Recruiting Notes: 247 Posts Multiple CBZ For 8(!) Top Michigan Targets

Submitted by MaizeMN on
I'm not sure what is going on exactly, but 247 Sports posted multiple Crystal Ball predictions for 8 top targets in Michigan's 2017 recruiting class yesterday. Several are names that should sound familiar: Malone-Hatcher, Peoples-Jones, Kelly-Powell, Ruiz, Singleton and Wilson. Joining these potential Wolverines were Neilon (4*C/FB) and Snell(NR Slot Ninja) I'm not sure what precipitated the CB-orama, but it's pretty cool to see all those block M logos on their crootin page. Maybe Ace, Brian or new CB guru Magnus can tell us if this is in response to the camp ban reversal, general Harbaugh awesomeness, or some unknown development. Thoughts? Insights? HAPPY FRIDAY! GO BLUE

Magnus

May 6th, 2016 at 8:23 AM ^

I don't think it's any reason to get particularly excited. I just got my Crystal Ball account yesterday and made a few predictions. I believe Garrett Fishaw and Brandon Justice (also Michigan writers) got theirs yesterday/recently as well, so they made some predictions, too. It's just the noobs catching up at the first opportunity.

kevin holt

May 6th, 2016 at 8:30 AM ^

Also whether to care depends on who makes the pick... some experts just make CB picks based on nothing, as if the whole thing were a game. The point isn't to score points, it's to show actual predictions based hopefully on evidence. Kind of infuriating sometimes when it becomes a dart throwing contest. Use it wisely Magnus! :)

kevin holt

May 6th, 2016 at 10:02 AM ^

Yes, which is meant to be a rating system of their accuracy. But it's taken to the extreme where some want to accumulate points for points' sake. That's fine I guess, but it just seems like that's not really the point. I feel like there should be a deduction or a point limit (maybe 1 year before signing day or something). People throw out predictions years in advance and let them sit there in case they hit, even if they otherwise would change their prediction, because the point payoff would be higher.

LJ

May 6th, 2016 at 9:44 AM ^

Just out of curiosity, Magnus, where will the information for your predictions come from?  I have some concern, with the proliferation of ballz, that lots of predictions will all actually derive from the same source of information and make it look like lots of people independently agree on the likely outcome when in fact it's just an echo chamber.  If Sam Webb thinks something will happen, and 15 other people make a prediction based on what Sam says, it looks like there are 15 pieces of evidence for the liklihood of that commit happening, when there's actually just 1 piece (strong as it may be).

I have the same concern with Brian and Ace, and others who absolutely have tons of knowledge about the program, but, as I understand it, no independent inside information or sources outside of others on the internet who are also presumably placing crystal ball predictions.

Magnus

May 6th, 2016 at 10:02 AM ^

This was discussed at more length in the earlier thread (LINK), so I won't rehash it all here. I do hear some things outside of Scout, 247 Sports, etc. from players, parents, high school coaches, etc. I agree that the echo chamber issue is a concern. But if the main idea is to be right, then I don't think it matters much where someone gets the information.

Just for poops and giggles, let's say Person X gets all his information from "insiders" but gets 99% of his predictions correct. Then when Person X makes a prediction, you can be near certain that it's accurate.

Meanwhile, if Person Y is an "insider" but gets only 80% of his predictions correct, then you might place less stock in his accuracy. Part of the deal is knowing what information to trust and when.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't plan to litter 247 with CB picks just to get people talking. I just plan to make predictions for players I am confident about.

LJ

May 6th, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^

Thanks.  I agree you can't put a lot of stock in the predictions, but I think the issue is, people naturally tend to think more ballz = more liklihood of a recruit committing, when that won't necessarily be true as this problem expands.  

To make a simple example, let's say your Person Y above predicts we'll get recruit 1.  Our chances of getting that recruit are about 80%.  Now let's say Person Y predicts we'll get recruit 2, and 50 other predictors, all of whom base their predictions solely on Person Y's information, also predict we'll get Recruit 2.  The chance of getting Recruit 2 is still about 80%, but it's going to be impossible for the average reader to tease that out without knowing where the actual independnet information comes from -- the average reader is going to obviously think we're much more likely to get Recruit 2.  It's an extreme example, but you get the point.

And, to make matters worse, the crystal ball percentage thingy, which I think most people mistake as a percentage liklihood of securing a given recruit, will have a really high number for Recruit 2, and maybe not for Recruit 1, depending on other pickers.

LKLIII

May 6th, 2016 at 11:04 AM ^

Another level of granularity is the accuracy tendencies within a subcategory. For example, it's possible one person is very accurate about information regarding recruits in a particular geographic area (prediction rate of 90%+) but not so much in others. Or alternatively, you can take certain peoples predictions seriously depending on how counter-tendency it is. The perennial optimist's prediction that recruit X is going to the good guys isn't particularly useful, but if that same person says recruit X is headed down south, you weigh that more heavily (not so much as a leading indicator but as a confirmatory opinion). I suppose some folks might also be very plugged into certain sub categories based on position groups or other metrics--like kickers camps or the 7 on 7 circuit.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Roc Blue in the Lou

May 7th, 2016 at 12:41 AM ^

Or, you can take the balls in the light they are given and be, like, 'cruitan and not get all worked up about it.  I always appreciate the actual conversations with targets, but I let 18 year olds be the kids they are.  Less hard feelings that way.  Oh BTW, congfats Magnus, well deserved props.

 

Mr. Yost

May 7th, 2016 at 9:37 AM ^

Is there a breakdown of how many writers are associated with each school? Also, I feel like it would be useful to filter the over percentages based on an established criteria. For example, if I want to know the CB percentages for DPJ, but users who have a 90+% success rate, 1+ years experience, and minimum 50 predictions. We often look at the CB percentages for these guys and they're skewed by some awful pickers or biased trolls. Have to figure out a way to eliminate that IMO

Lie-Cheat-Steal

May 6th, 2016 at 12:52 PM ^

Leave Magnus alone

He's a nice dude with limited football knowledge who poses as the blog "expert" on recruiting. While he knows about as much if not less about scouting prospects than the average reader on this blog, he at least takes the time and effort to build and post stuff on his blog - which piggy-backs off of mgoblog for traffic.

He's like Uncle Rico, but in the form of a coach, and his efforts to sound more informed and knowledgeable than the rest of the board are quite redeeming if you take them for what they are worth..... a guy who wishes he could be a player, coach, or scout of some significance.

Hell, I wish I could coach football or some other sport at a high level, so in the spirit of old commercial memes...here's to you, guy who creates a blog based on pseudo-expertise which is funneled from information from the four big recruiting sites out there.  Given the lack of credentials or expertise required by said sites, I expect you can land a job at one of them, for which you have been positioning for quite some time.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1GQWsKz4GY

 

When you'd leave, the booster sets you straight. They say, You got any money in your pocket? - Maurice Clarett

Magnus's picture
Joined: 07/17/2008
MGoPoints: 80947
 
 
The funny thing is that the

The funny thing is that the only people who refer to me as an "expert" are people trying to drag me down. I don't claim to be anything more than a coach who runs a recruiting site. But don't pretend that I don't do my own writing and analysis, because that's simply untrue. If you don't like the info, then disregard it.

 

evenyoubrutus

May 6th, 2016 at 8:53 AM ^

Probably isn't worth posting its own thread so I will just add it to this one since it is relevant. Lorenz also posted a free article a couple days ago about three Michigan prospects seeing their ratings rise, especially Dillon, who got a 4th star. http://michigan.247sports.com/Bolt/Michigan-pledges-see-their-247Sports… Also some nice quotes from Wiltfong in there about St. Juste, who rose from an 82 to an 88 in their rating system.

True Blue Grit

May 6th, 2016 at 10:09 AM ^

"not getting too excited", but I think I will anyway - at least a little.  When it comes to recruiting I tend to be an eternal optimist.  And with the Harbaugh staff, there's more likelihood of some of the players actually coming here.  

FauxMo

May 6th, 2016 at 11:12 AM ^

8 crystal ballz??? Connor Cook hasn't seen that much crystal since he was shopping for an anniversary gift for his boyfriend at Swarovski (NTTAWWT)...