boliver46

January 21st, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^

Bryan Mone drops all the way out of the rankings after a solid to above-average All-Star game?  Heresy!  Burn the witch!

 

 

LordGrantham

January 21st, 2014 at 3:59 PM ^

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?

LordGrantham

January 21st, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^

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.

Magnus

January 21st, 2014 at 4:10 PM ^

...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.

WolvinLA2

January 21st, 2014 at 4:36 PM ^

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.

LordGrantham

January 21st, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^

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?

 

Don

January 22nd, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^

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

Magnus

January 21st, 2014 at 4:28 PM ^

"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.

LordGrantham

January 21st, 2014 at 4:29 PM ^

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.

LordGrantham

January 21st, 2014 at 4:53 PM ^

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.

Magnus

January 21st, 2014 at 5:04 PM ^

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.