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.
Interesting. So you parried WolvinLA2's statement by saying "Well, I just think you're wrong."
What exactly is weak about the class? What is lacking, aside from Damon Webb (when I think everyone would rather have Peppers, anyway) and Malik McDowell (who is still uncommitted, so I don't see why he matters in this discussion)? Do you want to make any specific critiques other than "This one recruiting service's flawed points system suggests we're the #25 class, so Hoke must not be a good recruiter"?
What is lacking? Zero RBs, no elite pass rushers, no support at safety, and a dearth of top 100 players. That should get you started.
"Zero RBs." The coaches have recently offered a couple running backs, so this could change.
"No elite pass rushers." Lawrence Marshall is the #9 WDE, according to 247's Composite.
"No support at safety." I agree, although Peppers or Watson could end up there.
"A dearth of top 100 players." We have two in the 247 Composite (Harris, Peppers), another at Rivals (Cole), and a couple other fringe guys (Mone, Marshall). As WolvinLA2 says, about half the class has a 4-star rating.
Maybe it will be fixed in the future. A new excuse! Holy cow you are a machine. Have you thought about a career in politics?
Then it just boils down to your point being simply opinion. Which is fine. I can say "This week is way colder than I wanted it to be" which is very different from "this is the coldest week of the last decade."
I have read studies that said Rivals, over the time being studied, was the most accurate. Since then, there have been many changes to the existing services, the addition of one, and the creation of a system that combines all of them. In my opinion, using the composite is the best way because when there are outliers (like Rivals is for us this year) it gets mitigated. And according to that system, our class isn't nearly as bad as you're suggesting.
Okay, and the composite system has been around for what, one year? Is there any evidence speaking to its accuracy? Eliminating outliers doesn't automatically make a method more accurate. I use rivals because it's been shown to be the best.
You use Rivals because you are obviously very stubborn.
Averaging multiple accurate data points is always going to give you a more accurate reading of something. All of the sites used in the composite are accurate, some more than others but there's not even a good way to tell that. Really, it's all just people making judgments on something, so the more of those you have, the more accurate it will be.
"Averaging multiple accurate data points is always going to give you a more accurate reading of something."
From a statistics standpoint, this is just completely false.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "always" but the statement is true. All you're doing here is quadrupling the sample size.
But now you've stopped arguing the points in front of you and are instead arguing sematics. Do you really disagree that a composite of four services is really less accurate than one of them?
Yes, I do. Based on history, so should everyone. Increasing sample size is a middle-schooler's way of increasing accuracy.
increasing sample size improves precision. if the accuracy of each measure is off, it does not improve accuracy. however, if one measure is systematically off (like rivals could be since it seems to be an outlier) it is often best to exclude that point since it is introducing the greatest error.
so, you might actually argue that rival's being so much further off than the other sites is actually making the composite score worse than it really is. one should conclude that there is either a systematic bias against michigan with the rivals rankings or that there is a systematic bias for michigan by the other three. no one can know for sure, but the first scenario is more likely unless you can prove that rivals performance with respect to michigan has consistently been better and the other consistently worse.
Please, spare me your recitation of 9th grade wikipedia statistics. It doesn't take a genuis to look at historical data and conclude that rivals is typically (and by a fair margin) the most accurate.
It also doesn't take a genious to spell genious correctly.
"I'll take 5th grade spelling for $100 Alex".
Florida is one year removed from an 11-2 season. And while it's true that they didn't do well in 2013, the Gators and Hurricanes both lie in recruiting hotbeds. But if you want to hold Brady Hoke and his staff accountable for not coaching in balmy Florida, where they play football 12 months a year and churn out football players like mad, then I guess I can't stop you.
I can't say anything about Kentucky. Kentucky's doing a great job of recruiting. Kudos to them.
So you've identified a few teams in the country that are recruiting better than Michigan (in your opinion), despite a lack of success on the field. And this means that Hoke and Co. are bad at recruiting? There are 120+ teams in the FBS right now. Jeremy Gallon was the #10 receiver in the country this year. That doesn't mean he's a bad receiver just because there are 9 guys ahead of him. Mike Hart was the #6 leading rusher in 2007. It doesn't mean he was a bad running back. Etc.
Ah we're not in balmy weather. A new excuse! So far, we have: It's a small class, our recruiting weather is not great, our season didn't go well, other services have us a little higher, other teams won a couple more games over the last two years, and some teams are only one year removed from an 11-2 season instead of two. Keep em' coming, but for the next one, please include the word "execute."
LOL. What's getting lost in the shuffle is that recruiting is a means to an end. The hope is that all of these players will turn into good players, whether they're 2-stars or 5-stars. Does it matter if we're two spots below UCLA or worse "recruiters" if our coaches and players can't get the job done on the field? No, it doesn't.
You're failing to separate RECRUITING from the TEAM.
You know there's a fine line between a reason and an excuse, right? He wasn't explaining why ours was "bad," he was explaining why schools in god weather tend to have better recruiting classes than their on-field success would suggest.
You mentioned two teams, Florida and Miami, who have better classes than ours despite poorer on-field product. But it's not at all uncommon for schools in talent-rich areas to recruit well simply for that reason. This is a reason. The University of Miami is in one of the biggest recruiting hot beds in the country, so many years there will get a lot of top local recruits even without winning a lot of games.
Now I feel like you're just being intentionally obtuse.
Exactly. In the final Rivals 250, there are 37 players from the state of Florida. Even if you split those up among the big three (FSU, UF, Miami) and say each team should get an equal number, there are 12.3 for each school.
There are 3 from the state of Michigan. Split those up among the big two (MSU, U of M), and each school should get 1.5.
Obviously, kids are going to go out of state for school, pick an occasional in-state outlier of a school (South Florida, for example), etc. But the bottom line is that there are a higher number of a good football players who grow up in close proximity to Florida, Miami, etc. than there are at Michigan.
There is a fine line. A very fine line indeed.
It's 14th in average stars, which is pretty good.
"Remotely criticizes the narrative"
It's not the hive mind here; but if it sucks so much start a competing and more critical site. I'm sure Brian, Magnus, Maize n Brew and MBlock will appreciate the competition.
You can enrich my recruiting reading experince, accordingly.
It doesn't suck at all. I love this blog. But this particular aspect of it is very annoying.
Higher star rating than 2011, 2010, and 2007. 2003 class was one of our worst in the Rivals era and it produced at least 6 guys that played in the NFL, a couple All Pros and and a few All Conference players. Recruiting stats can be used a lot of different ways. If you use their point system, yes it's the worst. But using a couple other metrics, it's about where our recruiting has been since 2002.
2003 was one of our worst? Huh? That class has a avg. star rating of 3.82, which is the highest we have ever had. And yes, when you sign 27 players, obviously your star rating is going to decline somewhat.
2003 is one of our worst using the total points system, the one you seem caught up on for judging the 2014 class. But youve made my point with your post. Those 27 man classes are going to look great on the point system because its a cumulative measurement.
I agree that both quality and quantity are factors, as I've stated. The problem is when you sign a small class, you expect to get great average quality, which we're not. This is a very mediocre class by Michigan standards in terms of star rating.
We also had two mediocre seasons in a row, so I'm not sure what you're expecting. The class is not terrible. The class is not great either, and I don't see anybody claiming it is. It is not a class I am going to get overly worked up about. I doubt it is one that we look back on and dread (like some of RRs). Staff recruits just fine, bigger concern is player development and game planning.
Again though, only according to Rivals. They are just one opinion, and happen to have the lowest opinion of our talent this year. Rivals thinks we have 4 top-250 players this year. 247 thinks we have 7, while Scout and the composite thinks we have 6. A 2-3 player swing is pretty big when you're only taking about 16 guys. The composite shows us having 8 4 star and above players, which is half. This is on par with most years at Michigan.
A 0.25 difference is vastly better, yes. Look at how many teams are 0.25 above us. The list is very small. And I wouldn't say UCLA has struggled mighily lately. Certainly not under their current coach.
Tennessee is the only school you listed with a higher average rating than us. And they have a higher average than South Carolina, Florida St, Oregon, Texas, and Oklahoma. All those schools had better seasons than us. Recruiting is just fine for 2014. We will see for the 2015, but I'm not too worked up about Tennessee having .14 better rating than us on Rivals and worse than us on Scout. I'm more worried about development and game plans when it comes o our staff. Definite worries when it comes to our staff, but you're nitpicking when it comes to recruiting IMO
To add to that, we are the second-highest ranked team with 16 recruits or fewer (UCLA is #23). The next highest is Oregon at #32. We're averaging over 100 "points" per commit in the class, so another average guy added to the list would jump us all the way to #18. Give us four average recruits to put us at the limit (for points purposes) of 20, and we'd have the #12 recruiting class.
the party, but one thing that is missing in this argument is any class over 20, their lowest star players are eliminated from the rankings. So if we had 22 recruits and 20 of them were rated higher than say, jack wangler and pallente, they would no longer bring our star rankings down according to rivals. This is just a stupid argument.
This is the result of a nut punch 2013 season.
You are seeing the recruiting results of a horrible season. The pathetic product the coaches put out there this past year is resulting in decommitments and 5 star guys going elsewhere.
2014 is soooooo critical to Brady Hoke. He's the 8th highest paid coach in America. He needs to start acting like it.
I agree. 2014 is it. It's time to deliver.
Keep in mind that class rankings has as much to do with quantity of recruits than with quality, and we knew this was going to be a small class. You can't fairly compare classes of different sizes, so it is what it is.
I'll agree with you on the OSU thing, they are on a roll. But do you really think Penn State's class is better than ours?
2014 is a small class due to the relatively low number of scholarships available, which is actually a good sign since it means that we haven't had much attrition. Recruiting rankings take class size into account, so this was going to be a "down" year anyway. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Take a look at the classes between about 12 and us. How many of those would you trade their top-16 for ours?
Wow, so Mone dropped out then.
Yeah, he dropped out of the top 250. Personally, I think he got too heavy too quickly.
Are you certain he didn't jump up 85+ spots? ESPN has him as the 91st player in the country, and he seemed to play well at the UAAA game.
This IS 2014, not 2013 after all.
EDIT- Nevermind. Im dumb. I thought they were rolling out the 101-250 first, didn't realize the top 100 was released previously.
the coaching staff can make the lesser recruits into 4 and 5 star players. Sadly, if history is any indication we may be facing mission impossible.
This post will generate more clicks for MGoBlog than it will for TTB. This site has the advantage of being a message board and a community, so every new comment will pop it back up to the top of the board. So far there are 16 comments on this thread, and there are 0 on TTB. This thread has been viewed 741 times on MGoBlog, but only 331 for TTB.
I always appreciate these posts from you. No one except 247 shows how a player has gone up or down in the rankings so I love that you put it all together in an organized way. Thanks for the work!
this is why ESPN is our recruiting rankings of choice this year.
Lots of "choice" comments to read in this post. Good job, guys. Haha
Came for the recruiting news, stayed for the comment war.
are always given greater weight when the numbers reflect roster size eligibility and are meaningless as it relates to talent and immediate playing time.
How many incoming freshmen in a class of 25 or more will see the field in the fall compared to the percentage of those in a smaller class? That at least translates into a higher percentage of participation early on. And, if you have a larger number of early entry students in that group of incoming freshmen who get a spring practice under their belt, aren't they more likely to see game action sooner than large class contingents?
The issue of balance in the position ranks, filling holes at certain spots, creating depth and improving your overall team isn't even a function of recruiting rankings. It's just a measurement of player rankings taken as a whole based on class size.
So, if your conference allows over-signing and attrition rates are high, what is the point of a class rankiing when it's assessed only as background information in relation to a given season and doesn't even reflect developmental abiliity or success of the group referenced?.
I'm sure Michigan State is really upset about its recent recruiting rankings and how they relate to their recent seasonal finishes. You know, it is a destination school now.
I think you have to look at many factors in prejudging a class: Quantity, quality, filling needs, beating out our rivals for players, high end athletes, character guys, how well you recruited your region, etc, etc.
Michigan has done well in some of those categories this year and not so well in others. I'd give this class a B-/C+ depending on what McDowell does. Its obviously small, but has some very quality players and filled some needs with high character guys.
Things that hurt include not getting Hand, no RB's, not enough high end athletes, and possibly losing McDowell. So all in all, I'd say its a slightly below average class for Michigan but certainly not a disaster.
If McDowell surprises me and drops for UM that gives a much needed DE and one of the top players in the state and takes away from our rivals and bumps the class up a bit.
Jabrill Peppers moves the class up a level for me.
Sort of like the axiom about the team that gets the best player won the trade. Peppers is that level of game changing talent that locks up a position and makes players around him better for 4 years.
How can we judge this as anything but a very good class? McDowell committing moves us up to an A; if he goes elsewheree then we drop to a B+
Character - I will take guys like Peppers, Ferns, etc. any day
Elite Athletes - Peppers alone makes this class at least a B+, if not an A-; he is the best athlete we've recruited since Denard Robinson; we missed out on Hand, I'll take Peppers over Hand any day (admittedly, both would have been nice. seriously though, that would have made recruiting history); Harris probably goes here too; I'd even say Bunting might go here (good Lord, our recievers could be a legit NCAA men's basketball team)
Need - an elite WR was the biggest need in this class: Harris fills that need, Canteen and Ways are both interesting recruits; DL may be the next biggest need and we are actually doing quite well there, especially if we get McDowell (and we are doing fine even if we don't); C would have been nice since it seems like its Kruger and then...; S looks worse than it is because we have all of these big CB; we don't need any more RB
Rivals - Harris is more important to us than any other in-state recruit; WR was our biggest need in this class; Damon Webb = do not really care; McDowell to a rival would be bad
We are doing quite well this year; we lost out on one of the best players in the country to Alabama and we lost out on a Cass Tech CB to Ohio = not concerned
Some other people take an asswholistic view of recruiting success.
Well, I've been tweeting recruits all day getting then to raise the average.
20 recruits count towards team rankings. So even if a school has 25 recruits, only 20 of them go towards the teams score. We still have a small class, I think it's a good class, npot what we've been used to in the last couple years, but still great for as small as it is.
And I'll take Peppers over any player in the country.
But it's the best 20, so when a school has 27 recruits, their best recruits go toward the score. It's very helpful to be able to take the bottom quarter or so of your class and remove it from the score. Is it easier to find 20 good players out of a group of 20, or 26?
Eh, small classes happen when you take 27 each of the last two years.
Looking at this class, I'm reminded of how horribly awful both the 2010 and 2011 classes were. Frankly, I'm surprised we weren't worse than we were this year.
You must be a blast at parties.
Do you disagree? Find me 7 good players from those classes combined.
It's not that I have an inherent disagreement. It's just the constant stream of negativity that comes out of your fingertips.
But I like a challenge:
1. Jibreel Black
2. Drew Dileo
3. Devin Gardner
4. Jake Ryan
5. Blake Countess
6. Frank Clark
7. Desmond Morgan
8. Raymon Taylor
9. Matt Wile
10. Will Hagerup
Feel free to argue how "good" those guys are. I think I'll sit this one out, though. I'm not interested in another elongated argument.
It's probably a good thing that you're not interested in an argument seeing as how you picked a guy who couldn't even play the 2013 season due to suspension.
You said "good player". Can't change the rules now...
Yep, and I consider a good player to be someone who, you know, actually plays.
He moves the goalposts on all his arguments. More and more he posts, the more I'm convinced he's just a troll. Probably best to ignore him at this point.
How am I moving the goalposts? Do you consider a good player to be someone who is constantly on the bench for suspensions? I've been here less than three weeks and have almost 1200 points. Does that sound like a troll to you?
"I've been here less than three weeks and have almost 1200 points. Does that sound like a troll to you?"
No, it sounds like someone who is unemployed.
Well I will certainly take that over troll. And yes, being a graduate student, I am indeed unemployed.
You would take being unemployed over being a troll?
Um for being in grad school, sure. Perhaps you're not aware, but most people in grad school aren't yet employed. That's why they're called students.
but 4-5 of those guys will be playing in the nfl.
I think the real problem is the lack of offensive linemen on that list...
exactly, and next year might bring more growing pains, although we should finish with 2-4 more wins
Isn't it about time LSAClassof2000 contributes with a link to a relevant info site and provides a summary and some folksy good humor, and we all feel a little bit better?
Wow MSU's transition defense is terrible. And here come the refs.
Oops, wrong thread.
This became a very weird thread, and that is saying something.
For those who want the TL;DR...
Side #1: This is the worst recruiting class EVA! Fire Hoak!
Side #2: This class is fine, you're dumb!
Side #1: You're dumb!
Side #2: Nuh-uh. I'm outta here!
THIS is a big problem with Mgoboard - the ability for a few posters to make a thread almost singularily about their opinions. I could not care less about the warring opinions between Magnus et al. and Lord Grantham et al., for the same topical argument has appeared multiple times a year, for at least the last five years (and why is Magnus STILL engaging in these tired debates?).
This thread is now a waste of space. The moderators should have stepped in long ago and told the parties to take the debate elsewhere. Or just delete the posts so normal people can have a decent conversation about the Rivals list.
I should have let that one go last night. Unfortunately, I didn't have a whole lot else to do. All I can say is that illogical conclusions and Negative Nancy behavior are a combination that I find tough to ignore.
That being said, the discussion I was having was relevant to recruiting, Michigan football, etc. Moderating an on-topic discussion seems a little much. As for the "You're an asshole" vs. "No, you're an asshole" banter, I had nothing to do with that. I wouldn't see a problem with excising that portion of the thread.
MSU's classes for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 were ranked 17, 30, 31, 41, and 40, respectively.
Given that they just concluded a 13-1 season ranked #3 with a solid Rose Bowl win, maybe it's possible to get a bit too worked up about recruiting rankings.
...got his 4th star...now consensus 4-star...FWIW.
EDIT: and apparently his own thread...must remember to refresh before posting..