Instate Recruiting Battle
An ESPN article recently had a troubling quote about instate recruiting (I know that they arent the greatest site for recruiting, but nonetheless). It basically said that more and more prospects think MSU is better than M. I know that most of you think that MSU overtaking M instate wont happen, that it is just a result of us hitting Ohio and Florida harder, but the past couple of years there has been a steady flow of instate recruits heading to MSU, which is sort off troubling.
(No paywallhttp://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/football/columns/story?column…
Of course the post you replied to didn't say anything at all about Michigan being a BETTER receiver school than MSU. It just said that MSU being a "receiver school" seems silly. The point he actually made (rather than the straw man) is valid.
OK then, Magnus, what Dantonio recruits (Cinci or MSU) are in the NFL?
Mardy Gilyard is about to be.
You mean the guy who emerged as a top receiver once Dantonio left and he was allowed to grow under the tutelage of Chip Kelly?
We have Barwis!
Every one of our players will be turned from 3-star to all american man-eating freak of nature athletes!!!
DeAnthony Arnett wants to be the next Blair White, I'm sure of it.
...probably more than he wants to be the next Greg Mathews.
And Steve Breaston, Mario Manningham, and even Jason Avant (who has had a nice little career so far in Philly and is on the upswing). And to be fair, MSU has had guys like Plaxico, Muhammad (though that seems like eons ago), and Derrick Mason.
But to your greater point, I doubt most kids care that much about whether a certain school produces more WRs than another provided that schools produces some consistent NFL talent. The age of a school being "linebawka U" or USC's run of top RBs is probably over in college football, as assistants leave and coaching staffs experience turnover on a near-constant basis. As long as a school is large enough that a kid is assured of getting some national exposure, the system being run is probably all that matters, and even then factors such as school name recognition, playing time availability, and coaching relationships probably trump.
All those guys were around before Rodriguez and Dantonio.
Anyway, a few posts above, you said Mardy Gilyard doesn't count because he didn't develop until Brian Kelly got there.
Now you're taking away Devin Thomas because Dantonio didn't recruit him.
You can't have it both ways. Dantonio gets credit for at least one of those aspects (recruiting or development). Maybe not both, but one. Whether you give him Gilyard or Thomas, though, that's better than Rodriguez has done so far at Michigan.
But then, to be fair, if you give Dantonio Cincinnati players you have to give RR West Virginia players, right? Did RR recruit/develop any wide receivers while at WV that made it to the NFL?
None that I am aware of.
I take that back - I believe Darius Reynaud was a punt returner or something for the Vikings this past year, but I don't think he contributed much at all. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong - my knowledge of Reynaud is limited. He was a slot receiver, though, not a wideout.
Chris Henry
I said that a few posts above:
"They care about what you've done lately, and other than Chris Henry, Rodriguez doesn't have much in the way of receivers to brag about; Tony Dews, meanwhile, was coaching offensive tackles at CMU when Chris Henry was around."
Thomas was at MSU one year with Dantonio, but I will concede that he certainly blossomed under Dantonio. As for Mardy, Dantonio basically kicked him off the team after taking a flyer on him as a 2* recruit - Kelly was the one who really developed him and pushed him to be the player he is now. So I guess we'll give Dantonio Thomas, but only because he at least played for the man.
My point was that Dantonio's WR recruiting has been somewhat sparse, and his development of these players under his system has failed to produce the type of receivers that would precipitate the notion of he produces NFL-caliber WRs. Looking at the 2004-2009 NFL drafts (the time Dantonio was at UC plus his years at MSU), you'll notice not a single WR was drafted from Cincinnati or MSU (save for Thomas) - the closest was a TE. So over a 5-year span, I will concede a total of one drafted WR. RR had two in the 2005 draft - Chris Henry and Rasheed Marshall.
My point wasn't that MSU hasn't produced good WRs in the past, but this notion that Dantonio (and his system) is somehow a generator of top-fight WRs simply isn't supported by the facts.
Yer killin mah dudes
But Dantonio never recruited Thomas (the player with Washington). He inherited that guy (along with most of his WR core) from John L. Smith, who ran an offense predicated on 4- and 5-receiver sets. In the past two recruiting cycles, he has recruited 3 WRs, and only one was of note (Donald Spencer was a 4* per Rivals). In that same span, he has recruited 5 RBs. That was my whole point in the post - MSU had a nice run of WRs because the earlier coaching staffs pushed for them, but under Dantonio the push has definitely been toward a run-first offense. I'm sure that some percentage of WRs at MSU will make it in the pros irrespective of the coach's focus, but they are "WR U" or anything.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^
Dantonio didn't recruit Thomas, but he actually utilized him which JLS failed to do (Thomas' most notable achievement before MD came was blocking a punt against NW). Also, he recruits the positions which don't have depth. In 2007 and 2008, they took 6 WR (along with 3 TEs), and had enough talent that the position was no longer a huge priority compared to RB, which with Ringer leaving, and the exodus of every RB on the roster aside from Baker and Caper necessitated the need for a little more depth at the position. Last year, they led the Big Ten in passing yards with receivers recruited by Dantonio.
MSU had the most passing yards and receiving TDs in the conference last year (pretty sure they did in 2007 as well).
They did lead the league last year (not sure about 2007), but Dantonio has said on numerous occasions that he is not a pass-first type of coach. So my point is that while the stats support the idea that MSU will continue to be a pass-happy offense, the coach's prerogative is for the team to run the ball like they did with Ringer. And if you look at how the recruiting has been under Dantonio, you see him moving away from the heavy-WRs classes under JLS and more toward the run-happy, defensive squads you expect under a Tressell disciple. But you are correct that MSU has enjoyed some recent success throwing the ball.
to see how things play out this year. I'd say around 70-80% of MSU's offers for 2011 are to Ohio kids as there aren't many "big name" in-state prospects left aside from Arnett and Hayes.
crack use is still rampant.
Apparently, the only thing that determines what is "better" is the last game.
Other things according to Magnus: Appalachian State now has a better football program than Michigan, Northern Iowa's basketball program is now "better" than Kansas, the US Soccer Team is now "better" than Spain, and Oregon State's Football program is now "better" than USC.
This. MSU has won two in a row for the first time in 40 years. They barely won last year. We need to beat them this year. If they beat us this year, then they are better.
Is there some kind of magical transformation when a streak reaches 3?
March 24th, 2010 at 10:30 PM ^
but only wen ur on the wrong side of the 2 game winning streak and ur trying to argue that it doesnt mean ur a worse program(currently) til they beat u 3 times. IF(probably wont happen) they beat u 3 times then it only counts if they beat u 4 times. and so on and so on. im agreeing with magnus btw, this whole thing was a lot of sarcasm for those who are missing it.
March 24th, 2010 at 10:47 PM ^
It doesn't fill me to the brim with confidence that perhaps the only person supporting me is the Texas Longhorn on the board, but I'll take what I can get.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
im offering a fairly unbiased opinion so its better than nothing i suppose(as u said). i think that the biggest problem is the knee jerk reaction of "FUCK NO" wen people say mich state is better than michigan in football. if we talk recently then u are absolutely right. as program overall? fuck no, not even close. as of march 24, 2010 mich state has won 2 straight and has had better seasons for 2 years in a row. therefore mich state is a better football team. tho im sure that this will change because mich state wont have enuf players to field a team at the rate their felon list is going up.
You're missing the point.
If Appalachian State played in the Big Ten, beat us two years in a row, and had a better record against the same (or similar) opponents, then I might say something like that.
The same goes for Northern Iowa if they played in the Big 12, etc.
Purdue? Better program?
Right now? Yes. They've had 1 more victory over us over the past two years, and they've beaten us two years in a row.
This is not Lloyd Carr's or Bo Schembechler's or Gary Moeller's Michigan.
We are NOT GOOD. Saying "We're Michigan so we're better than ___________" doesn't mean anything when you're not winning [very many] games.
Michigan State was better than Michigan the past 2 games, simple as that. They certainly won't be better than Michigan this year.
Whether or not we agree with it (I don't) this is going to continue until the Fall. State has a lot of hype surrounding them right now (despite the assaults) and Michigan has a lot of negativity. It happens, and depending on who has a kids ear, what he listens to, reads, etc., what info he gets can vary drastically.
Michigan will have to settle this on the field.
In state recruiting matters. But winning and overall recruiting matters more.
I think Michigan State is definitely going to make in state recruiting more interesting but to say they own us is far fetched.
Every year about this time, you hear about the Sparty recruiting machine getting rolling, and are going to start to dominate the state. Especially the past couple of years with the Gholston and Thomas commits. You hear ohhhh man all the blue chippers will be flocking in now to play with these guys.However, after signing day, Sparty is always sitting on the outside looking in the top 25-30 in the recruiting rankings. The instate recruiting stuff is a bit overblown anyway. Normally not too many guys outside the top 10 ranked guys in Michigan are offered by Michigan anyway. Michigan has, and always get 4-6 players out of state. Lloyd's staff hardly ever brought in more then 4-6 guys either.
So when will MSU pull a Demar Dorsey out of Florida or a Justin Turner out of Ohio?? they have to push harder for instate kids because that's where they're known.
We don't even know how this kids will turn out to be, they might end like Carson Butler... I do think that not winning has taken a toll in recruiting, but the kids who are going to turn this ship around are already on the team, and once they start winning (which i'm confident they will) we will be able to keep again any instate recruit we might want, MI isn't even that talented-rich state so if we want to compete against the best teams we have to recruit nationally anyways.
Michigan is probably top 10 talent-wise as a state. At least top 12. Not that I disagree with your premise, but if you assume the top 5 (not necessarily in order) are CA, TX, FL, OH, PA, that leaves you with Louisiana, the Carolina, Virginia, Michigan, Alabama and Georgia. Arizona in the future will probably jump in to this mix.
FWIW, don't discredit Dantonio in Ohio, he will be effective going down there - he has strong ties to the state.
Pretty much every Southern state (except Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas) produces more talent than Michigan does, as do California, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Participation rates for high school football in the South are far higher than anywhere else, and it also has the largest black population. Georgia, for example, has more high school football players than Pennsylvania does, even though PA has 3 million more people - and black people make up 29% of Georgia's population, compared to 10% of Pennsylvania's.
Michigan is an OK state, talent-wise, but can't qualify as a hotbed. Our state's participation rate for high school football is mediocre, and much of our black population is concentrated in Detroit, which does not have very good high school football programs.
As a whole, maybe Michigan is top 12 overall. However, that's like saying Michigan is the tallest midget. Overall, there are massive fluctuations year-to-year in this state that you do not see in CA, TX, FL, OH, and PA. As such, it means a lot more to me to see RR beat out Urban Meyer for a kid in FL, than UM beating out Dan. for a kid in Michigan. On average (key words...on average), I would take a kid from FL over a kid from Michigan any day.
Having said that, obviously MSU got some good in-state recruits this past year. Sweet - good for them. After the years that UM has had, this absolutely does not surprise me. But, by no means does this indicate some sort of trend to me. It's merely a blip on a radar that in a few years will be wiped away.
Congrats to Dantonio for getting some good kids in-state. He'll need them!
Agreed.
In terms of fluctuation the bottom half of those 12 goes up and down way more than the top 5, even within the top 5 I'd say that PA and OH are much more prone to fluctuation than the big 3 of FL, TX, and CA, though that probably is obvious.
As long as Michigan is bringing in talent I'm happy.
Actually, the top five are Florida, Texas, California, Louisiana and Georgia. Ohio might be sixth (Virginia is up there, too). Pennsylvania is borderline top 10.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
It's subjective. We'll agree to disagree. :)
March 25th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
It's not subjective. I'm talking about the number of D-I football prospects that come from each state. The data is out there.
Number-wise is different than talent-wise. New Jersey is not considered a "talent-rich" state, but produces a good number of D1 recruits.
Even so, the numbers ('04-'08) are as follows, and show that both PA and OH are ahead of LA in terms of pure numbers:
1) Florida, 2) Texas, 3) Cal, 4) Georgia, 5) Ohio, 6) Penn, 7) Alabama, 8) NJ, 9) N Carolina, 10) Virginia
Louisiana is #12, Michigan is #14.
Of course, this is not what my original post was about (a much more subjective look), but what you were arguing.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/ncaa/01/21/bcsrecruits.s…
Okay you guys, Magnus just like playing devil's advocate. Don't respond and he'll go away.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:21 PM ^
I can tolerate Magnus for his football takes; this is just annoying attention seeking or, worse, a sad play to post so much for the MGoPoints.
Pathetic.
Or it's right.
Seriously, how does it make sense to post this for the MGoPoints when I'm getting negged a bunch of times for each post?
If I were interested in earning points, I'd do some MS Paint or Photoshop where I attach Denard's head to a superhero's body.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
magnus is just right. i dont see the point of posting this tho
When will you wolvies get it through your nappy fur that MSU is currently THE best team in the state period! Until your record shows it you are and will be our Lil Sis. Carry on!
March 24th, 2010 at 11:56 PM ^
so by those standards CMU is better than MSU..... can't have it both ways pal
Magnus - lay off the Haterade. Nobody likes the "logically pessimistic" fan. Just be blindly biased like the rest of us.
Heh...I get negged, anyway. Remember when I was head over heels for Brandon Minor in 2008? I loved the guy and really wanted him to play more. I got tons of negative comments. (I don't remember if the point system was in place then, so I don't know if I got negged or not.)
No matter what I say, I'm going to get negged. So I'm just not worried about it.
I know you were joking (at least a little bit), so no offense taken, by the way.