Initial 2010 rivals 100. No ricardo?
http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewrank.asp?SID=880&Year=2010&ra_key=2369
apparently the 1st edition of the rivals100 came out this morning and i guess i'm kind of confused by it. ricardo isn't in it, nor is devin gardner. i had thought both of those guys were pretty much top100 locks. mrob barely made it at #99.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:21 AM ^
Those rankings get changed so much throughout the year that looking at them now really does mean much. Like I'm not sure where Justin Turner started out but he was almost given a fifth star at the end and Scout did give him 5 stars. At least give it till camps are through at the end of the summer where players are ranked.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:21 AM ^
If I remember correctly, Turner started out around #42, then dropped into the fifties or sixties, and ended up at #35 or something.
Anyway, regarding the overall ratings, this doesn't surprise me much that "our guys" are at the fringe of the top 100. I think a lot of people jumped the gun when they were thinking we'd have the inside track on three 5-star players (Miller, Marvin Robinson, and Gardner). Those guys are good, but it's rare for ANY school to get three 5-stars.
on this topic someone mentioned that when it was all said and done 65 kids in the initial 2009 Rivals Top 100 failed to make the final Top 100.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:22 AM ^
Very surprised and dissappointed. Hopefully, we still get those guys and they rise up the rankings through performance on the field and at all star events.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^
Also only 1 dual-threat QB.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:49 AM ^
rivals puts out rankings earlier and earlier every year to give fans something to talk about. dont dwell too much on the the rankings of hs juniors in march.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
What is the difference between say - January and May for releasing these rankings? The stats will be the same (seasons already completed). The only thing that will change is the hype and the offer lists that go out to recruits.
So, the hoopla increases a lot about kids, but the underlying kid is the same.
And yes, I understand that a lot of HS kids fly under the radar, some are injured, etc. I think you are just making excuses for why some of our guys aren't rated as high as people thought they would be.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:40 AM ^
the difference between january and may are the camps that these guys go to get exposure. the guys at rivals and scouts evaluate them there. not sure where i necessarily defended 'our guys' in my previous comment but that goes for all recruits. there will be a fair amount of turnover from the initial rankings to the final rankings.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
There are camps in June. Should they wait until July?
Wait a minte...there are camps in July. Should they wait until August?
Wait a minute...games start at the end of August. Should they wait until the end of the season, like December?
There's always going to be more and more and more data. You have to start somewhere if you're going to rank them. And if you're not going to rank them, then...well...this blog would lose a lot of traffic.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:19 PM ^
oh magnus you're too cute when you find any argument.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
Thanks.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^
Right, but my point is that what these kids did on the field during their Junior season is still going to be the same. The only thing shifting the rankings is going to be artificial - like 40 times, shuttle drills, etc. Just look at Vernon Gholston, Todd Marijuannavich, etc. who were workout warriors but can't play the REAL game.
The big shifts will come when the senior season begins and players live up to hype or fall off and return from injury or get injured...
March 11th, 2009 at 12:20 PM ^
gotcha. so if the big shifts aren't until this fall that you're saying these rankings aren't completely credible, right?
Absolutely. In theory you should see much less of a shift from say January to May than from June to October. That is my point.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
Dude, wtf? Boisture has offers from like WVU and BC type schools. Gardner has offers from LSU, M, ND, etc etc etc. Hell, Bolden has M and MSU offers. I guess I like that they have their own opinions and don't just go by offers, but sometimes those opinions seem extremely dumb.
i thought the same thing too. also, boisture has apparently taken advantage of being a top 5 pro style qb by committing to BC today....($)
http://rivals100.rivals.com/barrier_noentry.asp?ReturnTo=&sid=&script=c…
March 11th, 2009 at 11:16 AM ^
you gotta increase volume in appalachia and NE, right?
March 11th, 2009 at 11:28 AM ^
Last year, Kevin Newsome was a top 30 player when he committed to us. At the end of the year, he was not even in the top 100. These rankings will change like woah throughout the entire year.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
I just find it odd that there is a headline: "Great year for QB's in Michigan"
and another national headline: "Down year for QB's"
That is funny, and sad... mostly funny.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^
I'm surprised Gardner is not in there. Ricardo Miller not so much, I think M fans might be over-hyping him.
Edit: Man, Texas is just raiding that list.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
Agreed. I think Ricardo Miller's "I'm the Michigan Man" comments have made a lot of people think he's a better player than he is.
he's a top 4 player in FL. i'd say that makes him pretty good. those rankings that rivals just put out are terrible.
You can't say "no" to that. It's not a true or false statement. You can't take "I think people are overrating him based on his personality" and flat-out say "no," especially when a large group of people who are paid for this job definitively disagreed with you.
Not only did Rivals say that Miller isn't a top-four Florida player, they said he's not in the top NINETEEN.
By the very definition of "overrated", your statement shows that mine is pretty accurate.
Nevermind. Argue away.
also spent most of 2007 having mike adams unranked. will they change their rankings? i certainly hope so, these current ones are garbage. how do you rate latwan anderson who's best offers are UM and MSU 30 spots above marvin robinson who's been offered by USC, UCLA, FL, TENN, UM, UNC, USF, etc.? seems rivals went a bit retarded with these initial rankings.
As long as they didn't go full retard. You never go full retard.
I'm not defending all their rankings. You can't hold me responsible for the way that Rivals ranks each one of its players. All I'm saying is that I think Michigan fans' expectations that he'll be a 5-star were/are a little absurd, and I think it's partly due to his confidence/personality. You said he's the #4 player in Florida, and I usually trust your opinion because you know what you're talking about; but I trust Rivals' people more because it's their job, and they said he's at least #20.
And Scout had Shavodrick Beaver ranked as a WR for most of the 2008 season, so let's not pretend that Rivals is the only retarded party here.
The Wolverine guys have been calling Ricardo Miller a potential five-star prospect for months, and also considered Marvin Robinson a virtual shoe-in for that fifth star. So maybe it's their fault
to get a Michigan offer during his junior year and that's good enough for me.
Gardner not being in there is a complete surprise. By next year, he will be, imo. Boisture is rated ahead of him, and he does not have the offers or attention that Gardner has received, so that will ultimately change.
Marvin Robinson will also probably move up, and if they re-classify him as an OLB, he probably would be much higher.
Miller will be between 101-150.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:54 AM ^
I think if Ricardo stayed in Florida he'd have a better chance of cracking the Top 100. Playing for AA Huron isn't as strong as playing against the talent down south. Regardless, I could care less about star ratings so long as he comes in to Michigan and plays well.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:08 PM ^
did you guys know
that Pat White was a two star?!?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^
Pat White was a 3 star with offers from Auburn and LSU. I like the chances of a 4 or 5 star talent panning out a lot more than taking fliers on 2 star talents out of high school who every once in a great while become a stud player.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^
Did you guys know that this joke hasn't even been ranked yet? There are thousands like it.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:35 PM ^
snake oil!
AHHAHAHAHHA
...that night games are per se more exciting and loud than day games?
Goes without saying.
u mus B n LAW school
March 11th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
I don't want to start a new post about this and i hate to ask but there is a story on scout about devin gardener setting his announcement date. does anybody with a scout premium account know what day he set it for?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^
generally predict success... generally. Really though does it matter whether Ricardo is a four or five star? He has the talent. Rod, the coaches, and Barwis have the means to get the most out of that talent. I'm not worried about how high a kid is ranked and more about how they develop and perform when they get here. Recruiting is fun to follow, but step back and take a breather. Who cares if your guy gets that fifth star? It's only bragging rights at this point anyway.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:33 PM ^
I trust the coaches to isolate what they want in a player, then to go after players that meet or exceed the coach's criteria. You never know, however. I remember that Mike Hart wasn't rated that highly out of High School. iirc, Grady was very high, and we all know the MI love for a certain RB from TX, largely caused by a youtube vid. My point is that we need players to make up a good team, regardless of rankings, and not to be driven by top 100/top 250 lists. Actually, I have always thought it is best when you discover talent that others are unaware of and lock it in. It isn't that we don't recruit the 4 & 5 stars. But we want the players with the talent, not with the stars. And while there is some correlation between the two, it isn't perfect. I have to believe that some of you insiders would know way more than I do, but I would hope that Michigan has internally ranked maybe 200 players, and extends offers based on their own evaluation, not on others.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:33 PM ^
man these rankings suck. what happened to Tai-Ler and DeJoshua?
March 11th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^
Did Gholston drop Ohio State? It's not listed among the schools he's considering. Plus it seems like he and Gardner visit like every weekend. Is he still seriously considering State?
Also wow, what's up with State grabbing the attention of several 5 stars (for now)?
looking at ohio state. (gholston that is)
MSU is Gholston's leader.
They probably found out that Ricardo is moving to Michigan and immediately dropped him out of the top whatever.
Also, Boisture top 100 with no Bolden or Gardner? Um, wow. It's rare for me to disagree with Rivals, but all of the local articles and so forth seem to be in consensus that Gardner is the top guy or second-to-top guy in the state behind Gholston, and I'm just as surprised about Ricardo.
has anyone seen the jeff luc highlight film? this kid breaks offensive players in half when he hits! he has to be a rivals 250 guy.
GO WATCH! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-dT2TCrcMY&feature=related
oh shit my bad. i guess hes already a 5 star from the rankings that were just released lol