New ESPN Recruiting Rankings Out - Still no Michigan
Note: This post isn't about the validity of recruiting rankings, I would appreciate if you would NOT opine about the subject on this thread.
Still no Michigan in the top 25 even after adding two ESPN 150 recruits since the last ranking (Hart, Crawford).
A lot of this can be explained by quantitiy, but if you look at the average rankings we're actually higher than everyone until you get to Auburn at #14. I'm cherry picking a few schools to highlight where I think we'll end up ranked:
| School | Ranking | # Recruits | Avg Rank | # 150 | # 4 Star |
| Michigan | NR | 13 | 78.31 | 2 | 4 |
| Stanford | 15 | 21 | 77.38 | 1 | 4 |
| Oregon | 19 | 12 | 76.08 | 3 | 4 |
| Ole Miss | 25 | 19 | 76.79 | 1 | 2 |
Given our current trajectory, I would put us at #15 by the end of the year as a worst case. If our best case four star bonanza ensues, we could easily move into the top 10.
Honestly, there's no reason we shouldn't be above Oregon right now if you go by ESPN's own numbers...
Behind paywall:
http://insider.espn.go.com/college-football/recruiting/classrankings
November 18th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^
how we aren't ranked there with OR given the numbers, as you stated, but I don't really care until the class fills out.
November 18th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
There should be nothing subjective about the rankings, right? It shoud be a weighted average of the player ratings and the # of commits.
The subjective part should be the player rankings, i.e. whether the get an 80 or an 81. Once you have ranked the players, it should be totally numbers driven.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
Scout has us tied for 28 based on their scale... if you sort it by Avg... we are 16th.
Rivals has us at 27 based on their scale... sorted by Avg... 22nd.
The whole system is screwed up. Maybe you don't need 23 commits (Texas #1). All these sites are good for is putting $ in their own pocket. I'd be curious to see an analysis post-college to see how effective each player was. That would shed some light on how worthwhile the * system really is.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
November 18th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
Last time I checked we were allowed to take 22 players this year which is only 3 less than the 25 you're allowed to take. That seems like a pretty average class size and not low at all, so when all is said and done we should be ranked favorably. I personally think on Dec13th we will see some Hello posts and our rank should climb.
November 18th, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^
and you can go back to the class of 2001 I think to see who was rated what. You will be surprised how many of the 5* or Top 10 recruits ended up being studs (Adrian Peterson, Vince Young, Reggie Bush, etc). It shows the Top 100 going back to this year and those are littered with NFL players. Now, you will see your busts and people who came out of nowhere to make it to the NFL; but this really shows that they peg most of these big time recruits out of high school pretty well.
Overall, I think the are pretty accurate considering you never know which way an 18 yr old is going to go in life.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
November 18th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
I don't have much faith in ESPN when it comes to recruiting.
SEC= 5*
November 18th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^
no one transfers because of family values.
November 18th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
espn=joke. that is all.
November 18th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
Michigan isn't even listed as an "on the cusp" team. I agree that when our class is final we'll be around a top 10 ranking.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^
I think it's a good thing. Lower ranked recruiting classes means fewer people will be intimidated by us next year. If we're pulling in great recruits that aren't getting recognized, other teams will pay dearly for underestimating us.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
THATS why they'll be underestimating Michigan, because their recruiting class was unfairly ranked 25th instead of 10th. Not because they barely beat UMass and Indiana, and pending the results of the final 3 games finished with 4 or 5 losses.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
Teams lose 4-5 games and come up with big seasons the next year all the time. All the ingredients are there for another improved season for us in 2011. If we have a hugely hyped recruiting class it will turn some heads.
November 18th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
I agree that Michigan has a great opportunity to be a contender next year. But you're way overanalyzing the importance of recruiting rankings and how much attention they really get. Its a nice story in the offseason for starved cfb fanatics, but its not a consideration of players and coaches in-season.
No opposing coaches or players are going to be like, "ooooh Michigan had a top 10 recruiting ranking according to Scout, we better be ready when we go to the Big House."
Thats just patently ridiculous. The reasons they get up for the game and don't overlook it despite Michigan not being dominant in 4 years are: 1. Its Still Frickn Michigan and 2. Dilithium, bro.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
More like finished 10-3 mirite?
November 18th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
I had to +1 since it looks like your avatar is yelling those exact words
November 18th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
Those ranking do not make any sense
ESPN did list Big Will as Guard FWIW...so their ranking/evaluations are not entirely useless
November 18th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
But they also have Jack Miller listed as a DT even though he's been projected on the o-line for quite some time.
November 18th, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^
November 18th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
I could be incorrect about this and I don't have time to research the utilized methodology right now, but I've heard that ESPN bases their recruiting rankings "draft pick" style, which takes into account not only recruit quality but team needs.
While I like very many of the recruits we have brought in so far, we've thus been light on defensive committments and that's where the need is on our team right now. Furthermore, of the defensive commitments we've had, I don't see anybody who will make an impact right away. Couple that with the fact that our best recruit plays at our position of greatest depth and our ranking seems justified. This is fine because our team is young, but if the metric is trying to decide successful classes based on the amount of impact the class will have on team quality next year then I can't argue with their take.
Whatever though - the success of the class will depend on two things: the quality of the incoming players and the retention and development of those players. ESPN's ranking is partially influenced by the former and cannot predict the latter. The ranking isn't "good" or "bad" but instead measures what it measures, and we shouldn't worry about it.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
November 18th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
I think the class size is hurting the rankings right now because with only 13 recruits, the class is just not as robust as the 18-20 recruit classes you from other schools. At this point, though, where the team winds up in the rankings seems less relevant than before. This is a gross oversimplification, but under Carr I always felt the plan was to out-talent the opposition, so that meant the team needed to bring in mountains of blue-chippers every year to keep it going. Sure, diamonds in the rough and player development were also important, but the emphasis always seemed to put your 4* kid against the other guy's 4* kid and see who won. With RR, it seems that having kids that are best for the system is more indicative of success than guru-approved studs. Sure, having 5* DBs would be great, but kids who fit the system seem to have a higher upside than pure talent. I'm sure I'm off to an extent, but I like the last few classes RR has brought in, even if places like Scout and ESPN do not approve as much.
November 18th, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^
We have the same level of high end talent as Oregon, and we have a higher average rating, and they are #19 and we're not ranked.
Seems weird. Just sayin'.
November 18th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
Yeah, but Oregon is the #1 team in the country and perhaps the rankings are weighed a bit by current on-field success and the expectation that the quality and quantity of Oregon's class will increase. But yeah, I did notice that as well, and it seemed weird.
November 18th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
1. Damn. Look at what Harbaugh's done at Stanford. Turned them into a freakin national power. Stanford! Don't neg. No coded messages here. Just praise for a great Wolverine and Michigan man.
2. At this point, worrying about Michigan's recruiting rankings is like worrying about the price of the mini bar after that crazy weekend in Vegas. RR has "his players". He will live or die by them. For now, we've all been slowly dying. Soon we'll know if he is Michigan's phoenix, or Dr Kevorkian. Recruiting rankings dont mean shit. It's the record.