Tangentially-related Michigan recruiting news, from Scout
A few interesting nuggets I've found on the Scout website (is it against protocol to paraphrase info off the free pages?) -
DeWayne Peace is visiting Oklahoma State and Arizona. DeWayne's father has sent "tape" to Oklahoma in the longing hope that the Sooners will offer his son a scholarship.
Jordan Barnes committed to Oklahoma State, after claiming it would be difficult to decide between OSU and Purdue.
Arkansas is ranked #16, just ahead of Michigan. Arkansas has 30 commits. THIRTY. Ten of them are 2 stars.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:39 PM ^
Good for them. Jump now to avoid pulling a Beaver. As for Barnes, I don't think he even had an offer from sweater vest. Maybe I'm wrong, but who cares. Im focusing on the ones that want to be here. The rest can go to sparty or the dome heads. WE ONLY WANT THOSE THAT WANT TO BE HERE!
January 26th, 2009 at 10:49 PM ^
i think this is OSU not tOSU. aka OSU = oklahoma state
January 26th, 2009 at 10:51 PM ^
...although I would have said something like "the fighting Claretts" or the "Katzenmoyers" to signify tOSU.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:11 PM ^
What about the raging beans? Its kinda southwestern.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:23 PM ^
Gotta a little worked up there. Thanks for the clarification.
OSU= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdwhZKBNFhI&feature=channel_page
tosu=buckvest
Got it!
January 26th, 2009 at 10:52 PM ^
..informed about our "exes." It'll be cool if we play against Beaver, Barnes et al. It will be cool when we play against Fera and Newsome.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:38 PM ^
That Arkansas stuff bugs me, if only because recruiting services need to take the opportunity cost of a scholarship into account. Would Michigan swap classes with Arkansas? No. So why are they ranked in front of M?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:50 PM ^
I'm not sure what the formula is (and I'm happy to hear it if you know it), but whatever it is it needs to be altered to place a much heavier premium on quality such that 2 star players add close to nothing to a team's rank and go up exponentially from there.
The rankings would still be flawed because they do not take into account the individual needs of each team (impossible), but at least it would be a major step in the right direction.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:42 AM ^
You can decipher Rivals formula by simple linear algebra if you're so inclined.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
I was under the impression that they did take individual school needs into account when rating classes. I read it somewhere, not sure where.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:37 AM ^
......Because they suck.
That is all, please carry on with your intelligent conversation.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
I literally have never looked at Scouts rankings, because it's useless.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:44 PM ^
The "I wouldn't trade" rule, I think, is usually not a good method when comparing teams so close to each other in the rankings. Sure, Michigan State would take our class just to get Campbell, but when there's near equal talent -- enough to be within a few spots in the total rankings -- that question hinges more on whether we recruited for our needs, and our style of play.
On the other hand, um, yeah, I'm all for quantity being considered in a game of unknown qualities, but only to a degree.
Or maybe not. Hey, everybody, I'm starting an entirely new CFB program, and you're all invited! First 120 to sign a letter of intent get to be part of Scout's No.1 class of 2009!
January 27th, 2009 at 2:46 PM ^
I didn't realize Bama was a new program last year. I thought they had more prestige than that. Also didn't realize Saban was an MGoBlog fan.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^
The rankings for Scout looks like they give each player a certain number of points (how those points are awarded I'm not certain). Then all the players points of those committed to that team are added together. Whomever has the most points goes to the top.
One HUGE flaw in that formula. In that formula it makes it seem like roughly 4 2* players = 1 4* player. When you play in a game you can't have like 23 players on the field and say "Oh, its ok. Most of them were only 2* players." So thats why teams like Ark. and UNC are high on that list but when it comes time to field a team they're gonna be SOL.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:06 PM ^
You meant "Whoever."
Quick lesson: Who refers to the subject of the sentence and whom refers to the predicate (or object).
Who is cheering for the Buckeyes?
That's Bill. He's a tool. He cheers for whomever is winning.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:24 PM ^
That was quite helpful.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:11 PM ^
"When you play in a game you can't have like 23 players on the field and say 'Oh, its ok. Most of them were only 2* players.'"
Unless, of course, you're Rich Rodriguez, and 12 of them are midget gyrosmurfs with rocketpacks!
January 27th, 2009 at 3:20 PM ^
Speaking of Scout, at what point did they decide to stop ranking LaLota as the 3rd- or 4th-ranked offensive tackle in the nation and start ranking him as the 26th- or 27th-ranked defensive end?
I mean, we knew all along the dude was probably going to play DE, so why change it up?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:30 PM ^
In Scout's recap of AAA game, they placed Lalota in the "Stock Down" group, stating that if LaLota wants to play DE, then they'll rate him as a DE. They said he was average in the AAA game, and he was re-rated as a DE (#15) but still a 4-star. I think his rating is about right; he has alot of potential but is very raw.
Rivals now lists Ike Bell as a LB, considering we all knew he was going to move there.