Some Justification For The Recruiting Tizzy
he wants you (probably not you unless you're 6'6")
Brady Hoke's swashbuckling recruiting start has put Michigan fans in a tizzy, yrs truly included. Whenever anyone's in a tizzy there's someone there to say "hey, wait a minute," and this is no exception: amongst the many threads that can be summed up with three punctuation marks—!!!—is a small cadre of very rational people who note a significant number of three stars and lack of top 100 types.
One of them did some research:
I looked at Rivals data for every year since 2002, when they first started rating. I looked at the total number of 4 and 5 star recruits each year, and then calculated that as a percentage of the overall class. As we know, 4 and 5 star recruits are what fans think of as "elite" recruits, and if you look at elite recruits as a percentage of the overall class, you can get a rough idea of the "quality" of that year's class.
There are major caveats with this approach, starting with a huge one; this year's class isn't finished being rated, since none of have even played a game as a senior in H.S. Also, the class isn't, like, complete. Finally, the usual caveats of recruiting ratings apply as well. But since fans are typically using ratings to proclaim their happiness with recruiting, it seems fair to at least look at the early ones, just as we do around here in Tim's "Hello' posts. So here goes:
YEAR- #4/5* of # in class (%)
2002- 11 of 21 (52%)
2003- 13 of 17 (77%!)
2004- 13 of 22 (59%)
2005- 10 of 23 (44%)
2006- 11 of 19 (58%)
2007- 7 of 20 (35%)
2008- 17 of 24 (71%)
2009- 14 of 22 (64%)
2010- 6 of 27 (23%)
2011- 6 of 20 (30%)
2012 to date- 7 of 16 (45%)
So of the 11 years that Rivals has recruiting rated, there have been 4 of those years that, by looking at 4 and 5 star percentage of class, this year's class so far has beaten. And of course 6 that had a higher percentage of the class rated as elite by Rivals. Again, I don't draw any conclusions here because of the above caveats, but I do find it interesting. What do you think?
I think the above guy does have a point. Michigan is not suddenly recruiting on par with USC at its apex. That's fine. We are a beaten down fanbase that reached for the spread stars and melted its bowl streak and self respect. A return to, say, the #6 program in the country—its record during the Carr era—would be a welcome change. Michigan's recruiting from the early part of the survey contributed to that and a return to it is a good thing.
But just glancing at the number of four stars sells Michigan a little short. Here's why:
Rivals Is Relatively Down On The Class
247 and Scout are higher on Michigan's commits. The original poster returned to make this point when asked by commenters: 56% of Michigan's commits have four stars on Scout, which puts it above six of the previous ten classes.
Big Classes Are Tougher To Fill
Michigan is apparently headed to 26 this year, a number that should strike fear into every 5'8" guy on the roster other than Vincent Smith*. There's a set number of highly touted guys interested in you no matter how big your class is, so getting to 16 so early with seven four stars (or nine or whatever) should mean Michigan can hold out for bigger fish and come to rest with an impressive, large class.
*[This does make me uncomfortable: they have about 19 spots now and while a standard attrition rate gets them close-ish to that number, outright planning on sending guys out is approaching Saban territory. I hope there are completely legitimate reasons the guys who leave do so but that's getting into "but he really wanted to go to South Alabama!" territory. We'll see.]
Not All Three Stars Are Created Equal
Rivals actually breaks down players into eight tiers: a five star gets 6.1, four stars 6.0, 5.9, or 5.8, three stars 5.7, 5.6, or 5.5, and two stars 5.4. Michigan's committed three stars all get a 5.7 from Rivals save Mario Ojemudia, who gets a 5.6. They've all got good offers from program established at a BCS level:
- Ben Braden: Wisconsin (and Michigan State)
- Devin Funchess: Nebraska (and Michigan State)
- Matt Godin: Wisconsin (and Michigan State)
- Kaleb Ringer: Iowa
- Anthony Standifer: Notre Dame
- AJ Williams: Arkansas (and Michigan State)
- Ojemudia: Iowa, Stanford (and Michigan State)
- Allen Gant: Stanford
Only Caleb Stacey (best other offer: BC or Illinois) doesn't have an offer from a program that's done pretty well for itself over the last five or so years.
While none of those offer lists says "you have obviously ranked this prospect wrong (or he's fibbing about who wanted him)" there's a big difference between a 5.7 three star Nebraska was after who is a four star to the other sites and the three stars in Michigan's 2006 class. Only Quintin Patilla got a 5.7. Patilla and Obi Ezeh were snatched away from the MAC; Quintin Woods had an Iowa offer but didn't qualify, something that no current commit seems to be on watch for—certainly no three star. John Ferrara (Penn State) and Perry Dorrestein (Nebraska) each had one other good-ish BCS offer but didn't get that 5.7 and Nebraska then was Callahan Nebraska. Greg Banks shows an Oklahoma(!) offer on his profile but I'm not buying that; he was nondescript 5.6.
Similarly, of Michigan's 11 three-star-or-worse commits in 2005 only two (La Terryal Savoy and Mister Simpson) got a 5.7.
This is where some light Carr tsking has to go: Michigan's strike rate in the late Carr era was dismal. Exactly one three star* from 2006 or 2005 can claim to be anything other than a desperation starter: Mark Ortmann. In just 2005 Ohio State dug up Brian Hartline, Malcolm Jenkins, James Laurinaitis, Anderson Russell, Donald Washington and Brian Robiskie. That's six guys currently in the NFL rated three stars or lower by Rivals. We can talk all the crap we want about Terrelle Pryor but the current Buckeye dominance wasn't just built on loaner cars and birthday parties. They annihilated Michigan when it came to unplucked gems.
Similarly, Rich Rodriguez's classes were laced with academic washouts, insta-transfers, and guys with offer sheets nowhere near the solid lists Michigan's current commits have.
While we've got little evidence Hoke can manage the same trick OSU did the chances he comes up as empty the Carr regime did towards the end are slim, and the chances he suffers as much attrition as Rodriguez are zero.
*[Other than Zoltan Mesko, who is a punter. He got three stars but for recruiting sites giving a kicker three stars is the equivalent of giving anyone else five.]
Michigan State: Goo
This has already been established. Brady Hoke has turned Michigan State recruiting into a national endeavor. Good luck with that, kids.Notre Dame Is Not Invincible
Recruiting against Notre Dame became virtually impossible for Michigan after Charlie Weis (of all people!) ascended to the top job in South Bend. Throw a rock at Notre Dame's highly touted, highly disappointing offensive line and you have about an 85% chance of hitting a guy who Michigan had offered and pursued heavily. (Don't worry: in response he will only mewl pitifully and see his draft stock plummet.) When Michael Schofield committed to Rich Rodriguez, this was a tremendous outlier.
Notre Dame always did well against Michigan since they had an edge with upstanding gentlemen from Catholic schools and upstanding gentlemen from elsewhere were a dogfight, but in the late Carr/Rodriguez era that went from a slant to an avalanche.
Hoke hadn't fought with Notre Dame much early but four of the last five commits—Erik Magnuson, Tom Strobel, Anthony Standifer, and Terry Richardson—had offers from Notre Dame. Richardson is Cass Tech and his buds are commits and etc etc, but
- Standifer is from Chicago, where Notre Dame has been kicking Michigan's head in for decades,
- Magnuson is from the West Coast, where Michigan recruiting had evaporated under Rodriguez and Notre Dame does pretty well, and
- Strobel is from the Cleveland area, which is historically one of the least-friendly places for Michigan recruiting. (Information per Misopogon, his past diary, and his upcoming Hail To The Victors article.)
That's a burst of success against the Irish unlike any Michigan has seen in a long time.
Ohio State: Self-Immolated
This is impossible to judge in a vacuum; recruiting against the Buckeyes is going to be a lot easier for the foreseeable future. Does Tom Strobel swing to Michigan if Jim Tressel forwards that email to compliance? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not. However, even if Ohio recruiting's skids are considerably greased the next few years Hoke has an opportunity to become an equal(-ish) force in the state comparable to the Bo/Mo/early Lloyd era when recruiting an Ohio player was like going up against Notre Dame: yeah, there's a subset of that population you're basically Sisyphus with but you are going to win a sizeable chunk of those battles.
Shane Morris
Shane Morris. In a similar vein, the things people are hearing about Wormley, Pipkins, Diamond, and even the buzz on Adolphus Washington.
Evaluating A Proper Level Of Giddiness
I do think the research guy above has a point. While Rivals is the most pessimistic data point at the moment, Michigan killing the Midwest without pulling in any of the truly big time recruits from Ohio, Illinois, or Pennsylvania (yet, anyway) is a baseline for Michigan's success if it's going back to a This Is Michigan strategy. Hopefully over the next eight months we'll see them pare back to an elite corps of guys they're after and close out with VHTs. If they don't it's going to look like a pretty good Carr class. If they do it's going to crack the top five and set the stage for a major realignment of power in the region.
Without beating a dead horse (because I could honestly not give a shit less about this argument on the whole, just don't like that the facts are misrepresented), I think Cox may have benefitted from entering the game once his team had 21+ point leads in the second half against out-manned squads, whereas the other guys played from the first down of the game, as well, no?
True. There are a lot of factors. And yet Cox was also running with second-teamers against the other team; whether or not DSU, EMU, and BGSU had put in their second-teamers, I don't know. But if he was playing with backups against lesser team's starters, perhaps the whole "fatigue" factor is cancelled out.
If Michigan's second-team offense had as little depth as Eastern's (or Bowling Green's, or one of the worst teams in 1-AA's) defense, then there's no question Rodriguez should have been out the door, and it has nothing to do with not playing Michael Cox enough.
Sadly, throw in our own defense for his Spring Game contributions.
I think we could add Floyd to the cut list too. That would leave Michigan very young at CB in 2012, but I've never seen much out of Floyd. Again, though, I hope he proves me wrong for saying that.
Seeing the words "cut list" in reference to Michigan football makes me sick to my stomach. This all makes me VERY uncomfortable.
I also think that it can be fair to not renew the scholarships of 5th-year guys. Those guys have had four years (including summer school if they wanted) to earn a degree. I'd love to see all of the fourth-year juniors come back but I also think there's a big difference between not re-newing a guy for a fifth year and not re-newing a guy for, say, a second year. The latter player hasn't had the chance to earn his degree.
Doesn't UM have one or more scholarships allocated to kickers than most schools do? This would more than likely require them to pull a scholarship from someone who hasn't had 4 years at UM though.
I hope that's never an option. They would seriously tarnish their image in the eyes of many fans if they cut underclassmen, regardless of position.
Mealer could earn a scholarship as a grad assistant. I doubt they'll give him a football scholarship for his 5th year. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
One thing to remember with Mealer is that he could very easily be the #1 backup at both guard spots in 2012, or perhaps even a starter. There are four redshirt junior "guards" right now:
1. Barnum - presumed starter at guard in 2011 and 2012
2. Khoury - presumed starter at CENTER in 2012
3. Omameh - presumed starter at guard in 2011; could play tackle once Huyge graduates
4. Mealer - wild card
It's possible (not likely, but possible) that our best offensive line in 2012 looks like this:
LT - Lewan
LG - Barnum
C - Khoury
RG - Mealer
RT - Omameh
with Schofield, Pace, Bryant, Miller, and Posada on the bench.
But this gives them some breathing room. Basically, if you're Hoke, you could tell all of these guys, "Plan to get a degree this year, since I can't guarantee you a spot in 2012, but it's possible that a spot will open up as time goes on." With normal attrition, that pretty much guarantees that guys like Omameh and Roundtree will be back, but it keeps us from having to pull anything fishy with recruits/underclassmen. Obviously, it would hurt to lose a guy like Omameh because we have a full class and nobody leaves, but (1) that's very unlikely and (2) we'll find someone to fill in.
are you THE "Turd Ferguson" ??
You forgot about two very real possibilities that have nothing to do with red shirts... How about
| 34 | Brendan Gibbons | PK | 6-1 | 227 | RS SO | West Palm Beach, Fla. (Cardinal Newman) |
| 46 | Seth Broekhuizen | PK | 6-1 | 195 | RS SO | Holland, Mich. (Holland Christian) |
IMO they should be both booted!
Go root for Alabama or Arkansas.
but was Broekhuizen a walkon? I really don't remember and it is an honest question. My thought would be as a walkon he could simply be told it is time to be a walkon again because we now need the scholarship.
He was a walkon, and when he went on scholarship (if he even did, does anyone know?), he certainly understood that it was because UM had scholarships available and it was likely to be a one-year deal. Broekhuizen made a choice to come to Michigan (from in state) independent of his participation on the football team. Choosing not to offer him a scholarship is worlds different from recruiting someone (from out of state) as a high school senior with the implied promise of four years of support. Taking away Gibbons' scholarship is the equivalent of handing him a bill for $40,000 or telling him to drop out of school.
that wouldn't help next years class at all. If we take 26 this year, and the attrition comes from 5th yrs then the 2013 class can only be around 11 or so kids.
Why does this matter? The 2012 class was supposed to be about 14 players strong. It's now up to 18 and the coaches suggest it will get up to 25. The coaches ought to be worrying about winning in 2012 and 2013, not what happens in 2014 or 2015. Success breeds success. Get good players in here right now, and let the rest play out.
proactive view in recruiting. They offer juniors to open doors with sophomores, they offer sophomores faster than other schools do and stay with them. Hoke recuited quite a few of our current guys while at Ball State, and some of this class was scouted while at SDSU, he thinks ahead and looks down the road. If we take 26 this year and a tiny class next year then we'll have to do so later down the road again. The only other way for next years class to grow from 11 to 15 and later to 22 like this years went from 14 to 18 and later 25 would be for us to keep pushing 5th years out the door. If attrition happens from underclassmen then it frees up spots for 2012, and 2013, and 2014 because it doesn't shrink the size of the graduating class. Plus if he wants the best players here right now then he'll likely keep the upperclassmen around. I agree that it will play itself out instead of being an orchestrated attrition, but it feels to me like not renewing 5th years IS an orchestrated attrition with the coaches saying "you stay, you graduate." I think it will keep happening the way it already happened with Christian and Vinopal and Williamson. All 3 were underclassmen transfers.
"The only other way for next years class to grow from 11 to 15 and later to 22 like this years went from 14 to 18 and later 25 would be for us to keep pushing 5th years out the door."
This is patently untrue. Just this offseason we've seen several guys transfer and flunk out, and there are guys who have career-ending injuries. Those things can't necessarily be predicted with respect to particular, but they can be expected out of the whole bunch.
In the last six years (from 2005-2010), forty Michigan players have failed to finish out their careers at Michigan after signing a letter of intent. That's an average of almost 7 per year. If that rate continues, a class of 11 in 2013 could be expected to get to 17 or 18. There's no need to worry on June 14, 2011, about how big the recruiting class will be on February Xth, 2013.
The current coaching staff also seems to be recruiting this year (as they did for 2011) with an eye toward filling what they see as gaps in the roster. It seems at this point that they won't need to for 2013, so they can be much more selective about offers/commitments in that class, and they won't need to worry as much about "did we accept a commitment from a guy that took a spot away from another, more highly-touted prospect down the road" (assuming they would even have that type of thought for this class, which is all speculation anyway).
2012 is shaping up to be the year of the trenches. 2013 could be the year of the skilled positions...
I'm making a case against not renewing 5th year seniors. People are predicting the coaches cut the top off of our roster to make all the room we'll need for this years class. If we don't renew 7 or more 5th-year scholarships to get us to 26 and use the underclassmen instead then we might have to do so again next year to get the class to grow as big as this years class is predicted to have grown, I think cutting 5th years is a bad idea, and I went on to elaborate that we've already had attrition on its own, note the players I named, and I believe that is what will continue to happen, which I said. I don't think the coaches should/will, for example, not renew Mike Cox and give more playing time to Toussaint or Hopkins. I completely agree with you about Cox. Coach Hoke has gone on to say numerous times that this season "belongs" to the seniors, and this won't be his team, it'll be their team, and Borges and Mattison have echoed that sentiment, so I can't imagine them adopting a policy of top end attrition to meet a class size quota. That's what I was trying to get at. Shooting down the idea of the coaches adopting a policy of making room, because if they felt that was the answer, then they'd need to do it again, but they won't have to because it will sort itself out like it always does.
Well played, Mauer.
please?
I agree that the announced plan for 24-26 recruits makes me a bit queasy.
I wondered when I heard that number whether a handful of guys haven't already told the coaches that they're going to transfer. Again, though, that's just a thought. I have no facts to back that up.
There will be several players either in fall camp or after the season is over who are going to school far from home aren't on the two-deep and didn't red-shirt. These are the players that I think would be most likely to transfer and many of these kids would be happier starting at a smaller school closer to home. There will also be a few players that don't like their fit under the new system and will transfer.
Nothing shady, just normal attrition, which is higher when there's a coaching change. I fully expect there to be 5 players between now and next spring that will transfer. Once again, just normal attrition.
That'd be fine if we really were looking at being 5 signees over. We're looking at being 8 over. Losing 8 players is not normal attrition.
It's not "anti-Michigan" to express concern that Hoke is publicly stating he expected to sign 8 more players than he has spots for.
4-5 transfers and not offering 5th years to 2-3 others get us within that 24-26 2012 class size.
Please provide a link. I think you mean that the recruits are reporting that.
Also, he may be planning on 26 based on 5th year players and conversations he has had with players (e.g., "Let's just see how fall practice goes before you make any deciisons about transfering"). If by January he only has 23-24 spots then I wouldn't expect him to sign more than that. I think it's pretty simple. But 5 transfers and 3 5th year seniors not coming back is a reasonable expectation. I would guess by signing day we have between 24-28 either open scholarships and guys we know won't be removed. There's a very low chance we have almost no attrition (1-2 guys) and very low chance we have extremely high attrition (8-10).
Still, nothing to get woried about.
He said it in a press conference that was quoted by Angelique Chengelis, Michael Spath, and Sam Webb.
That'd be fine if we really were looking at being 5 signees over. We're looking at being 8 over. Losing 8 players is not normal attrition.
It's not "anti-Michigan" to express concern that Hoke is publicly stating he expected to sign 8 more players than he has spots for.
Hoke Uber Alles.
Other reasons for optimism: Rivals's data isn't final yet, either. I guess some players' rankings could get worse as well, but what are the odds that one of two Army All-Americans currently in Michigan's class ends with a 5.6? I'm guessing somebody like Ojemudia is much more upwardly-mobile than someone like Jenkins-Stone is downwardly mobile.
Also it was mentioned somewhere that Standifer will eventually be moved up to a 4 star as well. And it is definitely possible that Magnuson moves up into the 5 star range too.
Also, maybe I'm wrong on this, but doesn't Rivals increase the number of 5- and 4-star designations over time? In other words, even if the rank ordering of these recruits stays exactly the same, isn't it likely that one or two of our 3 stars would become 4 stars (and perhaps a 4 star would become a 5 star)?
I believe this is the case, and was thinking the same thing myself.
Great point. "We can talk all the crap we want about Terrelle Pryor but the current Buckeye dominance wasn't just built on loaner cars and birthday parties. They annihilated Michigan when it came to unplucked gems."
The first sentence seems spot on. Much as I hate to admit it, OSU built a dynamo last decade and presumably some part of that success was due to things other than the "Columbus lifestyle" factor.
My trouble is with the second sentence. ("They annihilated Michigan when it came to unplucked gems") It seems just as possible that OSU developed their marginal three stars better than latter-day Lloyd and RichRod developed theirs.* We may have each had basically the same quality of "unplucked gems"**, and OSU did a better job training and developing theirs. Or we may have (as Brian suggests) plucked the wrong otherwise-neglected recruits. Or a combination of both.
Anyway, there seems to be cause for cautious optimism under the current regime, and that makes this Wolverine happy.
*/shakes fist at Mike Gittleson and random early-aughts Cottage Inn delivery guys/
**Who, I suppose, by definition were plucked, but whatevah!
I don't know. The four defensive players were serious contributors as freshmen, and not in the way we had contributions in our secondary last year. If you're good enough to contribute on an OSU defense as a freshman, you're probably there more on talent than your coach's abilities.
One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that this staff does have a history of coaching multiple good players (Mattison, Hoke, Borges, and Jackson in particular) at the position level, so it's reasonable to expect that their ability to "coach up" these 4-stars and 3-stars will be higher than some coaches who will remain unnamed. I thought Bruce Tall did a pretty good job with the defensive line, but give Tall and Mattison/Hoke the same guy, and I'll bet that he turns out better under the latter combo.
A big piece of recruiting is player development, and I think that's sometimes overlooked in discussions about recruiting (although Brian hit on it with his talk about Ohio State's six 3-stars from 2005 who ended up in the NFL). Rodriguez got a bunch of high profile players, and many of them have bombed out or failed to contribute. Maybe I'm just being an optimist, but I expect a higher success rate from Hoke when it comes to developing the players he recruits. That 2008 recruiting class looked great on paper, but three years later, nobody but Mike Martin is a true stud . . . and even he has been under the radar nationally because he played on such crappy defenses.
Half the battle is getting good players to come to your school. The other half is making sure they develope and get better while they are at your school.
Tennessee towards the end of the Fulmer era and FSU towards the end of the Bowden era are good examples of schools who pretty consistently had very solid recruiting classes only to find themselves losing 3-5 games just about every year.
I hate to question Rodriguez's effort level, because I truly believe he wanted to win at Michigan.
However, it's quite possible that Hoke/Mattison are simply BETTER at evaluating talent than Rodriguez is. For example, the Pittsburgh Steelers seem to be great at evaluating defensive talent and finding players who fit their system, but I don't think their coaches/scouts necessarily work harder than every other team in the NFL.
Comments