Updated ESPN 150
A couple of observations:
1. Penn State is getting a lot of kids from Michigan, and looks to have the best class in the Big 10. This is contra the last ten years (e.g., Michigan gets Henne, Breaston, et al. from Pennsylvania).
2. A solid class for Michigan, given that they 3-9 last year, but one of the weakest in the last ten years, I would argue, and no defensive back recruits rated above a 75 by ESPN.
Can anyone handicap our chances of landing any additional 4 star guys?
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/recruiting/tracker/espnu150?&season=2010…
November 4th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^
...2010 Recruiting Board tells you all you need to know.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^
Excellent overview!
November 4th, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^
The only M recruit on the list is DG at 117...
November 4th, 2009 at 3:38 PM ^
I think it would really be nice to see an analysis around which of the three main rating services do a better job predicting success in college and in the Big Ten in particular. I've got a simple comparison of Rivals vs. Scout that I will post when I hit 20 points and it suggests that Rivals is better at predicting top tier talent but I haven't really seen anything that includes ESPN.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:46 PM ^
Post away, I'm willing to bet a lot of us are interested in seeing your study. If it's long, post it as a diary though.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:43 PM ^
Thanks man. It's not too in-depth but I want to beef it up in the future. It's called "Rivals vs. Scout"
November 4th, 2009 at 4:11 PM ^
As hard as it is to predict how these kids will project at the college level, rivals has been kind of impressive on who they say will become a good player. They miss more with the guys they deem as unknowns, but that's just because some kids mature after hs. I don't have any statistical evidence, but they are more impressive in how they conduct their evaluation across the country with a full time staff that eats sleeps and breaths college football.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:38 PM ^
Looks like geting Tony Jefferson would be real sweet. ESPN sure loves him at #10. Even though he is not defense, he is as they say "the best on the board". Here is to whipping OSU on a nice and mild November day to really make some recruits happy and commit soon after.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^
Isiah Bell as our highest rated recruit last year.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:34 PM ^
But of course. He rules the secondary, but he hasn't played in it, in much the same way that a king doesn't deign to fight his own wars because that would make it too easy.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:14 PM ^
Bell committed to the UnderArmour game featured on ESPN and all the guys in that game got bumps...guys in Army game, ehhh not so much...
November 4th, 2009 at 7:29 PM ^
In fairness to ESPN, they rated him highly at safety and then Michigan chose to move him to linebacker. He very well might become Michigan's best recruit from 2009, but right now he's learning a new position.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:28 PM ^
And by Isaiah Bell, you mean Craig Roh...
Bell was 81, Roh 83, fwiw
November 4th, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^
(historically) has been his ability to do more with less. I am optimistic that continues even if we don't have an ass-ton of blue chips.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:55 PM ^
ESPN is awful. How is Prater that low and how is Gholston that high?
November 4th, 2009 at 5:22 PM ^
I think they are all worth looking at just because it can be difficult to predict how HS kids will mature and grow. Not to mention they are all playing against different levels of competition. All 3 get stuff wrong. For example, ESPN was really cautious about TP, and were not nearly as in love with him as Rivals and Scout. Turned out to be right. They also were not nearly as high (in fact much much lower) on Cissoko than the other two and turned out to be very right about that as well. They all get stuff wrong and its interesting to compare their reasoning. But when all 3 agree on a kid, that's a good indicator that he's pretty good.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:40 PM ^
I just don't really like ESPN. The top guys will go to Rivals and Scout, obviously. I would bet Rivals and Scout have more people working for them.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:15 PM ^
Rivals and scout has more people working for them than ESPN lol...
November 4th, 2009 at 7:43 PM ^
I think he meant as far as college football recruiting goes. Which I have no idea if that is true or not.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:09 PM ^
I'm not sure how much this means if it means anything, but while this may be shaping up to be the worst recruiting class Michigan has had since the dawn of recruiting websites, it would still rank as being better than any class RichRod had in the seven years at WVU, FWIW.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:21 PM ^
No doubt RR is recruiting better athletes (or at least higher rated) at UM than he did at WVU, but the Big Ten is not the Big East. USF & Cincinnati do not pull in the same kind of talent that Ohio State & Penn State do. It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, he is getting more athletes than he's ever had before. On the other hand, he is facing tougher teams than he has in the past. It all comes back to coaching. That's the central thesis with recruiting. You have to develop talent and coach it up or it is useless.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^
And perhaps I should have clarified that recruiting classes like this one would not be okay if they were the norm, but if this is the worst recruiting class he ever has at Michigan, I think we all should be ecstatic. Plus, I think that during those last three years, WVU would have been a competitor in the Big Ten (see wins vs. Georgia, Georgia Tech and Oklahoma -- which still counts). So in other words, all I'm trying to say is that just because the majority of these guys are not highly rated by anyone doesn't mean that none of them will pan out into good or great football players that can compete in this conference.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:39 AM ^
...three star guy...turned out all right