Fun With Recruiting Statistics

Submitted by MaizeMN on August 7th, 2014 at 7:41 PM

I was excited by Mike Weber's commitment yesterday, so I went to look at the 2015 class rankings to see how that would impact ESPN's (I know, ESPN) take on things. The first thing I noticed was that Michigan actually dropped one spot to #21. The other, 7 of our 10 2015 recruits (70%) were 4-Star or better at present.

The subjectivity of these rankings has been discussed here many times, but some teams ranked higher seemed to be based on number of 4 and 5 Star recruits or sheer number of recruits and others were ranked more highly for reasons only known to the ESPN gurus. So I thought it might be interesting to rank the 2015 classes based on each team's number of 4-Star or greater recuits as a percentage of total recuits per school. Below is the ESPN rankings and number of total recruits:

1. Alabama (21)

2. Clemson (21)

3. Tx A & M (19)

4. PSU 18)

5. Aub (19)

6. OSU (14)

7. LSU (15)

8. S. Car. (25)

9. FSU (18)

10. Tenn (22)

11. UGA (17)

12. Miami (YTM) (21)

13. Miss St. (27)

14. ND (17)

15. USC (15)

16. UCLA (13)

17. Texas (14)

18. Oregon (12)

19. UNC (15)

20. Florida (10)

21. MICHIGAN (10)

Here is what the rankings would look like using # of 4-Star or better as a percentage of total number of recruits:

1. Alabama (19/21) 90.5%

2. Clemson (18/21) 85.7%

3. Texas (10/14) 71.4%

4. MICHIGAN (7/10) 70% (tie-breaker, b/c MICHIGAN)

5. Florida (7/10) 70%

6. LSU (10/15) 66.7%

7. UGA (11/17) 64.7%

8. Tx A & M (12/19) 63.2%

9. OSU (8/14) 57.1%

10. FSU (10/18) 55.5%

11. ND (9/17) 52.9%

12. Aub (10/19) 52.6%

13. PSU (9/18) 50% (tie-breaker, b/c BIG)

14. USC (7/14) 50%

15. Miami (YTM) (10/21) 47.6%

16. UNC (7/15) 46.7%

17. UCLA (6/13) 46.2%

18. Oregon (5/12) 41.7%

19. S. Car (18/25) 32%

20. Trnn (7/22) 31.8%

21. Miss St. (5/27) 18.5%


With the exception of Alabama and Clemsom, the rankings get shaken up quite a bit. So, which is better, quality or quantity? The obvious answer is both, but we don't have room in 2015 for a large class. Which looks more accurate to you fellow MGoBloggers? Thoughts?

EDIT: Mods feel free to move to forum if deemed non-diary worthy. I thought it might be a bit too long for the forum.




August 7th, 2014 at 7:57 PM ^

have a class of 30 every year?

I think our recruiting has been phenomenal considering the season we just played.  It was a really bad season with a terrible finish.  


August 7th, 2014 at 8:34 PM ^

Because most NCAA scholarships are technically year by year and need to be renewed every year. Four years isn't guaranteed. At schools that have enormous classes every year, they cut whoever is underperforming on the football field. Michigan doesn't do that.


August 8th, 2014 at 8:33 AM ^

Isn't it a conference thing versus a Michigan thing? I may be wrong.

A simple explanation is a guy like Delonte Hollowell who down south would have seen his walking papers a few years ago.  Here he is a guy who is buried on the depth chart who occassionaly get some playing time as a backup.   He would have received a firm handshake in the SEC 2+ years ago opening up the spot for another RECROOT.  Now multiply that 6-8x a year per team down there.


August 8th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^

It's not always performance. The university I'm currently at cuts guys loose, but it is usually based on attitude and effort. If a kid isn't doing what he is supposed to do I don't see the problem with getting rid of him. It happens here at the D2 school I work at. 


August 8th, 2014 at 2:37 PM ^

I think this also has a bit to do with it as well.  I saw recently (maybe here?) that fully 1/3 of the incoming recruits for USCe failed to qualify for school this year.  If Spurrier does it I am sure they take even more risks at MSU-south (27 at present and still gunning for Jalen Bates and the LB we are after from TN).  I am guessing they take this into account when calculating how many commits to accept.  If too many qualify you see the Saban-like stories where a kid already moved into the dorms is told he doesn't have a scholarship for the year.

Closer examples would be just about every RR class (sad face) and recent MSU recruits Burbridge and possibly the 2015 RB Scott - which were/are both rumoured to be borderline academically to qualify.  Hoke and Co. seem unwilling to take risks in this regard - not that I fault them, particularly with small number of availble spots.


August 8th, 2014 at 12:45 AM ^

Thanks for the downvote sans comment. A downvote with reason is valuable. A guerilla downvote, not so much. IMO, you've raised the MGoDickBar to another level.




August 8th, 2014 at 8:35 AM ^

I dont understand your question at the end - what is "better"?  You really don't have a choice here.  It is not "better" to have a large class of lower rated players versus a small class of higher rated players.  The smaller classes mean we dont have the intense attrition we had with some of RR's classes.  Of course it also means players who do not pan out tend to stick around taking up a spot or until they transfer to Ferris or wherever.

What is "best" is hitting on a good proportion of your highly rated recruits which entails excellent position coaches.  This is the open question right now in the program - recruiting high stars has not been the issue since 2012.


August 8th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^

We all know the story, but interesting to see the numbers in one place. Stings to see this when we can only take 14-16 this year, but I guess that's the cost of being the good guys.

2015: 21

2014: 26

2013: 26

2012: 27

2011: 25

2010: 30

2009: 28

2008: 34



August 9th, 2014 at 3:33 AM ^

and why coaches will actually tell players, "you are close to an offer." We can't simply keep signing 25 per year. We have the same set of rules but different standards. Hell, the whole world knows that, but you won't hear it during gameday or any place else. Too many t.v. sets in the sec, especialy with population shift.  Howeva, we are no. 3 as to stars per recruit. So this system Hoke has seems to be working o.k. 


August 9th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^

27.1 recruits per year. Over the same time frame, we averaged 22.6. And there will be another gap in numbers this year.

That's a huge disadvantage for Michigan. That's 4-5 extra players per year that Bama can try out and see if they pan out. In football, the uncertainty of development for even elite recruits amplifies the disparity.


August 11th, 2014 at 7:04 AM ^

By great juniors who jump to the NFL early, opening a slot for a freshman that Michigan's athlete fill for one or two more years. That's a pure guess but they send a whole passel more to the league, especially lately.

That would be the good reason, a Beilein like reason.

The other 98 reasons are shady (see above)


August 16th, 2014 at 4:46 AM ^

you pretty much have to attempt to fill your existing vacancies with player you deem most important to team's need in any given year. Now the rules are the same but certain conferences won't engage in SEC tactics, and some have policies in place prohitibiting it completely.  I don't know if I would want to be considered the best coach in America and at the same time have to tell a great player, "Hey, sorry we got a much smarter class this season, but we do have the grey shirt option."  WTF you going to do? If you hesitate down there, you've lost a step. I just say fill your spots as needed based on what you're comfortable with and in a manner that doesn't take away from the university's reputation and live with the results.

I am pretty damn certain all the SEC schools have all their top GPS professionals busy already trying to make up the divide that FSU has garnered in this area so hopefully they'll be sidetracked in their approach for a minute. .