Scout Ranks U of M in the Top Ten
September 25th, 2008 at 8:54 AM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 9:38 AM ^
What's the projection on the number of scholarships for this year...anybody. I remember Brian or maybe the GBW blog guys saying 21/22 or maybe even a full class if a few move on/are not invited back!!
Campbell plus a OL a LB (Jenkins) DE (montgomery/Ankrah) and Thames or Gordon would be a real good finish. If we can reel in Hawkins it would be even better!
September 25th, 2008 at 8:58 AM ^
Current commitments.
How many more guys can they bring in? And will Sheridan still be on scholarship next year, or is it a one year deal?
September 25th, 2008 at 9:09 AM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 9:34 AM ^
According to scout 18th. WVU recruiting rankings according to scout:
2002-#33, 2003-#57, 2004-#53, 2005-#33, 2006-#56, 2007-#18.
In case you're wondering, 2008-#36 & 2009-#19
September 25th, 2008 at 9:15 AM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 9:46 AM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 9:49 AM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 12:04 PM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 10:55 AM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 10:56 AM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 11:08 AM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 12:10 PM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 11:22 AM ^
If you are pissed about the rankings you shouldn't be. Here are the stats for a couple of schools above us.
#4 Auburn 25 commits 2 in top 100 avg rating 3.20
#8 Texas A&M 24 commits 0 in top 100 avg rating 3.04
# 10 Michigan 18 commits 2 in top 100 avg rating 3.39
So simply because those two team have 6-7 more commits than we do, they are rated higher with worse players on average. Looking at the players we are still in it for, there is no way we won't move up come signing day.
Complete listing here: http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2009
September 25th, 2008 at 12:23 PM ^
It always has been. I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
" Scout.com team football recruiting rankings are based on the Talent, Need and Balance
of players committed to that school. We consider only players who have
made a Verbal or Soft Verbal commitment to that school. We include high
school, prep school and junior college players in our analysis.
Talent - This category reflects the quality of players committed
to that school. Teams must recruit difference-makers throughout their
class to obtain a high ranking.
Need - This is analysis of whether the team needs are being met
at each position. This value is capped per position type (i.e., a team
does not receive extra credit for overloading at a position).
Balance - Teams must be represented at every position by players
of each body type. Securing balance in every recruiting class is a
necessity due to the injuries and attrition that are part of college
football.
"
September 25th, 2008 at 1:10 PM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 1:15 PM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 12:55 PM ^
That's sort of bizarre. Rivals just assigns each recruit a number of "points" based purely on skill, and then tallies it up, I believe.
I never understood the "OUR TALENT IS SO AMAZING ALL THE TIME" meme espoused by Wolverine1987 - true, we have always recruited well, but VERY rarely have we even been top 5, and we have frequently been out of the top 10. #6 is a good class for Michigan. Period.
See below:
2002: #16
2003: #17
2004: #5
2005: #6
2006: #13
2007: #12
2008: #10
2009: (as of now) #6
So, this class is about as good as we have ever done. So far. So chill.
September 25th, 2008 at 1:12 PM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 1:16 PM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 1:16 PM ^
Why the hell does it matter if we are #8 or #4? Because we get an extra win for being in the Top 5 on Rivals?
I do believe that recruiting rankings are important. If you get a lot of good players, you'll probably do pretty well. So I guess the way I look at it, as long as you are in the upper echelon (top 15ish), you'll be alright.
Worrying about the difference between being the #8 class and in the "Top 5" is dumb. Pure, disgusting, unappealing, short-sighted, shallow-minded dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
September 25th, 2008 at 2:26 PM ^
September 25th, 2008 at 2:42 PM ^
I think it's more important to see how we stack up against the other Big Ten teams. If we are 8th, and every team ahead of us is an SEC team or USC, I'm cool with it, since we may not play any of those teams with those recruits.
What interests me more is how well we do against the Big Ten and ND. If we have a top 5 class, but we are below OSU, ND and some other Big Ten team, albeit unlikely, that would be worse in my book than if our class was 12th but we were ahead of all of our likely opponents. It's all relative people.
September 25th, 2008 at 2:56 PM ^
who cares? we'll be fine. michigan fans have got to be the most paranoid college f'ball fans (and i'm included). but seriously, its september and people are arguing and bitching about our class ranking which isn't finalized until february. and even when they are, which will open a whole new can of shit, everyone will bitch and argue about where we are then... w/o having seeing any of these guys play a down of college football.
guys, relax. take a deep breath and relax. we're looking good. richrod is in the beginning of a long process of putting our program back on top. this is getting ridiculous hearing so many people bitch about recruiting or how we're doing this year. WE'RE REBUILDING.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:02 PM ^
IIRC Alabama fans are just absolutely nuts. I think that fans could be a lot worse. Take a look at Louisville, for example. Rick Pitino made a public statement asking fans to take it easy of Steve Kragthorpe, who still needs time to clean up Petrino's mess (Petrino apparently didn't discipline his players at all). And look at some of the booster scandals at Alabama and Auburn, where that really rich guy tried to push Tuberville out. Ridiculous. Fine, not the entire fanbase, but you get the idea.
Are Michigan fans nuts? Sure they are. But there are other cases that make Michigan fans seem tame.