Behind Texas, probably because of their 5* commit.
Rivals 2012 Class Rankings Out; Michigan rated #2
Unfortunately it appears we will drop from this spot but still an outstanding class. Bring in a few more like this and we will be a powerhouse
One just came out and it ranked us 5, but since everything on ESPN recruiting is insider I couldnt see why.
Texas A&M did nothing and they were ahead of us and that time we picked up Kalis and Wilson. This led to us moving up a spot and Texas A&M moving down to 8.
They also have us as the #1 LB and OL class
A Top-10 recruiting finish I'd be happy with. Top-5 I'd be VERY pleased.
Side question: Which one is better, Rivals or Scout? I know you've porbably heard that question a lot but I'm new to the recruiting as I've started to follow it more closely reading The Wolverine magazines.
For a Michigan fan, I'd say Scout is better because they pay closer attention to the Midwest. Rivals doesn't have a Midwest analyst. In 2 or 3 years though, I would probably pick 24/7.
Scout has a midwest scout while Rivals doesn't, but I think Scout is too liberal with their rankings while Rivals is more conservative. I really don't like how Scout does 5 star rankings too.
opinions will vary on that but I would say who-ever has us ranked higher is the best one.
This is the right logic. The same goes for journalists, newspaper outlets, and former players - those who have something good to say about Michigan, at least 85% of the time, are the best.
When they make the class rankings, all they do is add up the numbers. However, without context, the numbers don't tell the story and can be misleading.
What I mean by that is that if you had a class that entirely consisted of the top 20 safeties in the country, that would be a lot of stars, and thus would be a highly rated class, from a purely numbers-driven ranking system. However, in realiity, it would be a pretty bad class.
You can rank this class wherever you want, but I think that on a practical level, it would be tough to design a class that would be much better for Michigan than the class that Hoke and Co are assembling.
We're getting players at need positions, and the players are all occupying different roles. For example, rather than getting 4 cover corners or 4 strong safeties, we got a cover CB, a boundary CB, a FS, and a SS. A ranking would typically reward more stars for 4 cover CBs, but I am quite satisfied with our ability to play all the DB positions instead.
The numbers will probably put us at around 8 or 10 nationally if this holds up, but I really think that for impact and value, this class will be one of the absolute best.
Given how the last few years have gone in the secondary, a class with the top 20 saftey prospects would be fine for me.
This year's class already has ten more points than last year's class.
I actually find that kind of surprising considering the quality is better this time, and the number of recruits is near identical.
You make a good point. I'd like to see the methodology behind the ranking process.
I'm sure we all can agree that this is the most dominating recruiting performance by a Michigan coaching staff in quite some time. I also am proud of the fact that we once again are a big time player on the national recruiting stage. By national recruiting, I don't mean recruiting from all over the nation but rather the fact that the quality of our commits takes a back seat to NO ONE!
Except Texas. And a bunch of other schools that arent anywhere near 20 recruits.
Well, why don't we play Texas in about 3 years and find out on the field who's recruiting class was better
That'd be great. But regardless of who you recruit and their stars, if you don't have the right coach you might as well recruit 2 star guys.
I believe the 2009 class was ranked 8th in the country on signing day and I read somewhere that after considering everyone who enrolled at the schools they committed to, the class was ranked 6th. Of course 4 of our top recruits (4 stars) have left the program and our 5 star is getting his first year of starting time this year, but we did get Denard out of it, so I guess this goes back to allthegreat23's point about playing Texas: we have to see it all on the field in a couple of years.
Although, the speed and just downright ridiculous surprises in recruiting have made this class very special and dominant. That being said, it will take a bunch of top recruits to keep this class a top 5. Time will tell. Also, need to keep the class together.
Trieu mentioned in an interview somewhere, the only problem with Hoke's recruiting approach might be that we might miss out on some bigger fish out there. Seeing how everything has been shaping up, he might be right.
Assuming the rest of our 5-6 commits are elite players (like it's looking will be the case), I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a top 5 class. Great for Hoke's first year, and a chance to repeat with Morris recruiting the heck out of the rest of the 2013 class
"Elite" was probably the wrong word. We have a chance to get one of the players you listed, because if Fuller visits and Denard in the system is working, that could influence him. And if our last OL spot is not taken, we can get Banner and Garnett out here for a visit. Once they visit, we have a legitimate shot. I agree with you in your assumptions though, which is why top 10 is more likely. I'm just saying it's possible to be top 5, which would be nice.
Just curious, what site are your rankings from? Usually Diamond is ahead of Bisnowaty, so it's just kind of interesting to see it the other way around
I find it interesting that Rivals says our top 3 remaining targets are Andrus Peat, Devin Fuller, and Yuri Wright. Do they actually look at each school's most important targets or do they just pick the 3 highest rated recruits that have that school listed as "interested"?
This recruiting has ALL been accomplished prior to Hoke and Mattison even coaching one single game. This is simply beyond anyone's expectation ... ANYONE!
If ... yes it is a rather large IF, U of M plays beyond the consensus opinion in 2011 (which I believe is like 7-5 or 8-4) then I believe 2012's class will become the "low" standard for 2013. We may be talking about the best recruiting classes in the B1G for years! This better have all U of M fans salivating at the potential ....
If you go by avg. star rating, our class is T5 currently at 3.5, or T6 if you include Cal's giant class of 4. Must note though that it looks like Auburn and USC are only tied or lower than our star rating due to one unranked guy in each of their classes (although USC's class will be limited, so it may not matter). I'm assuming our avg. star rating stays about the same by the time it's all said and done. I think a top 7 is easily graspable in this sense.
We have one unranked guy in there too. The FB we just picked up.
Yeah, he wasn't included initially. Now our avg. star rating is sitting at 3.33, and our total points were knocked down a couple hundred. That should change though.
Rivals WAS considered the "best" around these parts. It is all changing now from a combination of a couple things, and i'm not sure if anyone really knows how it will effect things a couple years from now. Those couple things that have changed are...
1. Rivals not having a dedicated Midwest recruiting analyst anymore
2. The advancement of 247 as a viable scouting service
Here is a basic breakdown, that i think would encapsulate most people's opinions..
ESPN still sucks
Scout is pretty good but noone likes how they handle their ranking of 5 stars
Rivals is the standard bearer but their recent lack of a midwest scout is concerning
247 is on the rise and i personally think they will be the best in a few years once they're more established.
Does anyone know why some of the sites, including Rivals, are still counting Clark's greyshirt against this class? My understanding was that he would count on 2013's class.
I still think some of these guys will move up before the final rankings. Either way, this class is a very pleasant surprise, especially the size of the guys. Good luck in your senior seasons men.