RR vs The Scouts

Submitted by Ziff72 on

I think this recruiting class will be very important in the ongoing internt saga of "Mike Hart was a 3 star vs OMG Florida has all 5 stars Rivals is right." With the majority of our commits being "under the radar" or "underevaluated" for years to come this class will be the Rosetta Stone for all future arguments. A huge class filled with seemingly overlooked all-state performers this is the battle ground people. Choose your weapon.

Vinopal, Carvin, Ryan, Talbott, Williamson etc...you'll either prove RR a genius in 4 years and render Scout and Rivals irrelevant on this site or you'll be the curse around the new coaches neck after RR is hanged.

"Yeah but Vinopal was a 2 star that worked out ok, Bellichick thought enough of him to start him in his secondary, Scout sucks.

"Go ahead pick out 1 person just look at it in whole Alabama, USC, Florida all get the highest rated classes."

"Then explain Utah and Boise St"

Magnus

January 18th, 2010 at 7:20 PM ^

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.

markusr2007

January 18th, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^

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
- Transfers
- 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:

1. Wins
2. The good fortune of losing fewer players than his opponents

Tim Waymen

January 18th, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^

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.

Magnus

January 18th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^

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.

Wolv77

January 18th, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^

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.

the_white_tiger

January 18th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^

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.

.ghost.

January 18th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^

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).

mejunglechop

January 18th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^

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.

Ziff72

January 18th, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^

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.

GunnersApe

January 19th, 2010 at 9:18 AM ^

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.

Magnus

January 19th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^

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.