Head-to-head Recruiting 2012 - UM vs B1G
Much has been said about Michigan beating up on MSU in recruiting this year: 6-0 in-state and 9-0 overall. Being the arrogant Michigan fan that I am, I think - 'as it should be'. So, I was wondering how we were doing against the rest of the upper half of the Big 10 (UM, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU). Here are the scores from head-to-head recruiting battles in the 2012 class (using Rivals offer data - if I made a mistake let me know).
vs OSU: tie 2-2
Long way to go here as most of the (many) commonly offered prospects have yet to decide. So far we have Ross and Richardson, they have Kalis and Dunn. Dunn is wavering and OSU is in trouble with the NCAA, but most of the remaining prospects are from Ohio's home turf. This one could go either way - a major change from the last 5 years or so when OSU has dominated.
vs PSU: losing 3-4
PSU has landed Denman, Jones, Wilkerson, and Williams. Michigan has Ross, Richardson, and Bolden. So far, you can draw a boundary at the eastern border of Ohio, with each side retaining their own.
vs Wisconsin: losing 2-3
The Badgers won out with Biegel, Voltz and Jackson. Michigan got Godin and Braden. Wisconsin chose to offer a couple of the less regarded prospects in Michigan's class, but since finding linemen seems to be Wisconsin's specialty we have to take that as a positive.
vs Nebraska: winning 3-0
Nebraska offered Brown, Ross, and Funchess. They only have 2 commitments, none of whom were offered by Michigan.
Summary:
Michigan is hanging about even with the upper tier of the Big 10 so far. The bad news is that Michigan's class is probably at least half full already, while Wisconsin and Nebraska are just getting started. OSU has just 7 spots filled, and PSU has 8. A long way to go...
[ed. 'bad news' here relating to the final score in head-to-head battles - something that is clearly a secondary concern at best. Obviously its not 'bad' for scholarship offers to be accepted by recruits.]
You should have put MSU up there. Not because I consider them to be in the "upper tier", but because seeing us dominate them on the recruiting trail never gets old.
I agree they should have been up there for kicks and giggles. Because in the end, beating MSU is nothing more than that; kicks and giggles.
We offered over 200 and can only take a tenth of that, so we are going to have a 'losing record' against most teams.
And there is the whole argument about truly "committable" offers. Plus, if you get a better player than the one who committed eltswhere--is that really a "loss"?
If you're interested in doing a little more research, I would be interested to see how this went in the past, both under RR and Carr. Not sure if that information would be available, though.
Good work, though. I haven't been this excited about the state of the program and the attitude it has in a LONG time.
A couple of thoughts. First, from what I know of OSU's recruiting style, it seems a little weird to compare them head-to-head with UM. I could be wrong, but I thought OSU had a very Texas kind of recruiting style, in which they look around their own state and basically pick and choose the players they want. So I'd have to imagine that Michigan would lose a head-to-head match-up, because it would have to be a lot of Michigan coming down to Ohio to snag some guys away.
Second thought, your comment at the very end about Michigan being in a bad spot because their class is already much fuller than other schools struck me as odd. I understand what you're saying (i.e., if Michigan's class fills up, by default they'll lose all remaining recruiting battles), but I think it points to why this kind of head-to-head analysis for recruiting can get a little weird. If Michigan offered more kids than any other school in the country, that means there's no way for them to not "lose" a bunch of recruiting battles.
I agree with #2 especially. For example, I wouldn't necessarily look down upon Michigan for losing, say, Ron Thompson to Michigan State. Michigan has already grabbed two tight ends and might be full at the position.
That being said, head-to-head matchups in recruiting are what they are. Sometimes it's difficult/impossible to parse why a recruit chose one school over another. We're going to lose our fair share, but as long as we WIN our fair share, too, then it's not really a concern.
If by "fair share" you mean 9-0 on instate recruting then I agree with you.
Its definitely a take-it-FWIW analysis. My assumption is that if Michigan offers a kid, they want him. So if they don't get him, it is fair to call it a head-to-head loss. Ultimately, a better measure is who has a better ranked class in the end, and then finally which class produces more quality players for the school. I'm just trying to gauge where we're at so far, more than 9 months till signing day.
I think what you're saying about recruiting approach and aggressiveness of offers is true. If Michigan is offering a kid who is considered to be a lock for Wisconsin, while Wisconsin doesn't bother to even offer guys like Ross and Richardson [who most teams across the region (if not the country) want but the Badgers don't think they have a shot with], the head-to-head number doesn't mean much. It goes both ways though - MSU offers a ton of people locally and isn't afraid to be in early, while Michigan is the more selective school. I think that by looking at 4 different programs, you start to balance those elements out a bit and get some sense for things overall.
It might also be worth looking at this same analysis after excluding in-state prospects - which would better represent a neutral-field battle.
I know it's seemed that way under Tressel, but it didn't always used to be the case. We used to go head to head with them for the top talent in the State. Now, we'd never have as many, because they'd pick up MORE, but it wasn't always a case where we were just getting the leftovers, either.
...battle with PSU, Jarron Jones is a very soft commit. See this just created forum topic.
It's nice to compare the recruiting battles between us and other Big 10 (or national) programs and it feels great to snag 5* talent but you never know exactly what you have until a couple years down the road. Once your young guys put on weight, get adjusted to college speed and size, and learn how to balance their football with the class room, that's when you know what kind of a player you actually have. So often we overlook the value of a correct fit within a program which is why the Alden Hill interview posted by Tom a little bit ago speaks volumes. Guys like Ryan Mallet and Demar Dorsey were nationally recruited 5* guys and David Molk was a 3* prospect with a middling offer sheet. A few years later, 2 of those guys were no longer with the program and the 3rd went on to become the anchor for the offensive line, starting 3 years. While it's always nice to deny OSU and Little Brother the players they covet, I could care less about which schools we "win" recruiting battles over. Let's get the right guys in here, build them up, and create a program that gets the most out of its talent. Everything else is trivial.
You could care less or you couldn't?
but I stand by everything else
The bad news is that Michigan's class is probably at least half full already,This is not bad news. It's really, really good news.
Bad news? There isn't any.
against ND?
Looks like 2-2.
They got Darby and Shephard at DB and Decker at OT. They offered Richardson and Ross.
Same story - we're about even because we've kept the high-end local kids home.
the other day!! and he told me that we r gonna be "proud of our defense again." an incredibly nice guy and had to get his autograph of course :))
and continue to steal the players that Msu is recruting ill be a happy camper