OT: MSU's 2016 class ranked #2 in the B1G; #17 nationally

Submitted by The Mad Hatter on

Looks like MSU's class jumped up in the rankings due to a couple recent commitments.

OSU is ranked #1 or #2 nationally, depending on the service, and we're rated 22, 25, and 29.

EDIT:  Link to the stats.  I could have sworn I posted it when I made the thread.

http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2015/05/michigan_state_football_2016_c.html#incart_river

ypsituckyboy

May 13th, 2015 at 9:23 AM ^

It's due to sheer quantity at this point. From a stars perspective, they're almost entirely 3-stars with middling offers. They'll end up somewhere in the 20's range, most likely.

I will say, I think they picked up a few very good WR's. I wouldn't mind having Chambers and Layne in our class.

orangeda

May 13th, 2015 at 11:20 AM ^

and has really platueaed from earlier when he was considered a hot prospect.  Maybe he turns out good, but I'm not all that impressed with him, and I think it says something that both Michigan and OSU, who were all over him earlier in his recruitment, backed off significantly by the time he had decided.

LSAClassOf2000

May 13th, 2015 at 10:00 AM ^

Class size definitely factors into it. Actually, MSU's average class size from 2002-2015 is 22 recruits to Michigan's 21, but our average Rivals rating over that same stretch is 3.52 to MSU's 2.99. Historically, that 2.99 is good for about the fifth best average rating in the Big Ten in the same time frame, trailing Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska (if you include Nebraska for giggles since they only officially joined a few years ago) most years. 

wolverine1987

May 13th, 2015 at 9:26 AM ^

Their recuting has moved to a new level in the last year or so, which is bad news given how they obviously do a good job coaching up the talent they get. Will just make Harbaugh's job harder, which of course he's fine with. But I'd prefer it if their recuiting stayed where it was.

ThadMattasagoblin

May 13th, 2015 at 9:55 AM ^

Unless there's guys that I haven't heard of out of the midwest, it's pretty much the TE prospect Austin Robertson and Donnie Corley that they're in on. I give them 5 maybe 6 4 stars in February which is good but nothing like the State is taking over narrative that gets played out on here.   Sam Webb said we lead for Josh King, Brad Hawkins, and Michael Onwenu.

funkywolve

May 13th, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^

I think it's funny how many people on this board have an inferiority complex when it comes to MSU football.  Dantonio is a darn good coach and they have a solid football program right now.  I can't wait for Harbaugh to get rolling with UM and hopefully Dantonio can keep MSU at the same level because that is going to make for some epic matchups. 

Bodogblog

May 13th, 2015 at 9:27 AM ^

I'm sure you know this, but for others who don't look it up, it's still quite early, obviously.  They have two 4* and seven 3* commits.  To further the point, Kentucky has the #7 rated class, with two 4* and fourteen 3* commits.  And Western Michigan is just two spots behind Sparty at #19 nationally. 

They're still in on several top players, this should be a good year for them.  

aplatypus

May 13th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^

Since you mentioned Kentucky, they had the #1 recruiting class in the nation at one point last year I think for Rivals. In football. Obviously that didn't last because 1) it was based entirely on getting a lot of low to mid 3* guys to commit super early and 2) fell apart late because Kentucky football. MSU won't suck as much obviously, but once more schools catch up to the # of commits and more higher ranked players commit they'll drop in team rankings like usual

ThadMattasagoblin

May 13th, 2015 at 9:27 AM ^

I've heard that they lead for Corley and Austin Robertson besides that it will probably be 3 and 2 stars. We can still and should have a higher rated class when guys like Onwenu, Brad Hawkins, etc. decide.

BlueCube

May 13th, 2015 at 9:30 AM ^

Things will change in the next 10 months or whatever it is and all these players may not be in their class on signing day. Harbaugh had a late start. We will be fine. 

Also much more concerned with who we sign as opposed to who they sign and even more how they develop and perform.

In other words:

HARBAUGH. 

93Grad

May 13th, 2015 at 9:30 AM ^

They have 4 11-win seasons in the last 5 and back to back major bowl wins.  Two things Michigan has never done in their entire history.  It amazes me that people still consider them little brother.  Little brother has been kicking our ass for almost a decade and that will not change overnight. 

Bodogblog

May 13th, 2015 at 10:02 AM ^

Such is his wont.  If you're in a bunker, 93Grad will describe in every detail why your enemies will win and crush you and burn your memory in the fire of your life, wife, and progeny set to flame.  

This is useful at times, as it brings a soberness to the reality being faced.  He reminds me a bit of alum96 during the dark days of his first appearances on the board.  He was doom and gloom, I thought he was a troll.  But he was right - things were bad and his arguments were sound, and he being overly downtrodden made many (including me) reconsider where M was at has a program. 

ThadMattasagoblin

May 13th, 2015 at 9:35 AM ^

We've never done it because we only started playing a 12 game regular season in 2006 and the conference title game added a 13th game for them in 2011. So basically they have two extra games to pump up their win total and say "hey we've done something that SCum has never done in their history lol."

UMxWolverines

May 13th, 2015 at 10:00 AM ^

We played 12 regular season games in 1998, 2002 and 2003 But as far as major bowl wins we won the Rose Bowl in 1997 and Citrus Bowl next year...then won the Orange Bowl in 1999 and the Citrus Bowl again in 2000...so I don't know where the second claim is coming from. The top five finish thing is a little disconcerting to think Michigan has never done that.

Pinky

May 13th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^

"We played 12 regular season games in 1998, 2002 and 2003."

So three extra seasons.  Boy, you really demolished his argument.  And I have no idea what top 5 finish "thing" you're referring to.  Michigan has finished in the top 5 back-to-back seasons on multiple occasions.  We've also finished in the top 10 back-to-back 27 times.

Pinky

May 13th, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^

You said we have never done that.  We have.  You were wrong.

It's also exactly the kind of meaningless, arbitrary stat that Brian was talking about the other day.  Why is back-to-back top 5 finishes even a thing?  From 1971-1978, Michigan finished 4, 6, 6, 5, 8, 3, 8, 5.  From 88-92 they finished 4, 8, 8, 6, 5.  Do those not enter into the discussion because "HEY, NOT TOP 5!!!"?

MSU has had back-to-back 10-win seasons 6 times while we've done it 27 times. Why is that not the relevant stat?  Oh, because it doesn't fit the 93Grad narrative.

Blue Mike

May 13th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^

Exactly; without conference title games and bowl games, MSU hasn't done the 11 win thing either.  A better measuring stick for this arguement would be winning percentage, with MSU's last 5 seasons being 0.846, 0.786, (0.538), 0.929 and 0.846.  Just going on the most recent history Bo has a couple of stretches that equal or better that. 1970-75 were all above 0.900 and that is without bowl games adding to the total.  76-80 are comparable, as are 85-89.  Moeller would have an argument if he had been here long enough, and Carr's 97-2000 is close as well.

11 win seasons aren't as impressive when you are playing 13-14 games a season (or 15 like OSU/Oregon this year).

Blue Mike

May 13th, 2015 at 3:03 PM ^

And how many were there when teams played 11 games?  Or even 12 games?  I'm not saying it isn't impressive, it just isn't some historical marker that defines the greatest teams of all time, as it was being used.  MSU went 11-3 in one of those seasons, is that a dominate performance?  Especially in this B1G?  

11-3 is a better record than we've been able to muster lately, but remember when we used to get frustrated at Carr for having the gall to lose 3 games in a season?

karpodiem

May 13th, 2015 at 9:57 AM ^

Right now they can sell the results. The truth is the national draw of sparty is about as powerful as Oregon State, if Orgeon State had the same record.

Who grows up wanting to play for Oregon State? No one. When sparty reverts to the mean when Michigan starts winning this Fall, no one will care. Because sparty doesn't have the history, tradition, and money that Michigan does. Those three things carry you through the lean times. They have no reserves to carry them through those lean times when both Michigan and Ohio State are at full throttle. I tip their hat to them in that they have very much taken advantage of Michigan's downturn.

But Michigan has a limited window to right the ship before we start (and already have begun to encounter) a generation of kids who do not know of Michigan's successes prior to 2003. 

Fortunately we have just the Michigan Man for the job.

jmblue

May 13th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^

They have 4 11-win seasons in the last 5 and back to back major bowl wins. Two things Michigan has never done in their entire history.

Not that they haven't had an excellent run, but it helps that teams regularly play 13-14 games nowadays. The 12-game regular season only became permanent in 2006 and the Big Ten championship game was adopted in 2011.  Also, there are more "major bowls" than there used to be.

 

saveferris

May 13th, 2015 at 12:19 PM ^

Wow, thanks for the sobering dose of reality.  Somebody call up Coach Harbaugh and tell him that it's hopeless, Michigan is doomed, and he should just pack up shop and take that Oakland job we all keep hearing about.  It's really courageous of you to piss into the wind that way you do, just to deliver the cold, hard truth to the rest of us homers.