Rivals released their final top 250 players today. The only two guys committed to Michigan from #101-250 are Drake Harris and Michael Ferns.
Final Rivals 250 for 2014 released
When they rerank the recruiting classes in 5 years I hope to see ours #1
Bryan Mone drops all the way out of the rankings after a solid to above-average All-Star game? Heresy! Burn the witch!
So OSU has more 2014 Top 100 guys than the rest of the conference combined, and we're currently ranked 25th by rivals, 5 spots below a school that is still recovering from arguably the worst scandal and most severe punishment in the history of college sports, 3 spots below the coach we recently fired, and 16 spots below a team that just finished 4-8 . Furthermore, we just lost both top 10 2015 guys. I know it's a small class, but come on.
Wasn't recruiting supposed to be the strength of this staff?
Zona has 12 more commits than us, Penn St 5. Our average star rating is vastly better than both. We have a small class. 2014 is not a worry IMO. 2015 might be, but that is bound to happen when you go 7-6 in year 3.
I don't think a .25 difference is vastly better, but look at some the higher ranked teams with similar star averages. UCLA? Kentucky? Miami? Tennessee? These are all programs that have struggled mightily lately. They shouldn't be outrecruiting us.
...and all of those teams have 20+ commits except UCLA, and we're barely behind UCLA.
By the way, UCLA has been more successful than Michigan the past couple years. That might have something to do with it.
Over the last three years, Michigan has more wins than UCLA.
This class will be the lowest ranked of the Rivals era, which began in 2002. I think it's fair to criticize that.
Yes, and it's also the smallest. How many more ways will that have to be stated before you grasp it?
It's the smallest by one player. How many more excuses are you going to generate before you realize that this is a weak class by Michigan standards?
Look - you are using one data point (Rivals class ranking) to say that our class is weak, and Magnus is using one (class size) to say that it isn't.
I'll give you two: Michigan currently has the highest-rated player we've ever had in the Rivals era. Also, according to the 247Composite which combines all of the services, we're #15 in the country, ahead of UCLA and Kentucky and Arizona and Penn State. So even despite being tied for the smallest class in the top-20 (with USC, who has a lower-rated class than us) we are still 15th in the country.
He's almost certainly the reincarnation of someone who was banhammered. Have we figured out who he used to be?
That's my guess, too...
There can only be ONE.
I'd say personally attacking a poster for bringing up a concern about recruiting is far more dickish than anything I've ever done.
Well, you did call me an asshole in another thread, so I guess it is exactly as dickish as something you've done.
Yep, and that was for telling a poster what kind of fan he was. Pretty much everyone agreed with me, including YOU. Nothing wrong with calling someone out for being a dick when they're actually being one.
And when have I denied it? You just played the "holier than thou" card a couple posts above when it is simply not the case.
Nope. What I'm saying is that personally attacking posters for legitmate posts supported by facts is a dickish move and something I've never done.
What equals a legitimate post? And who are you to decide what one is? You personally attacked someone, he personally attacked someone. dick=dick
Lol okay bacon. He's a dick, I'm a dick, you're an asshole. We're all expletives. Happy?
Was that so hard?
What did you say? I'm sorry, but I'm blind in my right eye.
Is it because of the plank in it?
No. It's from watching our offense this year.
Just posting to see how tiny my comment box can be.
Pretty small, apparently.
dick and whose is harder. That's way too much information. Please don't show pictures.
In under three weeks?! Even if he was the most cunning poster on here and averaged 5 points a post, his average would still be 12 posts a day EVERY day! Let's say he averaged 3 points a post that is 406 posts at an average of 19 per day! Dude, get a life.
You stop it with your facts and stuff.
Exactly. Give us one more average player, and we're #18. Which is what I've said elsewhere in this thread. Thank you for helping to prove my point.
Your point seems to be the while lacking in quantity, the class is up to par on quality. Yet despite being so small, this class also has the third-worst avg. star rating we've ever had. So what's your explanation there?
I guess we're talking in circles here...
By Scout's rankings:
2004 class: #5 nationally; 22 players; 1 5-star, 9 4-stars, 11 3-stars; average/recruit: 3.45
2014 class: #22 nationally; 16 players; 1 5-star, 7 4-stars, 8 3 stars; average/recruit: 3.56
By percentage of class, 2014's has a higher percentage of 5- and 4-star players than the #5 nationally ranked class of 2004
I'm not sure if it has taken place or not in the past 10 years, but I suspect it has. Anyone know what the total number of 5- and 4-stars on Scout is this year compared to 2004?
"Over the last three years, Michigan has more wins than UCLA."
Correct. And over the last two years, UCLA has more wins than Michigan. They have also increased their win total each year for the past three, whereas Michigan has decreased theirs. And yet Michigan is just a smidge behind them in recruiting.
You want to criticize the product on the field? Go for it. But suggesting that they're not doing a good job of recruiting is kind of silly, to be honest.
Fine, they're doing a great job recruiting. This is worst-ever rivals class, both the #1 and #2 in-state players are likely going to our two arch rivals, we just lost our two best commits for 2015, but sure, this is great and Chris Bryant is going to be the next awesome Michigan lineman.
Perhaps a nice rerun of The Partridge Family will cheer you up.
I'm not upset. I just don't understand why anytime someone remotely criticizes or questions the narrative here, a million posters flock to angrily defend it.
The reality is that this is the worst class by points and the third-worst by avg. star rating that we have had in the rivals era. Sorry if some don't like others pointing that out, but it's reality.
If you would have opened with some of your follow up posts instead of the overreaction that was your first one, I doubt there'd be a lot of complaints. But your reasoning in your first one was just silly.
Let me say this another way and hope it hits home:
Michigan only has 16 recruits. Usually they have more than 20, and one time they had 17.
Michigan played 13 games this year, and with an average of roughly 34 points/game (or whatever, it doesn't matter), they would have 442 points. If they played only 12 games and averaged the same score, they would have scored 408 points. Does that mean their offense was worse?
Furthermore, a team's recruiting can be expected to be negatively affected when the product on the field is moving in a downward direction. Michigan didn't finish in the top 25 of the polls in either of the past two seasons, but they're #25 in recruiting. 247's Composite says they're #15. So if you're the #35 team in the country (or whatever, it doesn't really matter), it would seem that ranking #25 or #15 in the country in recruiting would be a successful recruiting job.
Unless, of course, if you're a pessimist.
And I'll say it one more time as well. The average star rating of this class is mediocre at best, and it's not like Florida, Kentucky, or Miami are really tearing it up on the field either.
Is there a reason you haven't addressed my biggest critique? Rivals isn't the only scouting service. Is it just by chance that you happened to pick the service that rated our class the worst by a significant margin?
That's a fair critique. I have heard here and other places that rivals is regarded as the most accurate recruiting service, but I do take your point. I still think it's a weak class.