charblue.

January 21st, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^

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. 

Joined: 05/25/2010

MGoPoints: 11420

ReggieNoble04

January 21st, 2014 at 4:52 PM ^

They only take the top 20 commitments and michigan doesn't have 20. If you look at our average it is prolly close to the top 10. Almost 4 star average. This class is amazing you guys are retarded. Jabrill peppers makes the whole class so with him I think were just fine

Joined: 01/06/2011

MGoPoints: 83

93Grad

January 21st, 2014 at 5:01 PM ^

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. 

Joined: 07/26/2011

MGoPoints: 13693

ifis

January 21st, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^

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+

Criteria:

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

 

 

 

 

Joined: 12/07/2011

MGoPoints: 1853

Jimmyisgod

January 21st, 2014 at 5:37 PM ^

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.

Joined: 01/24/2012

MGoPoints: 10342

WolvinLA2

January 21st, 2014 at 5:46 PM ^

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?

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

LordGrantham

January 21st, 2014 at 6:53 PM ^

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.

Joined: 01/01/2014

MGoPoints: 15404

Magnus

January 21st, 2014 at 7:22 PM ^

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.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166009

RedGreene

January 21st, 2014 at 8:03 PM ^

 "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.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: -109

MGoBlue24

January 21st, 2014 at 8:17 PM ^

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?

Joined: 08/22/2013

MGoPoints: 12900

smwilliams

January 21st, 2014 at 9:24 PM ^

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!

Joined: 08/20/2010

MGoPoints: 9917

blueblueblue

January 22nd, 2014 at 9:48 AM ^

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. 

Joined: 12/28/2008

MGoPoints: 6630

Magnus

January 22nd, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^

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.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166009

Don

January 22nd, 2014 at 10:31 AM ^

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.

 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148381