Want Link on Scout/Rivals Ranking
With the commitment of Furman, I believe we now stand at 24 commitments. With the potential commitments of Parker, Grimes, and Murphy, we would go to 27, which would be a splendid class, strongly addressing our needs on defense, particularly in the secondary. I think next year we will need more linebackers, and offensive linemen, but I'm not complaining a bit.
I am interested in knowing how Scout & Rivals (& ESPN, I suppose) calculate their rankings rating incoming recruiting classes. As it stands, on Scout, Michigan has 3153 "points" for its 24 commits to date. If that is divided by 24, this is approx. 131 points per recruit. Adding another 393 would put us at the 6th spot. Obviously, other teams will still be adding more commits, adjusting their ranking so this is all very fluid. Also, it is possible there will be decommits, etc.
If any of you know or can provide a link to how they come up with the points and ratings, it would be interesting. Is it something like 200 for a 5 star, 150 for a 4 star, 100 for a 3 star, 50 for a 2 star? Ultimately, we won't really know the strength of the class until they're on the field, etc. However, we've often talked about how "in general" a five star is better than a three star. If the so-called "experts" end up ranking our in-coming class in the 2nd five (somewhere between 6th and 10th,) this would be outside confirmation that we're heading in the right direction.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
Scout values quantity over quality moreso than does Rivals IIRC. That may be one of the reasons for the variance.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
You know the time you spent thinking about this?
Well, you're always thinking you should talk to your parents or grandparents more.
The next time you're tempted to wonder about how these rankings are determined, give your parents or grandparents a call.
It'll take the same amount of time and effort, and it will feel a lot better.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:37 PM ^
Instead of posting on a recruiting forum topic, maybe you should give your grandparents or parents a call. It will make us all feel much better.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:37 PM ^
Rivals's would be pretty easy to figure out. I might go ahead and do just that later this afternoon.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 PM ^
Other confirmation that we're heading in the right direction:
2008: 3-9.
2009: 5-7 with two true freshmen quarterbacks and six scholarship defensive backs on the roster.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:28 PM ^
...I believe the curve to be parabolic in nature as opposed to linear we will be at a minimum of 8 wins next year, possibly more depending on the nature of the particular curve. I will leave the calculus to others.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:50 PM ^
According to my scientific calculations (namely, that Rich Rod and GERG are badass), we're looking at minimum 11 wins in 2010 and Tate and Denard sharing the Heisman Trophy.
LOCK THE THREAD.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:55 PM ^
...for your corroboration and initial analysis. We'll dispense with the math for now and roll with that.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 PM ^
with 16 wins in 2012
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 PM ^
16 wins would be nice
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 PM ^
Was going to call grandma, but will go with the shared heisman and 16 wins in '12 instead.
Or maybe I should call grandma and tell her!