MGoFish: Best Guess Recruiting Class
He's G. Fishaw.
I just so happened to be looking at 247 myself (to see why UofM can't recruit MI like they normally do [here's a hint(z)....they're recruiting Mi almost exactly like they always do]) and while this list is probaly not as valuable for paying recruit site members, it really is a far list with out to many "hard pulls". Heck I'd think even a 9-10win season would still net the vast majority of that list. And if some of the wins are dominant ones against ND, PSU or OSU, we could easily get in on a bunch of top150 players.
I think Michigan gets at least one of the top 3 players in the state of Michigan every year. I think this is the one year they don't.
Mazi Smith is #4 right now and he is the best shot at a top 5 player.
Marvin Grant #7 in the state just committed to Purdue.
.....until you realize you've been convinced by an anthropomorphic bail of hay that it is a man.
Sure, we might miss out on all of the top 3 recruits in the state IF rankings stay the same; and if that's true, it's also true that we miss out on all three recruits rated higher than .97 from the state.
Of course, reality is that's nothing new. According to the 247 composite data, before Harbaugh got there, UofM was 0 for the last 9 on state of Mi recruits rated higher than .97 stretching back to '06, (Harbaugh is 1 for 1 currently) and even from 2000 to '06, they were just 7 out of 13, just over 50%.
Harbaugh has had 18 Mi recruits in 4 years, the four previous had: 26, four before that: 18, before: 21; realistically, it you need to look before 1999 to find many real dominant stretches in Mi for UofM.
Seemingly, the trend is that the state recruits go through cycles in which they cool on UofM, especially during transition years ('09,'10,'14,'15,'16 had 4 or less commits from the state).
But even if you want to play the "top 3" game:
From 2000-2014:
#1s: 8/15
#2s: 7/15
#3s: 7/15
Harbaugh is:
#1s: 3/4 (including 2 in a row for the first time '05 -'06)
#2s: 1/4
3#s: 2/4
Plus there's only 2 years since 2000 they got the top 3 in one year.... and yeah......guess who did it once?
This narrative is broken, please put in fire to warm the children.
Your strawman + my post = Burning Man!
LOL. I have to give you credit for being consistent.
Serious question, do you really think with who Michigan recruits, admission standards and unwillingness to go full Ole Miss that they will ever consistently be a top 5ish recruiting outfit? You really seem to think that there is nothing holding them back from being top 5 every year other than the staff's ability to identify the right players (you seem think they should just use the 247 composite) and put in enough effort/work hard at recruiting. My baseline is about 8-15th depending on how many spots they have open.
I would question the accuracy of recruiting rankings when it was basically ONE GUY (Tom Lemming) making up all the rankings. You don't think those were skewed based on a player committting to Michigan? The rankings up to the mid 90s are a difficult comparison as well if you consider that scholarship limits were reduced from 95 to the current 85 from 1992-1995. Also, ONE national championship from 1980 to whenever you decided recruting fell off (probably 2007ish), so all of these recruiting national championships still didn't mean much.
Other schools are putting a ton of money into facilities, so your numbers are pretty useless without a comparison. It may seem that fans are moving goalposts because you're reading the opinions of a lof of different people, personally I think i've been consistent in this topic. We're not going to recruit at a top 5 level if we're not performing on the field as a top 5 program. I can see how that becomes a chicken/egg argument, but I doubt we make much progress discussing that.
Totally correct and, especially pre2000, the perceived behavior of a recruit (often fogged by racism) would effect ratings so good students with no issues going to "academic" schools were rewarded for being good.
Now, rankings are a meat market where they size up the horses to see which ones will pull the cart best.......(hmm..not sure if better or worse).
#1: Can't get away with smoking dope.
#2: Can't get away with assault
#3: Have to play school
#4: Have to put up with whiny bitchy fans who think all the 5*s should go the team they're a fan of even though that team has the first three reasons to not go, than they'll complain about having the No 12 class cuz itz not elitzers
At least that's how I see it these days.
1: Ann Arbor is home of hash bash. Weed is very prevalent here.
2: You honestly think high school kids are choosing their college based on if they can get away with assaulting people or not? This is about as stupid as a reason as I've heard yet. MSU would be full of 5 stars and more "litter" charges if this was true.
3: Our education is actually a reason why kids come here. A Michigan degree means more than most. Admissions is tougher than a lot of other schools and this is the only valid point I can find in your reasoning.
4: Yeah, kids go to blogs to decide where they are going...again so stupid. Every school with a large fan base has annoying fans. Kids want to go where there is a large fan base. They want all the follows on social media. They want the biggest stadium. They don't go to mgoblog to see that SMart WolveFan thinks we have a whiny fan base and decide to go elsewhere because of it.
(Sorry guys, not to try call anyone out but these are names almost all recruits would have heard of)
1: Brian Cole
2: L. tulley-tillman
3: Cardale Jones, D.Hand, D. Hamilton, etc.. + any top 150 recruit that never gave UofM a look because they wanted the path of academic least resistence.
4: While I don't doubt that many recruits check the blogs of perspective schools; why would a local recruit need "media" to know the mood of the local fanbase, they are watching the game on Saturday as his dad and uncles are screaming at the TV wondering why Harbaugh can't recruit a decent QB.
They have seen it with Rich Rod, then with Hoke and I'm sure the constant QB criticism after the '16 Iowa game has not gone unnoticed by all the recruits.
1: Cole could have easily smoked weed and stayed on the team. Do you think he was the only guy on the roster who smoked? Not even close.
2: LTT never assaulted anyone. He took a vid of a drunk sexual encounter and I think posted it or sent it to people. Besides, the original argument was a recruit isn't going to commit to a school based on whether they think they can get away with assaults or not.
3: I don't think we even recruited Jones. Hand did not choose Alabama beacuse our classes are too hard. He wanted to play for championships and has done so. Hamilton went to Stanford...one of the few power football program to have a more difficult admissions than us. Including him hurt your stance.
4: I agree recruits pay most attention watching games on TV and what ESPN tells them about schools.
...if ya know what I mean.
You claimed there were "no reasons why the leaders and best should fall behind in recruting"; I gave you various reasons and examples, therefore your premise is wrong, there ARE reasons.
Now if you want to deflect by focusing on why the reasons exist, at least acknowlege that I was right and there are some reasons why a recruit might not choose "the leaders and best" (maybe fans should only use THAT specific phrase when talking about UofMs academics).
With Michigan learning how to win, winning B1G championships and going into the Playoffs and getting to the NC game and winning a few in the next few years, then yes. I would see Michigan consistently with top 5 classes.
But realistically, most likely no if the team continues to play mediocre football.
we take a 2nd QB
until I realized that he's basically doing work for me-- reading the message boards, making some limited contact with players and people in the know-- and I began to peruse his site more often.
Reminds me of when I would prepare local news summaries when I worked as an intern for a US Representative.
Also: I really, really love this offensive line class. While I'd probably trade a guard for a tackle, I just really like the traits we are going after-- size, nastiness, technique, and intelligence. If we could get someone who was a bit more athletic that would be nice.
Something smells.....
Mgo-fishy.
Once.
IIRC, it was a hype video or something that one of his contributors made.