Recruiting Streak Ending?

Submitted by umhero on

In light of this recruiting race to the finish, I thought I'd review the history of recruiting.  I'd already known Michigan has been a dominant recruiter but I wanted to clarify my opinion.

Below is a table showing Scout's recruiting rankings for the Big Ten since 2002 (all the data they had):

Things to consider:

  • Michigan hasn't ever had a class ranked lower than 19th Nationally.
  • Michigan has never had class ranked lower than 3rd in the Big Ten.
  • Only Ohio St. and Penn State have ever had classes that ranked higher than Michigan in the Big Ten.
  • Michigan classes ranked on average in the top 10 for the period.
  • Over the nine classes before this one, Michigan had 4 top classes, 3 second ranked classes, and 2 third ranked classes in the Big Ten.

While I realize this data is limited, I think it's safe to say that it is reflective of our history.  I'm sure we all agree that recruiting rankings aren't perfect, however they do correlate to success.  Let's hope Hokes race to the finish allows us to try to keep our top three streak alive and our streak of beating State for recruits.

BTW- I reviewed Rivals rankings as well and the results are nearly identical.  Their data wouldn't copy and paste well so I stuck with Scout.

Also - Indiana is pathetic.

Edit - I replaced the table with an image of the table for size.  I hope you can still read it.

white_pony_rocks

January 21st, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^

do you not think we will fill all of our spots?  Maybe im wrong but i think we have 20 scholarships for this year, we have 11 right now per rivals.  if we can get 5 4* and 4 3* then that gives us 8 4* and 12 3* recruits.  looking at the team rankings, sure we might not pass south carolina and arkansas just because of our disadvantage in numbers but we should be able to pass louisvill, ole miss, and stanford

hailtothevictors08

January 21st, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

with a top class had we keep rich rod ... he had 2 rivals 5 stars locked in with hart and frost along with the others we have lost out on

i also believe if we had gotten harbaugh in early december we'd have been stacked

the truth is you cant change to a non super famous coach in mid jan and get a good class

Sven_Da_M

January 21st, 2011 at 4:37 PM ^

... I can't stand the moronic "we could have had Harbaugh if..." drivel.

There's no way he would jam Andrew Luck like that.

RichRod recruited highly-ranked, fast ninjas who got their asses kicked by MSU, PSU, tOSU and Wiscy.

Hoke-a-mania, Baby!

 

MGoPHILLY

January 21st, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

Things to consider: 

1.  Quantity doesn't equal quality.  The recruiting services rank based on a point system.  Therefore, teams are punished for taking smaller classes, and schools who oversign are rewarded.  IMO, a better indicator of the class would be average star ranking.

2.  A lot can happen in between now and signing day.  I expect to see us add another 7-9 recruits in this class.  This will give us a huge jump in the rankings.

Tha Stunna

January 21st, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^

1.  Quantity correlates with quality.  When you have stars and no depth, you're extremely vulnerable when you get JT Turner or Cissoko.  Oversigning helps a school even if it's immoral.  Average star ranking is only part of the picture.

2. 7-9 more recruits with the same star average would be a miracle.  RR had a great track record and an exciting new offense, and I don't think he got 9 recruits.

mgoSk

January 21st, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^

Look at who's in front of UM at this point though. At the end of the signing period I expect that we'll recover a fair amount relative to the Big Ten simply by getting more guys, quantity counts for these rankings and UM's class is like 2/3's filled. Nationally, though, I'd be surprised if we made inroads there, say crack the top 25 (which right now, only has one big ten team in it according to your research, although I'd imagine Nebraska is in there).

Skiptoomylou22

January 21st, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^

whatever freshman we get shouldnt even be playing this year (unless ya know, theyre good) so the size of this class doesnt bother me, especially with the core of our team being Soph-Juniors

mfandet

January 21st, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^

How did those top ranked classes work out?  Find the right talent get it here, dont worry about number of stars, in my opinion I think looking at the other schools offered mean more then a star rating.

swaglikeM

January 21st, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^

it's all about how you play with the talent you have.  TCU may get 4 4*'s a year if that and they beat our conference champion.  We get 5 * players who end up kicked off the team and performing terribly when they are on the field.  It's nice on signing day for hype for the coming season but that's about it until they perform on the field.

MrVociferous

January 21st, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^

I remember looking this up at one point in time, but I don't think Boise State has averaged better than like the 80th best recruiting class over the last 10 years or so.  They are pretty consistently in the 70-90 range.  Also, I believe Kellen Moore only had scholarship offers from E. Washington, Idaho, and Boise St....he turned out kinda OK.

So while recruiting rankings are a decent overall indicator of talent you're bringing in to the program, they are only a small piece of the puzzle.  Just because you have a Ferrari, doens't mean you know how to drive it like a pro.

Magnus

January 21st, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^

I don't want to close the book on Michigan's recruiting just yet.  Michigan's looking good for several recruits, and you never know what might happen in these next couple weeks.  I think Mattison is going to be a boon for Michigan, if not now, then in the next couple years while he's here.  We might pull a few 4-stars before all is said and done.

mejunglechop

January 21st, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^

Remember everyone last year emphatically saying recruiting was not down and that it was a good class? People who pointed out how many middling three stars we took became the "3 star mafia" and Ray Vinopal was lionized. It was easily Michigan's biggest class since the recruiting sites started and also easily the lowest ranked. It's amazing how in the tank some people were for Rodriguez. And before OSU it's not like this class was shaping up to be great either. When he wasn't riding the massive hype train in 2008, Rodriguez just didn't get results recruiting. And don't get me started on  the roster imbalances.

Magnus

January 21st, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^

I agree that 2010 was a bit of a downer, but I still like what we got in 2009. 

Denard Robinson, Tate Forcier, Quinton Washington, Cam Gordon, Taylor Lewan, Craig Roh, Fitzgerald Toussaint.

There are a few role players in the rest of 'em, but that's a pretty solid crew.  Everyone but Forcier from the above group could turn out to be very good.  Lewan might be a superstair, Roh could be if used correctly, and I think Toussaint will be a stud whenever he's healthy.  Obviously Denard is already in the Heisman discussion, and Cam Gordon could be All-Big Ten as long as he's not playing free safety.

WolvinLA2

January 21st, 2011 at 5:17 PM ^

I agree with that - hopefully we can add Mike Jones, Will Campbell, Michael Schofield and Je'Ron Stokes after this year.  All of those guys (outside of BWC) haven't had a chance to really shine yet since they've had good players ahead of them, but I think all of them have potention to be more than role players.

robpollard

January 21st, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^

According to chart above, Michigan had the #12 class in the nation class last year, 2nd best in the Big 10 - better than OSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. The other two RR years were #14 and #6, which is pretty darn good.  How was recruiting "down? B/c you don't like Ray Vinopal?

And before OSU this year, we had commitments (silent or otherwise) from 5-stars Hart and Frost, 4-stars Crawford, Fisher and Bryant, 3 star Lucien, and a top K (I'm probably missing one or two others).  Who knows what would have changed (e.g., Dee Hart), but that class would have certainly been Top 20.  Now we'll be lucky to be Top 30.

The biggest recruiting problem on the above list was that #2 class in 2005 was an absolute time bomb.  That class had so many flameouts and injuries even before RR set on campus (Bass, Forcier, Germany, McKinney, Richards, Schifano, Sears, Simpson, Slocum, Zribel, and even Grady if you count his off the field problems) that it might be one of the most overrated classes in the history of college football.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/commitments/2005/m…

Magnus

January 21st, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

The signees in February 2010 weren't bad, but by the time the season started, Michigan had already lost 5 of those guys - most notably the best recruit from the entire class, Demar Dorsey.  It was kind of a weak year when all was said and done.  A few guys will probably be good (Gardner, Marvin Robinson, Hagerup), but I think that ranking was a bit inflated.

robpollard

January 21st, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^

1) Yes, that ranking is def. a little inflated (e.g., Dorsey), but I have no idea if other teams lost their top guy (e.g, MSU just lost their #2 guy, Boisture) as well.  I will assume they did not lose as many as we did, though, so perhaps the ranking falls 5 or so places in reality.  It's still a top 3 Big 10 class.

2) The much bigger point, of course, is it is WAY too early to tell how good the 2010 class is. All we can talk about is how it was ranked at the time, which was the point of the post.  In the end, it almost certainly won't be an all-timer class, but who knows how good or bad Furman, Pace, Avery, Black etc will be.

mejunglechop

January 21st, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^

According to Rivals it was our worst year. They had us at 20th. That number is inflated because it's the biggest signing class we've ever had and it counts 5 guys who didn't make it through fall camp- also easily the biggest number since '02. I have no problem with Ray Vinopal, I just think it's silly how many people were saying he was a stud for no discernable reason other than to defend Rodriguez's decision to offer him. Compare that class to our others and look at the percentage of 4+* and the percentage of middling (5.6) 3 star recruits or worse. But that doesn't tell the whole story- we took 5 receivers last year, no nose tackles and one olineman! Look at how many slot receiver/running backs scholarships we've spent and we don't have a game breaker at either.

Umichmadness

January 21st, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^

Remember last year the class was good but not great, then RR wrapped up real nice with Dorsey (even though he didn't show) and others. It helped save the class, so give hoke a chance, he's doing pretty well for coming in so shorthanded.

jaggs

January 21st, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

I don't know why the sites don't do this, but Nebraska should IMO be considered BT for this years class. These players are coming to Nebraska knowing they will be playing in the Big Ten. They currently have a great class and push M even further down.

Mlegacy

January 21st, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^

This is a transition period and needs to be taken in to account. Even if this class finishes outside of the top 20, I wouldn't consider it the end of a streak, whatever that entails. Its really just a hiccup based solely on recruitng sites which is another argument I won't get in to. I've got faith in this class and we are filling positions of need which is the important thing.