Way-Too-Early Ranking of 2012 Blue Chip Recruiting
Well, the allegedly doomed flight of recruiting class 2011 has been brought in for a relatively safe landing by the crew of Hoke, Mattison, et. al. Great job guys, you are our new heroes! So, is it too soon to start obsessing about the 2012 recruiting class? Of course it is, but let's do it anyway!
The consensus around here seems to be that the 2012 class may be on the smallish side and, gee, wouldn't it be nice to bring in a star-studded crop of elite beasts? For my first ever diary-esque posting, I thought I would take a look at the early data on Scout.com regarding four and five star prospects, and where they might be looking.
I've decided to call this the "Blue Chip Radar Scan", as it attempts to gauge how many blue chip players various schools have on their radar (or, conversely, what schools are in the recruits' sights). To be sure, this is very long range radar; more like a Distant Early Warning System. There is plenty of time and opportunity for the picture to change dramatically, but I thought it would be fun to get an early sense of how much ground Michigan would need to gain to run with the big dogs in terms of snagging their share of the most-prized recruiting prospects.
We can't build a proper table without trying to rank the teams. The rankings are based on a simple and admittedly flawed point system. A five star commit is worth 5 points, a four star commit is worth 4 points and being on the interest list is worth 5 or 4 points, respectively, divided by the number of teams on the interest list. This roughly corresponds to an expected value for final blue chip point count, if you give each listed school an equal chance to land a recruit (sure, that's not realistic, but hey, this is just a long range view).
Disclaimers: There are caveats a-plenty, including the usual rants dismissing the validity of star ratings, the limitation to Scout-only data, and the very preliminary status of player ratings, commitments, and interest lists. You can also speculate on different schools emphasizing early vs. late recruiting or employing wide-net vs. narrowly-focused strategies. No definitive conclusions are to be drawn here; it's just intended to provide some fun numbers to look at.
With that in mind, here are your top 20 teams on the inaugural Blue Chip Radar Scan:
Rank | Team |
5 Star Commits |
4 Star Commits |
5 Star Interested |
4 Star Interested |
Points |
2011 Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Alabama | 0 | 3 | 8 | 36 | 41.10 | 67 |
2 | Ohio State | 0 | 3 | 2 | 23 | 33.24 | 63 |
3 | USC | 1 | 1 | 8 | 21 | 27.93 | 61 |
4 | Florida | 0 | 1 | 8 | 34 | 26.68 | 41 |
5 | Florida State | 0 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 25.72 | 65 |
6 | LSU | 0 | 1 | 3 | 24 | 19.41 | 48 |
7 | Texas | 0 | 1 | 3 | 16 | 17.04 | 64 |
8 | Texas A&M | 0 | 1 | 2 | 17 | 15.99 | 16 |
9 | Tennessee | 0 | 0 | 6 | 28 | 14.36 | 36 |
10 | Notre Dame | 0 | 0 | 5 | 25 | 10.86 | 44 |
11 | Miami (Fl) | 0 | 0 | 3 | 23 | 10.24 | 18 |
12 | Georgia | 0 | 0 | 3 | 21 | 9.72 | 58 |
13 | UCLA | 0 | 0 | 3 | 18 | 8.72 | 9 |
14 | Auburn | 0 | 0 | 5 | 19 | 8.58 | 66 |
15 | Oklahoma | 0 | 0 | 5 | 12 | 7.57 | 36 |
16 | Oregon | 0 | 0 | 4 | 15 | 7.02 | 53 |
17 | California | 0 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 6.14 | 37 |
18 | South Carolina | 0 | 0 | 3 | 13 | 6.02 | 25 |
19 | Michigan | 0 | 0 | 2 | 14 | 5.74 | 20 |
20 | Michigan State | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 5.40 | 17 |
What about just Big Ten teams? Okay, here are the Big Ten schools plus Notre Dame.
Rank | Team |
5 Star Commits |
4 Star Commits |
5 Star Interested |
4 Star Interested |
Points |
2011 Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Ohio State | 0 | 3 | 2 | 23 | 33.24 | 63 |
10 | Notre Dame | 0 | 0 | 5 | 25 | 10.86 | 44 |
19 | Michigan | 0 | 0 | 2 | 14 | 5.74 | 20 |
20 | Michigan State | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 5.40 | 17 |
21 | Nebraska | 0 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 5.37 | 37 |
27 | Penn State | 0 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 4.91 | 24 |
36 | Northwestern | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 3.93 | 0 |
43 | Iowa | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 3.45 | 16 |
51 | Purdue | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 2.32 | 4 |
53 | Illinois | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2.19 | 4 |
56 | Wisconsin | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1.92 | 4 |
65 | Indiana | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1.20 | 0 |
89 | Minnesota | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.29 | 0 |
What do we make of all this? Well, for that you can just talk amongst yourselves. For my part, I won't try to draw any profound conclusions, but it is somewhat startling to see almost half of the top-rated guys listing Alabama. And USC; weren't they supposed to be in the midst of hard times? Half of the Big Ten seems destined to make their bones on the backs of 3-star and below talent (so what else is new). Minnesota; ouch. Just a single four star OG listing them among 13 other suitors.
As for Michigan, the Hokester and company have some serious ground to close to raise thier profile with big name players to the same level as the evil empire to the south. That's somewhat understandable, given the tumultuous transition, but recent recruiting efforts suggest that the staff will work hard and have some success making headway in that direction.
February 8th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^
Scout is sooooo far off on their boards right now. They're not covering a fraction of the guys that have interest in M/that M has interest in. It's the nature of the game, it's simply too early. But a good analysis based on what information you've got.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:34 PM ^
I'm looking forward to kicking ass on the field instead of worrying about recruiting for 2012. If we win, they will come.
edit: meant to be a reply to the OP.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:07 PM ^
I noticed you answerd the question I had from the other day regarding when Rivals comes out with their first rankings. Curious, where did you find that info, or was it just from memory?
February 8th, 2011 at 6:09 PM ^
Magnus' blog. He did a post on the Rivals 100 and 250 the day that they were released, June 1st and 2nd. They release stars the same day as the 100, IIRC.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
Thanks to you and to Magnus.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:07 PM ^
Nice post, but I need to take a breather from the rankings for awhile....edit: well, maybe...
February 8th, 2011 at 6:18 PM ^
http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=5117874
This guy. Halapoulivaati Vaitai.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^
OFFER.
THIS.
KID.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:25 PM ^
Post your next analysis as a diary so the charts fit. But great idea for analysis. I like how it also shows the strategy used by each school. There's the shotgun approach, alabama,USC, and more foucused, like Florida state and Texas A&M. This may be a bad assumption but it would be cool to see the total number of offers for each school
February 8th, 2011 at 6:56 PM ^
I'm not sure if he has enough points for a diary
February 8th, 2011 at 7:47 PM ^
Yes, I wasn't sure if I could and I didn't want to be presumptuous. If people find this somewhat interesting, I will try to post an update in a month or so as a diary. By then, some more reliable info should be starting to accumulate.
February 8th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^
Scout's star allotment will increase as we move further down the road. This is just their first crop of five stars and some of the guys who are four stars right now will be booted up, same with three star guys getting their fourth.
February 8th, 2011 at 7:08 PM ^
Kind of off topic question, how well does Nebraska recruit generally?
I remember that they have one of the best walk on programs in the country, but will we be going toe to toe with them on a regular basis now, or will they stick to the same territory they have for the rest of their history?
February 8th, 2011 at 7:22 PM ^
Pete Fiutak at College Football News posted an article on 2/3/11 discussing Recruiting 2011 as a whole. In it he had this to say about Nebraska:
"The plus: Nebraska is in a bigger, better conference that’ll provide more national exposure, a stronger academic reputation, and a new recruiting base with the selling point of playing in THE BIG TEN. The minus: The Huskers are losing Texas.
Nebraska likes to make a big deal out of how its foundation is built on in-state, hard-working talents, but the only chance of playing among the elite of the elite is to get the stars from elsewhere. The problem is that the move from the Big 12 to the Big Ten has all slowed the flow from the Texas pipeline with just five recruits from the Lone Star State in each of the last two seasons. The Huskers brought in eight prospects from Texas in 2009, nine in 2008, and seven in 2007."
So, that's one guy who thinks that Nebraska will be losing some pull in the state of Texas and will have to make up for it elsewhere. I would surmise Nebraska and Michigan will definitely be crossing paths on the recruiting trail more often that has been the case in the past
article link: http://cfn.scout.com/2/1045738.html
February 8th, 2011 at 7:25 PM ^
"I would surmise Nebraska and Michigan will definitely be crossing paths on the recruiting trail more often that has been the case in the past."
This will work to Michigan's advantage. They have deeper Midwestern recruiting ties, and Nebraska will be fighting on our turf. Not to mention Pelini's hate-fest with the media.
February 8th, 2011 at 7:32 PM ^
and I sure hope you are right, because after 1997, I'm happy to beat Nebraska in any way, shape or form. From "the kick" to the timing of Tom Osborne's retirement announcement, we all have plenty of reason for some deep-seated Nebraska hate
February 8th, 2011 at 7:42 PM ^
It's going to take a while for Nebraska to have the same name-brand cachet that OSU, M and PSU carry around these parts.
They have the history, but I have to think a kid growing up in Michigan, Ohio or PA would give the prestige edge to the names they hear growing up locally.
February 8th, 2011 at 7:40 PM ^
Thanks for the link/story. It makes sense, a lot of recruits would at least like to play in state once a year or so, if only to beat up on the school.
February 8th, 2011 at 7:43 PM ^
It works on the same principle with Ohio boys coming to Michigan.
February 8th, 2011 at 7:25 PM ^
damn these sausage like fingers
February 8th, 2011 at 9:14 PM ^
Wait, you mean 'Bama doesn't have those 36 4* interested signed yet?