New 2014 Top247

Submitted by ken725 on

http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/RecruitRankings?InstitutionGr…

Commits/Targets

Leonard Fournette #2 (no change)

Jabrill Peppers - #3 (up 4)

Dashawn Hand - #5 (down 4)

Joe Mixon - #12 (up 25)

Adoree Jackson - #24 (down 7)

Juju Smith - #30 (down 7)

Malik McDowell #44 (down 15)

Drake Harris #45 (down 7)

Bryan Mone #49 (no change)

Mason Cole #112 (up 3)

Dwight Williams #113 (down 5)

Parrker Westphal #145 (up 30)

Montae Nicholson #158 (up 36)

Michael Ferns #188 (down 8)

Juwann Bushell-Beatty #205 (up 19)

Ian Bunting #224 (up 69)

Lawrence Marshall #231 (down 13)

 

I'm sure I forgot someone.

-----------------

2 QBs moved way up after their performance at Elite 11/The Opening.

David Blough (Purdue Commit, up 375)

Sean White (uncomitted, up 481)

JT4104

July 10th, 2013 at 6:04 PM ^

I'll always look at them...but I'll never understand punishing a kid for not going to camps...I know they use the defense of well we just see more kids and have to rerank them.

I'd say outside the top 30 or so kids drops for not going to a camp. Take D Harris for example kid wants to graduate early and can't go to camps and yet he has continually dropped in every  update from the services...what changed they said he wasn't a near top 5 talent anymore? His #'s in actual games sure show a different picture.

dth

July 10th, 2013 at 7:09 PM ^

Necessarily, at least. If you figure how limited the data points they have to work with -- a limited number of games, an even more limited number of competitive games, an even more limited number of competitve games against fellow BCS/FBS-level prospects -- you just have a greed for more data. And if a guy just keeps on doing well and solidifying a positive impression, that might make him a better bet than a guy who declines to camp, for whatever reason.

The risk is recency bias, of course.

WolvinLA2

July 10th, 2013 at 6:29 PM ^

It's completely possible (and likely) that their opinion of him has remained static, but a few other guys have shown through camps that they're better.  Thus, they are not "punishing" him.  

Think of it like the AP football poll.  Let's say Michigan is ranked 23rd and Texas A&M is ranked 24th.  That week, Michigan has a bye, and TAMU beats Alabama.  Ranking A&M ahead of us the following week doesn't mean the pollsters think we got worse, but they have new reason to think that a team previously behind us is now better.  

ChiBlueBoy

July 10th, 2013 at 7:27 PM ^

This is entirely possible. It's also true that we remember, and give more importance to, whatever is most recent. It's a well-studied psychological phenomenon. So while the ratings gurus are doing their best, a bias against those not camping or not seen recently would be expected and should be accounted for.

MichiganG

July 11th, 2013 at 8:38 AM ^

That's not proof.  Hypothetically, their opinion of him may have lowered and it's simply that the people who had been above him had even more significant declines in perception.  (More likely, granted, the opinion of him stayed the same while others dropped, but the point being that this is not evidence that "clearly they don't drop kids for not going to camps.")

big10football

July 10th, 2013 at 6:07 PM ^

I feel like Mo Ways has the biggest discrepancy between ranking and what you see on his highlights of any Michigan recruit I can remember.  He must drop a lot of passes.

FreddieMercuryHayes

July 10th, 2013 at 7:59 PM ^

One of the national guys said that if Peppers "had a position" he would have been in consideration for number 1 overall. Crazy logic aside, that's impressive for a kid who hasn't camped at all.

gwkrlghl

July 11th, 2013 at 9:15 AM ^

but I believe the staff had a long look at Speight, David Cornwell (#47 comp), and Michael O'Connor (#252 comp) and decided that Speight was best. Reportedly Cornwell was a bit upset about not getting the offer. The coaches definitely didn't take Speight as a flier. He was the QB offer and Speight took it, he got about as high a vote of confidence from the coaches as I think you could really expect to have. I would guess he's going to out-perform his ranking

MilkSteak

July 11th, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that they were high on all those guys and that Speight was the one who was willing to commit early, which the coaches wanted. I get the feeling that nowadays the coaches are looking for not only a solid QB on the field, but also a guy who can take charge and have a big role in the recruiting process which entails an early commitment. 

Magnus

July 11th, 2013 at 10:24 AM ^

I'm not in a position to say whether the coaches made a "mistake" with Speight. Virtually everyone thinks David Cornwell is a better physical talent. The coaches obviously thought Speight was the better guy to offer, but I don't know if that's because of his physical talent, mental acuity, leadership qualities, the likelihood of him committing to Michigan early, etc.

There's always the chance that the coaches found a sleeper and that Speight will have a great college career, but he's a 3-star to everyone but ESPN and was passed up for the Elite 11 championships. The other Rivals 3-stars brought in by Michigan over the last decade or so are Russell Bellomy, Justin Feagin, David Cone, and Jason Forcier.

Trebor

July 11th, 2013 at 9:42 AM ^

I like the description for guys ranked in the 101-110 range, defining the ranking as "Franchise Player. One of the best players to come along in years, if not decades. Odds of having a player in this category every year is slim. This prospect has "can’t miss" talent.". However, they have 2 this year, had one in 2013, 2 in 2011.