January 5th, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
Nice! I think they've realized that RichRod loves collecting raw athletes and transforming them into exceptional players.
January 5th, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^
Does anyone else think this is strictly a CYA move by the services?
January 5th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
I don't think it is, I know it is.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^
#1: They were gonna do it anyway.
#2: Offer from Michigan forced them to reevaulate him, resulting in a third star.
#3: CYA move.
I don't know which is more likely (although I wouldn't bet on #1 just based on the timing).
January 5th, 2010 at 5:34 PM ^
Regardless of your views on the recruiting services, it's nice that Ray got some well-deserved recognition.
January 5th, 2010 at 5:43 PM ^
"Another 3 Star"............?
Three, Two, One........................
(Congrats Ray, I hope you prove the ratings services that they were at least one star shy...)
January 5th, 2010 at 5:43 PM ^
Congrats on Michigan still having the pull to force a 3rd star on a prospect. All is not lost.
January 5th, 2010 at 5:58 PM ^
Haha didn't we do the same with Carvin Johnson?
January 5th, 2010 at 5:49 PM ^
How many players get a 5*, 4*, 3* each year?
Does someone have to drop to 2 star for Ray to get 3?
January 5th, 2010 at 5:52 PM ^
Top 50 get five stars, top 300 get four stars. I'm not certain about the three stars, but I think that's how they do it for all their stars (leaving out JCs and 1 stars). Someone probably dropped, but it wasn't someone committed to UM.
January 5th, 2010 at 5:52 PM ^
he's going to be good. He can cover and tackle (something Mike Williams can't do). I do understand that I get this from watching his tape, but his ability really stood out. I can't say that for everyone in this class. There is someone (a 4 star) whos tape is not impressive. And what's up with Vlad? is he going to SS or FS?
January 5th, 2010 at 5:55 PM ^
There are so called "5 stars" that never develop further after HS. I'll take a group of 3 stars with talent that can be molded and turned into real stars any day. I never focused much on the star rating. The coaches evaluate the players and if they are good enough for the staff they are good enough for me.
January 5th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
but I have to agree. They are experts in developing and Id'ing talent....I trust their evals.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:09 PM ^
...everyone would take "a group of 3 stars with talent that can be molded and turned into real stars" over 5 stars "that never develop further after HS." Obviously. The trouble is identifying the members of those two groups ahead of time. The scouting services are far from perfect (this is why there are plenty of anecdotal stories about 2 stars who succeed and 5 stars who fail), but overall they're pretty good. After all, they too "evaluate the players." So to automatically prefer the coaches' judgment to the scouting services' judgment seems a little misguided. Anyway, I don't mean to suggest anything about Vinopal or any other Michigan recruits. And obviously we all hope each recruit exceeds star-related expectations. But the whole we-offered-him-so-don't-worry-about-anyone-else's-evaluations logic ain't so satisfying.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:20 PM ^
Is a three star (or a two star, or god-help-us) a one star who *does not bite on the fake* and makes the god damn correct zone read on 3rd and freaking 24.
That is all.
January 6th, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^
I am not going to say the scouting services are always wrong, because that is simply absurd. They are often right about MOST 5* guys, and I think that is because they receive a ton of attention throughout their HS careers. MOst of the high 4* guys are also in this boat.
Where I think the scouting services fall apart is with the lesser known guys, the guys that they initially rate low 4*, 38 or less. The general public and recruiting services don't take the time to really evaluate these guys and that is where trusting a coaches judgement to evaluate talent comes in.
They get to see them at camp, watch all their film and even go to some of their games. It is in this case where a coaches evaluation is more credible (IME) than the recruiting services.
Actually, I would even wager that a coaches evaulation should always be more credible than someone from the recruitng services. This is only my e-pinion, but I would think if they were that good at evaluating talent than they would be on a coaching staff somewhere......Just my e-pinion.
January 6th, 2010 at 5:35 PM ^
...that a coach's evaluation is more meaningful, all things being equal. But we don't get as much information from the coaches--we don't (typically) get how high a priority a player was, or how they felt he compared to players they unsuccessfully recruited, or players they didn't even bother recruiting because they didn't feel they had a reasonable shot at. We don't (typically) get a breakdown of strengths and weaknesses, etc. All we (typically) get is offer or no offer. The coaches' evaluation alone doesn't really give us a way to measure how the recruiting class stacks up to other schools' classes or even Michigan's past classes. So the more meaningful evaluations are at least partially offset by the lack of information accompanying them.
Look, I wasn't trying to suggest that the coach's evaluations weren't highly meaningful and valuable. I was just saying that they shouldn't be the end of the discussion.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
"to automatically prefer the coaches' judgment to the scouting services' judgment seems a little misguided"
If your coaches don't know more about a player they're offering than a recruiting service, you need to upgrade your coaches.
No one is saying that the recruiting services are wrong or useless. They're simply a tool, a tool based on opinion.
There's no substitute for coaches doing their own homework on a recruit.
January 5th, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^
i bet hes worried he has to perform better
January 5th, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
Tell me they don't take that adjective away when you get your third star.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
Only if the third star comes with 2 gallons of Melanin.
January 5th, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^
I hope he has moxie; Otherwise this doesn't matter.
January 5th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
So this means he's a much better player now, right?
January 5th, 2010 at 6:56 PM ^
Maybe the services found out he has a Black Uncle and now see the safety potential. Rivals and Scout hate white kids in the backfield.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:22 PM ^
Overnight growth spurt, gained 3" and 20lbs of muscle.
January 5th, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^
How exactly did he become the most loved prospect of this class? We talk about him more than Gardner, and more than all the rest of the recruits combined.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:53 PM ^
People, unable to resolve the tension between being a fan and evaluating things dispassionately, retreat into a bunker mentality where they actively and loudly try to convince themselves any low rated players comitted to Michigan have a high chance of success, outside heuristics be damned. When a highly coveted and highly rated prospect- cough Sean Parker cough, cough- commits these same posters quickly abandoned this mindset and cite the prospects Rivals 100 ranking and USC offers as justification for their particular excitement.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^
losing hankins is OK because he's just a three star
http://mgoblog.com/comment/reply/27086/337761
January 5th, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^
Vinopal syndrome is a mother bear reaction.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:00 PM ^
When this blog drinks half of their beverage, they break the top half of the glass off and say its full.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:13 PM ^
I haven't read a deconstruction that thorough, crisp, and spot on since Derrida. You may have just decribed me and I still think it's funny. Applause. Applause.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
Heuristic: experience-based techniques that help in problem solving, learning and discovery
I take it you mean by "outside heuristics" # of stars and # of other D1 offers. And by that, you mean the easily accessible quantitative rankings available on recruiting sites.
How about Vinopal is first team all state in Ohio?
Or, Carvin Johnson is First Team All State in Louisiana(Baton Rouge)?
Or that they both play for well respected programs -- Mooney is ranked #20 in the country and Rummel is ranked #6 in Louisiana?
Are we in this blog-world now ready to throw out everything and anything reported by like, you know, newspaper reporters?
Do those data mean nothing?
January 5th, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^
I mean quality of offers and rankings. I guess you could include high school accolades if you wanted to, but you would have to account for them having a much weaker correllation with success in college.
Also, even by your definition, my use of heuristics works. I get the feeling you didn't know what heuristics meant, looked it up in a dictionary, didn't fully understand and then posted that I used it wrong in a misguided attempt to make me look bad. I would say nice try, but it really wasn't.
January 5th, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
Just limited. I'd say even myopic because you're only looking at "offers and rankings", the former being guesswork and the latter speculative. I did look up heuristic in the dictionary so I could accurately play it back to you. (My bad for not crediting Wikipedia.)
But then, in your own defense you had to throw out another term from statistics -- correlation. So, professor, please fill me in on your findings with regard to the stronger correlation that exists between offers/rankings and college success versus "high school accolades" and college success.
And explain how Mike Hart (3 star) and Kevin Grady (5 star) are such anomolies in your view.
Surely, you have data?
January 5th, 2010 at 10:44 PM ^
Of course rankings and offers are limited, as heuristics, by their very nature they aren't comprehensive, they're shortcuts, essentially. The predictive value of star rankings has been well documented. Here are a few studies to get you started:
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/16635/recruiting-the-nfl-d… http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/2008/3/17/71811/4082 http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Hug-your-fr…
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/13422/nfl-stars-how-recrui…
http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/2008/1/21/1614/43228
I don't know of any study looking at the predictive nature of high school accolades and don't really want to do one mainly because I'm confident of what I'll find. Many 1st team all-staters don't even get D1 offers and those honors aren't intended to be predictive anyway. If you know of data out there that suggests my assumption is wrong, please bring it to my attention.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:54 PM ^
ignore
January 6th, 2010 at 2:45 AM ^
the phrase "unintentional dp" does not bring forth the image it necessarily should...
January 5th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^
Drew Dileo used to occupy that role.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:38 PM ^
now welcomes Ray Vinopal. Moxie,mojo,melanin-lite, and a high GPA-nice.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^
"three star mafia"
Ray Vinopal now officially qualifies.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^
With no new verbals, one verbal out of 24 gets another star. By my calculation, that's an overall increase in overall stars of about a half of 1%. Of the verbal commitments, only 7 -- the early enrollees -- give us real confidence they'll actually wear the helmet in September. And yet, this miniscule increase (Vinopal) feeds your infatuation with utter speculation.
Doesn't anybody else see how shaky this whole star and team ranking system is?
Some people on this site need to get a grip and focus on tangibles, rather than gurus.
January 5th, 2010 at 10:23 PM ^
I realize that I'm biased as a Michigan fan who knows more about Ray Vinopal than fans of any other team in the country, but I'm surprised it took that long. In my semi-educated opinion, the recruiting services look at the following:
-- Stats
-- Combine performances
-- Size
-- Speed
-- Star potential
-- Athleticism
-- Quality of team/competition
-- Regional strength (i.e. Mike Hart got dinged for playing in NY)
There are probably others, maybe even race plays a role at some positions. But those are most of the important ones. Vinopal plays for a great team, a football powerhouse, in a football state, was a star on the defense for one of the best teams in the country, went to some combines, tested quite fast, and made all state as a senior. I realize he's only 5'10" and not built like a tank, so that keeps him from a top ranking.
But when you look at the rest of those attributes, why has it taken this long to get a measly third star? Maybe the Michigan offer got him the star and maybe the services are covering their ass, but it seems like he's justified this ranking - as has Carvin Johnson.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:56 PM ^
plus one to you.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:08 AM ^
Have you ever seen a big time (4-5 Star) recruit in person? For a high school kid to get 3 stars it means he had a stellar performance in high school, no D1 recruit looked average on film. There is a big difference in the dominance Vinopal displayed and that of Devin Gardner, Lamar Woodley, or Drew Stanton (Listing players I've seen in person and got high marks). That doesn't detract from Vinopal, but it does mean hes not any bigger than a 3 star recruit based on his career to this point. Agim Shabaj killed kids all throughout high school, he was only a 3 star. He had a boat load of acalades too, but he wasn't physically up to par with 4-5 star guys, so he wasn't one.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:14 AM ^
Word, semi related anecdote: one of my best childhood friends was gatorade state player of the year of a small northeastern state, as a lineman no less, and he didn't even get rated by recruiting services. He actually got was offered to be a preferred walkon here, but decided to play in the Ivy league instead. He was actually a unanimous first team all-Ivy this year.
January 6th, 2010 at 1:11 AM ^
I don't think anyone is saying Vinopal should be a 5 star, or even a 4 star. Saying his ranking shouldn't be higher because he's not as good as Lamarr Woodley is just silly. The argument is that based on the evidence, he should be at least a 3 star, maybe even a high 3 star.
When you use the example of "4 or 5 star guys" don't use the most dominant defensive player MI has probably ever seen as your example. That's like me saying "Jimmy Clausen doesn't have any business playing in the NFL. Look at what Peyton Manning did in college, that's an NFL QB."
January 6th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
Yes, because I didn't say that I was citing players I've seen in person (Oh wait). I cited those examples as players being dominant on the field. Every five star dominates like a five star on the field, or they wouldn't get that rating, the fact that the ones I've seen have panned out is irrelevant. Vinopal does not dominate like a 5 star, not even close. He got the rating he deserves.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^
I'm sure that you're right about many first team all staters not going to D1 - especially for the lower tier class of school within a state or in states without obvious football dominance. So I concede that point I guess to some extent.
But I do wonder how many first team all-state players from the top conference within power house states like Ohio, Texas, Florida, etc. don't go to D1.... I suspect that number is small.
In the end, it doesn't really matter. Vinoplan, Johnson, and Dileo all have attributes that could add value to the team and address some of our weaknesses. Most fans are excited about them - their scouting report ranking will only matter when someone looks back on their careers five years from now.