Who decides recruiting stars and what is the criteria?
Richrod's classes were so-so and decimated by transfers. They are the upperclassmen.
Hoke's classes are great and are sophmores at best.
And it's some kind of team of reviewers at those services. It's going to be hard to quantify 'toughness' and I am certain character is not a factor. "SUCH A NICE YOUNG MAN. FIVE STARS. "
Hoke's two full classes have a lot of highly rated players, but they are all sophomores/freshman. Have to give it time, and repeatedly bring in classes like that
I really think the increased coverage and following of recruiting is giving people false hopes about what guys do as underclassmen. The fact that we're paying attention to what high school kids are doing now doesn't mean that they're suddenly much better prepared to contribute immediately.
Our guys will most likely be really good... in a couple of years. I know that's shitty, but I've been saying it since last season and still believe it's true. It's just really hard for 19- and 20-year-olds who are getting their first college playing time (and college life experience) to compete with 22- and 23-year olds who have grown physically, matured, been coached up, and learned to play together for the past several years.
If there's an upside to our youth, it's that we'll be insanely experienced in a couple of years. We won't be the usual type of experienced - lots of juniors and seniors who are stepping into increased roles. We'll be experienced in that we'll have juniors and seniors who are multi-year starters. I'm looking forward to that.
What I normally say when someone says "Put in X! He was a 5*!" you have to consider that a lot of the guys starting now would basically be equivalent to 6*, 7*, and 8* as they are another level past what makes someone a top level recruit in high school. Being a 4/5* doesn't mean you're ready to play
actually thats exactly what being a 5 star recruit means. You should be ready to play. Some positions are harder to play as a freshman/ RS freshman but this goes beyond youth. If it was youth you'ld see inconsistent play but we're very consistent week in and week out. We're getting consistently worse.
Not really. The star ratings are more about potential. Very few 5-star OL play as true freshmen, for instance, and not too many 5-star QBs play much as frosh, either.
Coaches do not pay attention to recruiting services. That stuff is for fans.
If its true coaches don't pay attention to recruiting services doesn't that validate them 100% due to the fact that stars and top programs are directly coralated.
Yes, the services work. High recruiting rankings generally translate to a better chance of NFL draftability, although there are always some guys who underperform or overperform.
The stars are determined by groups of scouts. Rivals, for example, has analysts for each part of the country who suggest ratings for players in their area. Then final decisions are made by the group.
Won't say for which service, but I've been in the rooms when they are deciding these things. They look at actual game film from lots of sources -- Youtube, Hudl, XOS, whatever. Then they pick out skills and traits and things like that are pros and cons, give the guys a score, put them in a list with guys at their position, and then merge the lists together. Then they tweak the lists slightly by "this guy should be higher" or "he's better than this guy."
Outside of the top top players, the score difference between someone that's say #40 overall and #120 is only 1-2 points. And the difference between #40 and #60 might be like a difference of 0.2
Its why you'll see those lists with like 400 4-star players. They're all roughly the same.
You mean first 3 classes right?
Gordon- Football character isn't about being nice FYI. It's being tough and responding to adversity with strength and resolve.
Well that would be incredibly difficulty to quantify for a bunch of high school players who all are just destroying the competition i.e seeing little to no adversity. I really don't know how you could possibly quantify that
Hoke's only had 2 real classes, since he had less than a month to finish the 2011 class.
I did this diary several months ago, so if it will help discussion, here are our average star ratings from 2002-2013:
|YEAR||5 STARS||4 STARS||3 STARS||2 STARS||MICH. AVG. RATING|
So it seems fairly credible. Am I to then presume coaching is the problem? Ok then. Fire Borges!
No doubt coaching is a problem, but the program is still recovering from the state of disarray Richrod had it in. All of your great classes are just sophmores. We should continue to get better each of the next two years even if the coaches don't change a bit
All those 5 star athletes have to work together as a team- thats where bad coaching can turn them all into 1 star players. Football isn't wrestling, its more like synchronized swimming. I hold that a successful team is 1/3 recruiting, 1/3rd training and practrice and 1/3 gameday play calling and decisions.
You can have great athletes and fancy play calls, but unless you've trained them well to perform as a cohesive unit, you won't get very far. That's how a team like Appalachian State can beat a team that later beats a Tim Tebow-led Florida.
Whoever neg banged this post has sensitivity issues.
...says the guy who's whining about his post getting negged.
I negged it because it was stupid.
Passing judgement isn't very becoming.
Isn't begging passing judgement?
Not as judgemental as calling something stupid for no reason......
I called the thread stupid; not the poster...but point taken.
I know. I suppose calling what the poster writes as stupid could be seen as calling the poster stupid but it doesn't matter. What does is that our coaches have moobs. Moobs, man. Moobs.
Got me there..
I'm sure MSU doesn't mind that we have out recruited them for the last several years. I'm sure they are just fine beating us on the field where it matters.
Like I'm not pissed off enough about the loss, OP, that I have to read this sort of garbage. If Sparty was so happy about this then why do they offer the Michigan players? I'm sure they didn't really want Shane Morris, Mario Ojemudia, Kyle Bosch etc. etc.
This may not be the most ridiculous thread of the year but you are for sure top 5.
The point of this was to show that others are doing more with less and we are doing less with more. Implicating coaching issues indirectly.
but your statement remains inherently ridicoulous. They'd take the vast majority of our recruits.
Coaching is an issue, youth is an issue...is what it is now.
Could you provide those other threads that comprise the rest of your top 5? For comparisons sake, of course.
but even if you don't check out the offer list of the guys Hoke has brought in/recruited. Almost all of these kids have offers from major B10 and national schools. It's not like Michigan is the only one interested in them.
I agree. That's my point. If others want the players, they are clearly talented and coaching is the issue.
Top 5 most ridiculous thread? Please tell me your attempting sarcasm. Trying to figure out why a team who consistently out performs another in recruiting yet loses on the field seems like a legitimate question to me. What am I missing?
So RR only had 2 recruiting classes by this logic.
Well, that and the statement about Sparty being content Michigan out-recruits them annually.
Top five, definitely.
wasn't implicating recruits aren't talented or attacking them personally. Was just implying that coaching may be an issue. If you want do die on this mountain go ahead. Just took another angle at it and it appears to have ruffled your feathers. So Hoke's recruits are young and that explains everything. Got it. No other possibilities exist.
You question recruits toughness and resolve...I have a problem with that. Question coaching but these kids out there today sure as he'll looked like they were playing hard. None of them lacked toughness or resolve. Experience? Definitely. Good offensive play calling and scheme? Likely.
I'm sure MSU doesn't mind that we have out recruited them for the last several years. I'm sure they are just fine beating us on the field where it matters.
Keep in mind, we're not playing our freshmen against their freshmen. It's our team (which is very young overall) against their team, which has a lot of upperclassmen. MSU's entire starting defense is redshirt sophomores or older - they're all in at least their third year in the program. We can't say the same. Our 2010 class is down to nine guys from the original 27. The attrition in that class has really hurt.
I quit. Our program is awesome and I am happy that we haven't won a big ten championship in a decade. I'm happy that MSU is dominating us with 5 of 7, I'm happy that we have only beat OSU once when they were in a year of flux, I'm happy we lost to PSU with a freshman QB down 25 recruits, I'm happy we were able to beat Akron with a last second goal line stand, happy we came back to sneak by UConn, happy we were 8-5 last year and will be again this year (if we're lucky). Oh, and I forgot to mention I'm happy that Nebraska beat us today down 4 starters including their QB.
Go ahead and chalk this up to me being a troll because you can't handle a voice of dissidence amongst the herd.
I didn't make idiotic statements. I asked questions about how the ratings take place. Questions and statements are not the same thing.
I'm sorry if you're not getting the response you're clearly fishing for, but there is currently no reason to believe that recruiting and talent evaluation are problems for the staff right now. Their classes just haven't been on campus that long. The upperclasses, which they didn't recruit, are far smaller than they should be - there are only 24 upperclassmen on scholarship right now.
This is not to say that there are zero coaching issues with the staff, but inexperience is certainly a handicap for the team.
I feel like Will Smith at the end of "I am Legend" where the zombies keep running into the glass mindlessly and he's like, "wtf? Don't you get it?". Everyone is attacking this thread as an attack on recruiting and talent evaluation. It's not!
The point is recruiting has been good..if not great. The question is the development of the recruits. By gaining clarification that recruiting services are in fact doing a pretty solid job of identifying talent, we can therefor remove the talent excuse and focus our negative energy towards the coaching staff.
But you're missing the point: a lot of the guys we recruited in 2009, 2010 and 2011 aren't on the team anymore. Only 9 of the 27 recruits in the 2010 class are on the current roster. These guys should be our current seniors/RS juniors - our team leaders. But two-thirds of them are gone.
How highly-ranked would a 9-man class have been in 2010?
Hoke/Borges/Funk are not to blame for "We haven't won a Big 10 championship in a decade; MSU dominating 5 of 7; only beat OSU once when they were in a state of flux.'
It's fair to criticize them for 2011-now. But in that time they've gone 25-10. 3 winning seasons. 1-2 against MSU, 1-1 currently against OSU. 0-3 Big 10 championships.
I don't have the expertise to judge how good the coaching/play calling has been. Although it wouldn't seem that a .714 winning percentage warrants Fire [coach X]!.
As to the youth on the team, and is that a contributor to this season's record? Let's look at it another way. Recapping: only 25 upperclassmen on scholarship. Ideally shouldn't that be closer to 40-42? So isn't this comparable to losing 7, 8 scholarships for each of 2 years? Wouldn't one expect a team so sanctioned to see their record suffer? After all, the Penn State sanctions (no more than 15 scholarships per year, 2012-2015) were expected to have a crippling effect on the team, and for longer than 4 years.
If you're happy with the last 3 years, thats cool...thats your right. I'm just not happy scraping by MAC teams and being uncompetitive with major B10 players.
.714 looks mediocre on paper and when you look at the competition it looks even worse. 3 years ago half the fans wanted to fire the coach, one of the units where performing epically bad, historically bad. We beat bad to mediocre teams but lost to mediocre to good teams. 3 years later we're still in the same boat but now it's the offense thats historically bad. In 3 games this year we rushed over 80 times for -50 yards. By the coaches own words we haven't "executed" since week 2. We play a sloppy brand of unoriganal, poorly coached football and nothing changes from week 2 week.
The simularities between this years offense and the 08-09 defenses are remakable.the same excuses where given for the defense back then. It's youth, they are young but they are getting experience. They didn't become a respectable unit until the coach was fired . Poorly coached teams are bad no matter if they are freshman or seniors and bad experience is only slightly better than no experience at all.
This. Every. Single. Word.
But is Y a star or not?!? THE SYSTEM IS FLAWED!!!
Michael Jordan and Troy Aikman do from all that I've heard.
Recruiting is huge anyone who says differently is either not looking at the facts or ignoring them because there school can't recruit well.
I did my graduate work at Temple University in Pha. and I also follow the Owls in basketball and football. Last year the Owls received their first "modern era" four star commit and it was elation everywhere in the TU blogosphere. The distance in talent between have schools for recruiting and have not schools for recruiting is miles in football.
Four star basketball recruits at Temple not a huge deal...but football, unreal. For years they minimized it in football importance vs. local schools like Rutgers etc. but once they got one you could see how they'd kind of buried it.
Great story to illustrate my point.
I understand the not-so-subtle insinuation of the OP, and only have one response: don't judge this staff or the players until 2015.
Waynes and Dennard were both 2 star guys. They're the reason MSU can blitz at will....or Devin.
It's not hard science. It's hardly science.
I will admit that 5 star guys, and high (6.0) four star guys tend to pan out far better than others.
But, for most of the others, it's an educated guess as to how they will perform at the next level.
Oh, coaching matters. Development, schemes, adjustments.
Not to mention the little things - like playing the best guys and putting the team first. Keeping them humble but confident at the same time. Not settling, or letting them settle. Making sure they believe in them.
And character, when using the term related to football, definitely matters.
40 times are important, if you can hit the hole - if there is one. Or if you can run a route and sell a fake. If you can take a hit as well as you give one. If you can...pick up a blitz.
Strength matters, if you have quick feet and a quicker brain.
Size matters (oops) if it fits the scheme. More like if it fits the play, and everything else is in place.
Ask Mack Brown with run of consistent top 5 recruiting classes how important recruiting rankings are.
Ask Jimbo Fisher.
Experience matters, too. MSU's D starts six seniors, three juniors and two RS sophomores.
You mean the same Mack Brown with the National Championship and multiple BCS berths, right?
Their recruiting remains solid but note they began to decline only when "Peter Principle" Will Muschamp went to Florida.
Lesson: Excellent recruits plus good coaching equals outcomes. To minimize recruiting is ridiculous.
It's beginning to look like more of a coaching problem than lack of experienced players