Final Rivals 250 for 2014 released
Rivals released their final top 250 players today. The only two guys committed to Michigan from #101-250 are Drake Harris and Michael Ferns.
http://www.touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2014/01/final-rivals-250-for-201…
January 21st, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^
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"?
January 21st, 2014 at 5:45 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 5:55 PM ^
"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.
January 21st, 2014 at 7:02 PM ^
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?
January 21st, 2014 at 5:41 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 5:47 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 5:55 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
"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.
January 21st, 2014 at 6:06 PM ^
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?
January 21st, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
Yes, I do. Based on history, so should everyone. Increasing sample size is a middle-schooler's way of increasing accuracy.
January 21st, 2014 at 7:06 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 7:21 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 11:40 PM ^
January 22nd, 2014 at 12:42 AM ^
LOL no, it certainly doesn't take a genius to spell genius correctly. It does, however, take quite a moron to correct someone on a typo and misspell the word.
January 22nd, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^
WHOA!
January 21st, 2014 at 5:36 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
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."
January 21st, 2014 at 6:01 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 6:08 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 6:11 PM ^
There is a fine line. A very fine line indeed.
January 21st, 2014 at 9:12 PM ^
It's 14th in average stars, which is pretty good.
January 21st, 2014 at 6:51 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 7:05 PM ^
It doesn't suck at all. I love this blog. But this particular aspect of it is very annoying.
January 22nd, 2014 at 12:05 AM ^
January 22nd, 2014 at 12:44 AM ^
Well that's hardly an insult. Everyone smells.
January 21st, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^
January 21st, 2014 at 4:39 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^
January 21st, 2014 at 4:46 PM ^
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.
January 21st, 2014 at 4:57 PM ^
January 21st, 2014 at 5:02 PM ^
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.