Small sample sizes don't yield conclusive results. This class isn't going to prove anything.
RR vs The Scouts
"Then explain Utah and Boise St"
Had they played an SEC, ACC, or a Big Ten team in their bowl game they would have looked just as poor as Cincy did against UF. High rated recruiting classes are not the end all be all indicator of a good football team but there still very revealing in regards to a teams potential.
Last I checked, Alabama was in the SEC. So, Utah did not look as poor as Cincy did last year when they beat Bama in the Sugar Bowl.
Good point...I think the question is not whether Utah or Boise win or lose,rather did they compete when facing elite teams,I think the answer is yes.
I agree, and Boise State also beat a very good Oregon team this year.
Exactly. I don't think those comments above are fair. Most people would have said the same about the Boise team that beat Oklahoma, had they never had the opportunity to play.
You can't write off teams just because they don't match on paper. There's more to sports than individual players.
I think a better argument is to determine how the boise's and utah's would fare in better conferences. Obviously, they wouldn't go undefeated, but I think they'd be able to compete.
I think most coaches would probably agree that sports results are largely determined by collective talent. Coaching and scheme are less variable in quality as you go up in level. This is part of Utah and Boise's success formula, actually. The benefit to being the big fish in a small pond is that these teams do have an actual (as opposed to Weisian) coaching/schematic advantage during in-conference play. I imagine it's also easier to preserve the talent needed to keep up with the best for a bowl game if you're in a lesser conference and regularly out-matching competition. So if there's anything that Boise and Utah confirm, it's that they have the talent to play with those programs. But it's still important to their success that they only have to do it for a few games a season.
Again recruiting classes (or SoS) are not an end all be all indicator of which team is going to win on a given Saturday.
But TCU and Boise both had easier paths to BCS games than most of their counter parts. And when you compare Boise 2009 (ranked 96th) to Utah 2008 (ranked 56th) you're making the point for me.
Hypothetical lines this year (neutral field):
TCU -13 over ND
BSU -15 over ND
TCU -17 over M
BSU -8 over M
Those teams are good. To compare them to Cincy, who beat NOBODY, is disingenuous.
Nobody? The then 21st ranked S. Florida, 25th ranked WV and 15th ranked pitt. All games which were not 1st week upsets, it wasn't a top 10 schedule strength wise but it wasn't 12 nobodies?
Of the final AP top 10 Cincy finished 6th in SOS ahead of OSU, PSU, Boise and TCU. I am not sure how you calculated your lines but they're pretty far off.
I pulled the numbers out of my ass actually.
Look, ND and UM couldn't stop anyone, and shot themselves in the foot on offense a ton.
USF finished 7-5? WVU beat nobody. Pitt's best win was ND. Hmmm, yeah.
Boise and TCU would jailsex UM and ND this year. Let's just accept it.
I wouldn't expect either ND or UM to win against TCU or Boise, odds would definitely be against both teams, fully agree
that the strength of your recruiting is by no means a reflection of your record. Look at all the highly rated classes that have resulted in numerous seasons of around 500 FB.
happen. And when they do, that does not mean that the upsetting team is better. or that their conference is as good. Or do you think Toledo and App State were actually better teams than us?
You, of all people, should know that Cincy had their heart ripped out of the team weeks before their bowl game... after losing Kelly, they were not the same undefeated team.
51-24, and 30-3 at the end of the first half, that is not all because of Kelly not being there
You better hope it is, actually, or you just got a lemon of a head coach.
2 stars: 64
3 stars: 19
4 stars: 2
5 stars: 0
2 stars: 3
3 stars: 17
4 stars: 50
5 stars: 15
One of the teams is Florida and the other team is Cincinnati, which do you think is which? At a certain point in time, a team made of entirely 2 and 3 star players will have a very low probability to win against the best teams in the country.
But you forgot that recruiting rankings don't matter =)
...to *NOT* look at this as RR vs. the scouts. Both RR and "the scouts" make a living (at least in part) evaluating high school talent. There are reasons to prefer Rodriguez's "evaluations": he is probably better at evaluating talent (all things being equal), especially talent that fits within his own system than most "scouts" (he's paid a hell of a lot more to do so). There are reasons to prefer the scouts' evaluations: we get more information (like actual evaluations); we get strengths weaknesses and comparisons to other recruits around the country, they might be more objective.
The more underrated recruits Rodriguez can find the better--he seems pretty good at it. But nothing a few 2 or 3 star recruits do here or there should render the evaluations of either "irrelevant." A sensible analysis of a recruiting class should take both RR's and the scouts' evaluations into account. As dumb as "Rivals is right" is (has anyone ever suggested Rivals/Scout is always right, or even close?), so is "star/recruiting ratings don't matter at all." Why the two extremes?
My money is on the coaches. I get a feeling that sometimes measurables are overweighted in comparison to actually playing the game of football.
I totally agree. I have to words for mesurables... Dion Lewis! They said that kid was to small and his offer list was Miami( noit that one) and Tulane. I say he worked out fairly well. The haters on this page need to trust the coaches who have watched a lot more film then most on here. If these 2 and 3*s don't cut it, then fire up the torches and grab the pitchforks. While your at, if a 5* doesn't cut it, you better have the same response!
First, the nice thing about sleepers is that the program isn't depending on them to succeed; RichRod has a lot more riding on DG's success than on Ray Vinopal. They don't need ALL of their stretches to pay off.
Second, a lot of these guys are rated lower because they (a) need time in the weight room (paging Dr. Barwis, Dr. Barwis to the weight room please...) or (b) are tweeners. Davion Rogers might not fit as a traditional OLB or as a DE, but he's ideal as a Deathbacker. I know it's cliche, but some guys fit certain systems.
and I think these kids will fit the system just fine.
And I really wish we were better at executing our system...
Boise st. and Utah play in mediocre to horrible conferences, although i would love to eat my words if one of them wins a title soon. Rich Rod just seams to have a knack for developing players, which i have nothing wrong with but the (uninformed) fan base doesn't have the time for. Rival's has that thing where it tells you what a 5 star means and it says that they have peaked at their potential and can make an early impact and have the biggest chance at the NFL. The 3 stars on the other hand have more untapped/raw potiental/talent for coaches like Rich Rod.
is very often a 4-star without NFL-level sex-appeal. These recruiting rankings are good for the most part - but they shouldn't deter you from thinking a guy like Vinopal or, psst, Vincent Smith can be successful at the college level.
There's no question about it, we have a lot of committed recruits without a whole lot of guru bite. If Michigan football were back in its winning ways, a 20th ranked class is a little disappointing. However, we are a team that's won just 8 games and has been mocked mercilessly since Rich took over. But we're still making our recruiting mark. A lot of the kids Rich has brought in have already made a name for themselves. Here's to hoping that about half this class comes out the same way. Hey, it wouldn't be any worse a success rate than Carr's last few classes.
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but Vincent Smith hasn't proven anything yet. Outside of DSU, his numbers were very pedestrian. Touting him as a success story is jumping the gun a bit.
One interesting quirk of statistics:
Vincent Smith is already as prolific as Brandon Minor when it comes to scoring TDs in The Game, and, even if he never plays another down for Michigan, will have produced more against Ohio State than Carlos Brown.
Let's not assume that this is the ideal class that RR would pull together. He is still dealing with the albatross that is 3-9 (as well as 5-7), and add in that it is a huge class in terms of numbers and he is trying to address some glaring needs, and the class is skewed.
The telling class will be after RR has a few years of 9+ wins. And when he has the ability to be more selective because there aren't the glaring needs and only 18-22 kids in the class. If he is still targeting guys more on fit than on Rivals/Scout stars, then it will be telling. At this point, there is a lot of noise in the system.
This is a good class given the circumstances, which are 3-9, 5-7 and bad press. I commend the coaching staff, and if we are rated mid-teens by Rivals and Scout after all of this, that is a really solid recruiting job IMO. But it is not the ideal class or the class the coaches wanted--that's why we offered Seastrunk, Prather, Baxter, Henderson and other 5 starts but didn't (likely) get them. Once we win, we'll get a couple of those type of guys. And we'll be ranked higher.
in that it addresses needs, but is anyone else concerned that it might be a little slow on the defensive side?
Yeah, I too have been worrying that the numbers our recruits have made up about themselves aren't as impressive as the numbers other schools' recruits have made up about themselves.
If I were going to pick and choose, I would try and talk a couple of those guys from the Florida locker room's 40-yard-dash wall of fame into coming to Michigan, and bringing their irrelevant, unreliable statistics with them.
but I think Florida has had a pretty good run since Meyer got there.
you are RIGHT. We NEED to have a giant bulletin board in our lockerroom with BS numbers that have no basis in reality.
ZOMG NARD DOG RAN A 3.9 40 WHILE STILL BENCH PRESSIN' 250 39 TIMES.
I think the defense lacked speed last year, and I was hoping they would address this more in recruiting. Williams, Kovacs, and Floyd looked slow in particular. I know a lot of high school 40 times are BS, but there has to be some metric to measure speed. It is of value in football.
I like this class as well. Also it seems that a large amount of 5 star talent ends up being 3 star talent in the end, and a good amount of three stars end up at four or five stars in the end.
Yeah but Mike Hart was a 3-star who had almost 1,500 rushing yards as a freshman. He was clearly underrated.
But maybe a better example would be Dion Lewis for Pitt. 3-star, offers from Toledo, Miami (OH), and Pittsburgh - put up 1,800 yards rushing as a Freshman.
I would like this class even more if we had a serious, fast, 220# middle linebacker. Any body check out David Harris yesterday?
I believe David Harris was a three star. Turned out to be a five.
i'm not looking for a 5 star mlb, i'm not seeing any mlb at all. not in this class. and not on the roster last year. got to have a quality mlb in this league to stop the run. we don't and we haven't and (please correct me if i'm wrong), we won't again in the fall.
One reason that we might have lower rated recruits is that we also might utilize tweener recruits more than other teams. I think the deathbacker position in GERG's defense is best suited for a tweener type like Roh, or now Rogers.
tweeners won't plug the middle. we have to defend against big 10 running backs, with monster o linemen in front of them. we got wisconsin, penn st., osu, iowa, msu, sending big backs up the middle. tweeners won't cut it.
The point I was trying to make is that tweeners can be productive deathbaker or quick position in GERG's defense. It seems that GERG wants certain type of players for at those positions. Like Brian said about Rogers, he might be rated lower because he is a tweener. If the coaches want him, that is fine by me.
I agree that we need the typical ILB that can stop the run. I have trust in GERG's system and his system. The two positions that he coached played well relative to the other LB positions.
I think one of our current commits will play some MLB, whether it's Kinard or Ryan. They're not really tweeners, in my opinion. They're definitely linebackers - it's just a matter of what kind.
It's what you can keep!
There's a lot stacked up there against RR, or any college football coach for that matter:
- Must redshirts
- Career Ending Injuries
- Flame outs (quit the team)
- Non-Con's (highly rated players that ride the pine)
- Dismissals (legal issues, grades or other)
Here's something to consider about Michigan:
2004 Class (Carr): 22 commits, attrition of 8 = 14 yield
2005 Class (Carr): 23 commits, attrition of 12 = 11 yield
2006 Class (Carr): 19 commits, attrition of 4 = 15 yield
2007 Class (Carr): 20 commits, attrition of 8 = 12 yield
2008 Class (RR): 24 commits, attrition of 5 = 19 yield
2009 Class (RR): 22 commits, attrition of 1 (Witty) = 21 yield
2010 Class (RR): 26 commits, attrition of ?
I'm sure RR will see more losses of players in the future, and pre 2010 season too! It's the nature of the game. But fortifying the roster and having developed the players that end up staying at Michigan will be what determines RR's fate. He's a pretty good recruiter. What RR desperately needs right now are just two things:
2. The good fortune of losing fewer players than his opponents
I don't mean to sound like a self-righteous killjoy prick (then again, I don't work for the Freep), but IMO I think that automatically assuming that a 3* guy is "under the radar" makes us look delusional. I'm sure it could be the case with a number of recruits and I'm sure that RR is a fine evaluator of talent, plus all the other criticisms of the prospect rating system. I do think that these guys should be competent players who provide badly needed depth. And who knows? Hopefully a number of them will be standout players. But I don't think that every guy has a lower Rivals rating just because of lack of size and football experience.
I am pretty excited about Carvin Johnson and Christian Pace though. I really like what that coach from Louisiana had to say about Carvin. He's got pretty decent height too.
I agree. People around here refer to virtually every 3-star as a "sleeper" or "underrated" or "under the radar"...even when they're players that have been firmly on the national radar (Jeremy Jackson, Ricardo Miller) or when their brothers play major college football (Jake Ryan, Austin White). If your brother plays in the Big Ten, there's a good chance that you are being watched by some major colleges, even if you're not that good.
Or when they're first team all state in Ohio for a powerhouse program.
Recruiting involves going after players you want and based on the offers that most 4* and 5* kids receive it's obvious that they are wanted by many of the top schools. Having said that, once recruits start committing it becomes a game of who can we get not just who do we want. The other problem is that top recruits often don't decide until later in the recruiting process and it's critical to have plan B's in place as well.
Sometimes coaches are able to identify talent that is over looked by the recruiting services or maybe a kid that is just the right fit for one program and not for another.
In general, great coaching plus great recruiting classes beat great coaching plus good recruiting classes. And most of the sucessful programs year in and year out have both.
This debate has been discussed ad nauseum, but IME:
5-stars are typically better than 3-stars
There is far too small of a sample size to prove that 3-stars can be as good as 4-stars or 5-stars in general. Proportionally, there are more 4-star and 5-star contributors than 3-star contributors.
Not every 3-star is a sleeper. To assume that every 3-star we recruit is under the radar or underrated is so partisan to the point that it is delusional.
Using smaller programs to say that lowly-ranked players can compete is also a poor argument. Also, for every Boise State win over Oklahoma (which was too close to discern anything from that game, other than that Boise ran a lot of trick plays) or Alabama loss to Utah, there is a Hawai'i loss to Georgia or a Cincinatti loss to Florida (if you think this was because of Kelly, you are searching for an excuse as to why Cincinatti got thoroughly dominated, a coach doesn't make up a 27 point difference at halftime). There is too small a sample size there also. Utah beating Alabama doesn't prove your argument. Irish was right about the strength of schedule point too.
This discussion is pointless.
Somebody on this board put together some stats on the likelihood of the various star-rated players' chances of becoming All Americans.
The percentage of 5-stars who become All Americans is higher than that of 4-stars, which is higher than that of 3-stars.
I think Vinopal might have an inherent PAD LEVEL advantage with his subterranean legs
Rich Rod may very well agree with the scouts on a lot of these player rankings. I GUARANTEE you that this class would look a lot different if we were undefeated last year (with all due respect to this year's class, which is composed of kids who play football better than I will ever do anything in my life).
Don't beat yourself up like that.
You are excellent at self-deprecation.
The thing that always seems to get obscured in the coaches vs recruiting services squabbles is that this is almost always a false dichotomy. Players who rank highly almost always have the coach approval (offer lists) to match. When we get a lower rated recruit without a great offer list and people say, "trust the coaches" what they really mean is trust OUR coaches and ignore all those other skeptical ones.
I think your argument is a false dichotomy, not getting an offer from a coach does not necessitate the coach being a skeptic of the players abilities or talent.
My argument doesn't need that to be necessarily true, only generally.
I think this qualifies as ironic. I put up a farcical post about the silly debate about star rankings and include a theoretical debate about such rankings and then the thread melts down with just such debates.
That post went over like Dennis Miller in Columbus.
The star ranking only projects to the NFL. A 5-4 star kid is being projected to the NFL level, not if he'll excell in college. I heard that on this board a long time ago. So as long as were a college powerhose and not an NFL (Bo Era) factory I'm fine with it.
How many people in the NFL didn't excel in college?
(Drew Stanton slowly raises his hand)
His point is that the star ratings are a gauge for determining success in the NFL. There are plenty of players who look like they could be solid college players but might not project to the NFL due to size, speed, etc. For example, a guy like Tate Forcier might be pre-empted from being a 5-star because he lacks ideal NFL size.
I get his point. My point is that NFL-projected players are STILL better to have.