http://rivals.yahoo.com/video/expert-analysis-football/Rankings-Winner-Michigan-1101893 (Behind pay wall, but the title says it all)
Mike Farrell (Legendary Michigan hater) says Michigan was the big winner of the new Rivals rankings. Pointing out Pipkins, Kalis, RJS, Biggs, and Magnuson.
My reaction
Michigan
is not affected in any meaningful way by Rivals' rankings.
I think what he means
I think what he means, is that we had the most players who amde the biggest impact moves in the rankings. Bolden moved up a lot, RJS and Biggs cemented their spots, and of course Pipkins and Kalis did WORK at the Army game.
Say what you want...
Say what you want about Farrell, but the guy LOVES Ondre Pipkins and was touting him pretty heavily the last of couple weeks.
Avatar is a reference to this. Go Blue!
Beware, B1G
Won't be the last time the media's declaring Michigan as the big winner of things...
And Houma is the #5 FB
http://rivals.yahoo.com/Michigan/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-2887;...
Rivals did QBs, RBs, and FBs today. Houma #5 (only 5 ranked). But, no Drake Johnon in either RB or all-purpose rankings
Class of '97: 4 Years -- 4 Four-loss seasons
Certainly that's what he
Certainly that's what he means, but it's a poor choice of words. We won when we recruited Bolden, Pipkins, RJS, etc. What Farrell really means is: the new Rivals ratings show that Michigan did a better job at recruiting than we initially thought.
Ah, I hate months that are not late-August through early-January. I wish I could go into hibernation when Michigan is not playing football. Obviously, it's not half as bad now that Beilein has brought basketball back, but nothing compares to football. And constant influx of fake football news ("Pipkins moves up 10 spots in our rankings," "Molk is #3 center in draft") is like getting served seasoning without the meat. The flavor is reminiscent of good times, but there's no there there.
EDIT: Argh, I am a bad mgoposter. I meant to post this as a response to Wolverinabag.
The past few years, I've been
The past few years, I've been getting into the basketball and hockey teams as the football season ends. It's almost a perfect time in their seasons to jump in because they are starting to make their push for the tournaments. After those two are done, I'll probably get into Lacrosse, although I know nothing about the sport right now. Over the summer is going to be harsh, though.
Rivals, Scout, or ESPN?
I always wondered which service is the best prognosticator when it comes to predicting success at the next level. I feel like ESPN is the harshest (If I am not mistaken, ESPN only recently, as in the past few days, bumped up Pipkins from a 3-star to a 4-star, coming to the party a bit late, and still have 15 other DT ahead of him) but not necessarily the best. I have also heard that they tend to mainly focus on high school film, not looking at combines, camps, etc., which does not always paint the whole picture. I would think that combines/camps/all-star games are a lot more accurate in terms of predicting success on the college level than tape of high school games. In the all-star games and camps you're often competing against the best high school talent in the country.
This guy did a bit of a comparison between the different sites.
http://thomasgoldkamp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&cati...
I'd always heard that Rivals
I'd always heard that Rivals has been doing it longer and is more accurate than Scout, ESPN and 247. So I usually focus on them. Not that the others don't provide value but Rivals is more consistent.
Scout's Midwestern work is a
Scout's Midwestern work is a lot better than Rivals in my opinion.
I don't know, you could be
I don't know, you could be right, however the Pipkins ranking would seem to suggest that Rivals has a better handle on some Midwest talent levels, unless you don't consider MO Midwest. Of course you have Bolden as a counter argument. Scout has had him at 4 stars for a long time Rivals not so much.Then there's West Coaster Garnett. Rivals is a bit whacked with him at 4 stars (by 1 spot) where Scout has him more accurately at 5 stars. Clearly you need to consult both to get a clear picture of the class as a whole.
So basically whichever site
So basically whichever site has that player ranked higher is the better one? I get it...
I hope you aren't suggesting
I hope you aren't suggesting that Rivals was right about their obvious low ranking of Bolden? Rivals Garnett ranking may be correct but I think the kid derserves a 5th star considering he's one position outside of their 5 star ranking range and he's a stud. As for Pipkins. I think Rivals probably got that right considering he was owning Tommy Schutt.
Pipkins was owning Tommy
Pipkins was owning Tommy Schutt? I thought that was Kalis.
My take goes something like this..
Scout>247>Rivals>ESPN
I've heard better information come out of Snookies pie hole than that fool
Vice.com
My reaction to a kind word said about Michigan from Mike Farrell?