don't know why people are so resistant to this idea, don't act surprised, don't act SHOCKED. We went 3-9 last year.
We have to say that a big class for us doesn't count but you want to compare us to other classes that get artificially weighted because of their size that makes sense. You have to compare apples to apples.
But fine if you want to go by average stars here ya go:
So yes by average star this is a down year compared to the samples but keep in mind that this years class is weighted down by a 0 star if he gets bumped up to a 2* the class is now at 3.19 which is still low but look at some of our 3*:
And you're telling me that DG should not be a 5* or Cullen should also not be a 5*. DG has killed it everywhere he's been and Ricardo played for a terrible team, didn't go to any combines etc. So when we first got a lot of our early commitment guys I was excited because they were guys that we all wanted and now that the recruiting services aren't as high on them you think that our class sucks.
Sorry but I disagree.
No Bouje, I'm saying we shouldn't use team rankings, especially considering we'd be comparing complete classes to one where some teams still are ten commits away from being finished.
Your second paragraph is weak Bouje. We had similar gripes in the past. You remember Brian saying T-Rob is a five star in our system?
I honestly can't figure out what bouje is debating. Maybe I am just too dense, but his points seem to belong to a different debate.
"Michigan is full with recruits and everyone else still has tons of spots"
Michigan has 21 commits.
# of teams with more than 20 commits in the top 25 overall team rankings: 17
17 out of 25! Yeah we're screwed world is ending!
Teams below us that could jump us in ranking (with less than 20 commits):
Ohio State 13
NC State 16
So again how are we not comparing apples to apples here?
We're 27th in average star rating, your list is incomplete.
17 out of 25! Yeah we're screwed world is ending!
Don't project your quasi-latent fears on me.
"you can't compare our class to others no one else is even filled up yet! Lots of schools could still get 10+ recruits.
There are 3 schools that could get that many recruits and many schools have more than 20 commitments 17/25.
And frankly I have no idea where you are getting your "we are 27th in average stars" bs because as I said earlier
1. If you give Carvin Johnson a 2* we are at 3.2 instead of 3.1
2. Illinois has an average ranking of 3.25 yet I'm pretty sure that all of us would take our class over theirs.
This is getting stupid because your argument is: "My argument is right and no matter what you say I'm going to say 'you can't do that' but I can do whatever I want to show you how our class sucks".
Bouje I think I read in another thread you were an engineering major. So you should know you can only compare like sets of data. You can't give Carvin Johnson a 2 star when other teams zero star commitments don't get the same benefit. You can't say, "well we should count DG as a 5 star because we think he's that good", because other teams don't get the same benefit. You can't compare our current ranking with past rankings because this class isn't complete. All we can do is project where this class will end up. Right now there aren't a lot of good reasons to think we'll finish with a top 15 class despite one of our largest classes ever.
We currently have the #14 class, and in 2007 we had the #12 class in the country. We did have more 4-stars in that class, but relatively speaking, we're only two spots away with a couple months left.
Also, I haven't done the research, but this was a supposedly weak recruiting class. I don't know if there are fewer 4-stars overall than in other years, but there are fewer 5-stars (according to Rivals) than normal.
So in relationship to some other recent years, this isn't significantly worse. And in relationship to other schools, we might not be getting a ton of 5-stars, but there aren't a ton of them to go around.
Magnus you should know that you can't compare the team rankings of an incomplete class to the rankings of a complete one. Our ranking 14th is the result of us having a lot more commitments than other schools. By that metric we have a more highly ranked class than Ohio State. That isn't going to last.
Let's look at this another way, we're currently 27th in average stars. That is the part that's historically unprecedented and there's really no reason to think that will change more than a few spots from now til signing day.
The 2007 class really isn't close. We had one less commit, the same number of four stars, but two more five stars, which are kind of a big deal. Our average star rating for that class was 3.4, this year it's 3.1. To put it another way, we ended up two spots higher in the team rankings than we are now, with one less commit.
Yes, but the rankings are relative and exclusive - they are a comparison between programs selecting from the same recruiting pool in the same year. They are not a comparison from year to year. If recruiting is down this year, it is down for all schools. The number of 4 or 5 stars might lower this year, but it will be lower across the pool of recruits (yes, some programs will get theirs, but that is part of ranking). I think junglemechop is right here - this class will be lower than usual compared to other schools in the same year. And we have had two unusually bad years. It makes sense and people should lower their expectations.
"Magnus you should know that you can't compare the team rankings of an incomplete class to the rankings of a complete one."
I hate it when a person gives you the terms of an argument, you argue on those terms, and then they say NO, YOU CAN'T ARGUE LIKE THAT.
Mejunglechop, YOU are the one who first compared this incomplete class to past complete classes. You said this was our worst class in the years of internet recruiting. If I can't compare the 2010 class to 2002-2009, then you can't, either.
In the history of internet Michigan recruiting and it brought us such household names as:
The where did they go:
Max Martin 4* RB
Michael Massey? 4* DB
Doug Dutch 4* WR
Chris Graham 4*
Wow actually look at that 3 of the 4* panned out and made a significant impact to the team and the others either left or we never heard from again (I'm looking at you Michael Massey seriously who the hell is that?)
Again this isn't to say that "Star Rankings mean nothing" because they do but like I said if you think that Ricardo Miller is a 3* then I don't know what to tell you. He's a 3* because he never faltered from his recruitment, didn't go to camps, and has absolutely no baggage and thus will not sell subscriptions.
For someone who supposedly "has been following this shit for a long time" you should know who Mike Massey is.
Also Greg Ladky explained why Rivals dropped Miller
I can speak for Ricardo. he was on early lists, we have never been terribly impressed in camps. i went and saw him two weeks ago, and he simply does not move as well as other top receivers. very concerned with inability to get in and out of breaks. he looked like an OLB or SS trying to run routes as a WR
My eyes were stupid and I saw that a DE was a DB and I was like "who the hell is that"
Magnus, I'm not saying you can't compare them. I'm saying that's not a valid metric to compare them, not when some teams are still going to rack up 10 or more additional recruits by signing day.
There are like 2 teams in the top 25 that could get more than 10 recruits they are:
OSU with 13
USC with 14
UCLA with 15
That's it. 17/25 teams are over 20 recruits.
Easy there. Ever consider that having a small recruiting class would cause a team not to be in the top 25 yet? Not to pile on, but Michigan State has 16 commits and a higher average rating. Illinois currently has 8 commits. Arizona State has 9.
Michigan State has their quota of 4* recruits and is done
Arizona State? Seriously? They've never been a recruiting power.
Illinois come on
Arizona State has one less 4 star than us and 12 less commitments. Michigan State has one less 4 star and six less commitments. Illinois currently has two four stars out of eight commits. We have no idea how their class is going to shape up. The broader point though is that despite your jumping up and down about how seventeen of the top 25 have 20 or more commitments that almost has to be true, because you need a lot of commitments to get in the top 25. From 26-50 only 3 teams have more 20+ commitments. On top of Ohio State, UCLA, Clemson and NC State, there's potential, scratch that, a high probability that we'll drop at least a few spots.
Or ASU? ASU is a fringe 25 school MSU is a fringe 25 school. No they will not finish ahead of us.
thats too bad. best of luck to baxter though. hope you dont mind sitting on the bench for 3 of your 4 years of college.
You did say you can't compare them. You used those exact words.
Regardless, yeah, other teams could pick up 10 more recruits (although that's a lot to pick up in just two months). We could also pick up four (or more) recruits. Some of those could be 4-star types (Jefferson, Knight, Mathis), and some could be 3-star types (Furman, Beachum, Hankins). You're acting like our recruiting class is finished and everyone else will add 10 recruits.
I said you can't compare team rankings. That's a metric. That is not categorically saying you can't compare btw classes. Edit: You can compare just fine looking at raw numbers like like I did here (pre-Christian commitment) http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/recruits-visiting-updates-etc#comment-291388
"I think junglemechop is right here - this class will be lower than usual compared to other schools in the same year."
This is purely conjecture. As I said above, we are currently ranked #14 on Rivals with the potential to add another 4-7 recruits. In 2007 we were #12, so that's not significantly lower. Assuming that a bunch of other teams will pass us up also seems to assume that we're going to end the 2010 class with only 21 recruits.
But from 2002-2009 our average recruiting class was 20.75 commitments, so if we do tread water in the rankings it's only indicative of the sheer size inflating it.
I agree, it is pure conjecture. My bit part in this big debate was just to point out that a bad recruiting year in terms of nationwide recruits affects everyone, not just us (it falls out of the comparison). I would also offer that using just 2007 to compare this year to is not a great comparison when most other years we were in the top 8 or so (i.e., 2007 seemed to be an anomaly). EIther way, if we stay around 14, then that is a nice finish by RR given the past two seasons. But I do think we will be lower than we were in past years.
EDIT - take that back, I see that in '02 and '03 we were in the teens also. Point to Magnus.