New Rivals 250 is up
December 9th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
No M recruits outside of the top 100 (Devin & Cullen).
December 9th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
Well, Devin with all his offers and evident talent is a 4 star, as is Cullen Christian. Who will get to be first to type that RichRod doesn't recuit well because we don't have enough players in the top 250?
December 9th, 2009 at 1:53 PM ^
Don't neg him cause he's right. You indeed were the first to bring up that RR doesn't recruit well because he doesn't get enough top 250 recruits.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:50 PM ^
RR stated before he doesn't even look at rivals. That's why we get 3 star players, same as he did at WVU. Our 3 stars will progress better because better talent to play against.
3 star teams in Big east= Great
3 star teams in Big ten= Takes a few yrs
December 9th, 2009 at 8:43 PM ^
Oh boy you're back!
December 9th, 2009 at 11:03 PM ^
from the "I know you are but what am I" files...
I will be more explicit identifying my sarcasm in future.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
I still think this is a solid class, all things considered.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:57 PM ^
Barring any other surprises, the only remaining Rivals 250 player we have a shot at is Torrian Wilson. A few 4 star players we're in heavy contention with (Parker, Ash, Knight) but that's about it. Still a solid class we're pulling in, considering another losing season.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
POWER UP Angry Recruiting Internets Posse!
This IS MICHIGAN FOOTBALL
December 9th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
We have two in the top 250 and USC has two in the top...3.
USC also has all of the top 6 either committed or considering. I guess according to Rivals, USC should never lose another game.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:20 PM ^
Also, I think USC ends up with all 3 in the top 3. Pretty darn good class for the Trojans.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:29 PM ^
thats very unlikely
December 9th, 2009 at 6:47 PM ^
Don't jump to conclusions on that. Word running around the SC blogs is he was none too happy after the visit. Apparently he doesn't like watching a teams fans give up on their team in a game which is pretty much what a lot of SC fans did.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
Umm, I dont think Scout/Rivals ranks them according to how they will be coached individually or collectively with their respective teams. It's only an assessment of individual potential.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:15 PM ^
So... Stanford has beaten USC twice recently with "inferior" talent.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^
i like to think of the rankings like this:
there are 50 or so players who are great talents and it is very likely they become star performers.
the next hundred players are largely interchangeable and are very likely to become multi-year starters. several will be superstars.
the next hundred and fifty are even more interchangeable. they project as solid starters. there are many players ranked below the last 150 who are of essentially the same quality.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:22 PM ^
And then within/below that last 150, there are a significant number of diamonds in the rough who end up being better than the top 50 (read: Mike Hart, for example). Rankings should be thought of as indicators of probability of success. Probability of success increases with rankings, but the floor (and ceiling) are nonexistant. The #1 player does not have a 100% chance for success. The #1000 player does not have a 0% chance for success.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:22 PM ^
Rivals was so high on Marvin Robinson at the beginning of the year, as he had all those great offers. But as soon as commits to Blue, they start dropping him right down the list. I think they know of the really good ones, but after about 100 or so, they are doing a lot of guessing. Just my opinion.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:59 PM ^
It probably didn't help his cause that his H.S. team didn't win a single game this season.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^
Well if you look at our recent recruiting rankings and the performance of our team I don't think there's much of an argument that the services underrate our players.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:26 PM ^
We're still going to pull in a top 20, if not a top 15 class.
Not bad considering coming off an 8-16 run.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:06 PM ^
Just look how overrated the rankings are in determining success.....Florida, Alabama, Texas, OSU, and USC have highly ranked recruiting classes year in and year out and how's it working out for them?
Well maybe those aren't good examples.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
Well, on the flip side, teams like Cinci, Boise State, TCU, and Iowa are playing in BCS bowls. What is their overall team recruiting ranking in Rivals?
December 9th, 2009 at 3:18 PM ^
And on the flipped, flip side... Notre Dame has been a top 10 class year-in-year-out = 3-9, 7-6, 6-6.
And we all know about those great Zook classes from 3-4 years ago.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:21 PM ^
Right, and Mike Hart was a 3*....Outlier teams, wether making an appearance every now and then (e.g., Cinci) or perennially (e.g., Boise State) don't invalidate the success of the overall assessments.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
Good coaching and decent recruiting=success...ie Boise, Cincy and TCU.
Good coaching and good recruiting= long term success....ie Florida, Alabama, USC and OSU.
Poor coaching and good recruiting=struggle....ie Illinois and ND.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:39 PM ^
To which I would add:
Good coaching and ill-suited recruits (left-over recruits?) = struggle...ie Michigan
December 9th, 2009 at 3:38 PM ^
A little perspective on our class:
Yes, we have only 2 of the top 250 players, and yes, we have a few players who are lower ranked than we would like to see.
BUT:
1. We are coming off of two seasons in which we won a total of 8 games. I think that University at Buffalo has more wins.
2. While most of it is unfounded, there is still speculation out there that we may have a coaching change either this offseason or next.
3. Our staff is still new. It is not uncommon for the coaching staff to start scouting players and developing relationships almost two years before signing day for that kid's class. Well, two years ago, Rich was still at WVA (or was just leaving), so this class (and the same goes for the last two) are classes in which RR had to play catch up.
4. Pipeline disruption. Michigan, like any other established program, has a network of schools and high school coaches that act as pipelines of recruits. Well, those pipelines are still unfamiliar, or are just becomming familiar with RR.
Sorry for the length of this post - the gist is that there are so many headwinds going against Michigan in recruiting right now, so it is not surprising that we are not reeling in a class full of blue chips. As with many of our programs other problems, time - and winning - will solve this.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:52 PM ^
"2. While most of it is unfounded"
All of it is unfounded.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:00 PM ^
The rankings are garbage. Analyze this or that. Its good for us in the off season but it means nothing. I only recruit 5 and 4 stars on NCAA but if I don't play the game it means nothing.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:16 PM ^
the reason i don't put a lot of stock in college football recruiting rankings is b/c most of these kids never play each other. we rarely see them in a real game against other perceived top level players. these rankings are just kids that have tools to be great and anybody in the top 250 is basically a freak athlete. basketball/hockey/wrestling all provide much more accurate recruiting info b/c these guys actually go up against each other with something on the line.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:28 PM ^
I'd rather UM get kids who work well for this team than simply worry about nabbing the best talent. UM doesn't necessarily need to by the Yankees or Red Sox of college football and just try to nab the top talent each year; they can focus on kids who fit their system and just win with those guys. Ultimately, good players will want to play at UM, but how some scouts regard a 17-year-old kid doesn't seem as important to success as it may in the college-to-NFL transition.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:11 PM ^
Teams loaded with 3-star players don't win big conferences like the SEC, the Big 12, or the Big 10 very often, if at all. Having tons of talent (as defined by the scouting services) doesn't guarantee success, but not having lots of talent pretty much ensures long term mediocrity or, at the very best, an occasional great year mixed in with lots of crappy ones.
December 9th, 2009 at 7:02 PM ^
Although we have a number of 3 stars I do not see mediocre programs pull top 20 recruting classes year in and year out.
If RR continues to pull in top 20 classes and is given the time to succeed, considering that Rivals and Scout do not rank spread kids as high, Michigan should fare better then "mediocre".
If RR gets the chance to pull 3-4 classes and they rank top twenty I see no reason his brand of football cant win a B10 Championship, Play in the BCS and make a run at a NC.