wildbackdunesman

June 17th, 2009 at 11:21 PM ^

This ranking has no value as we have a lot of early commits compared to most schools. More commits = higher ranking. Other schools will catch up and gain more commits before signing day in February and our position should fall - unless we gain a lot of 5 and 4 star players between now and then. Anyways, we've had 2 great classes back to back and can afford a mediocre year. Maybe we have some under-valued talent and we'll prove once again that their rankings aren't perfect.

bigmc6000

June 18th, 2009 at 8:52 AM ^

We may not be top 10 but if you take all those schools and get the average points per commit we're at #20 and I'm sure a number of those schools (WVU, South Carolina, Cal, Washington, etc) are going to have their averages go down as their 3 stars start committing. I still think we'll end up mid teens (gut feeling is 14) as we'll probably have a full class of 25 (here's hoping anyway).

ScoobyBlue

June 18th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^

These ranking services only provide a rough, general indication of the strength of a recruitiung class. Too many 4 star players don't excel at the collegiate level and quite a few lower ranked players (or even walk-ons) have really good careers. It goes back to trusting the coaches who are evaluating the talent. The Lions and Matt Milen were often congratulated for making great picks by the so-called experts and we now know how well they really evaluated talent. Projecting high school talent is much tougher, so Scout and Rivals are often making best guesses with limited data points.

wildbackdunesman

June 18th, 2009 at 1:58 PM ^

I agree, I shouldn't have said "no value". What I meant was that the team rankings are way too early and we will surely drop in their rankings unless we start reeling in elite prospects before signing day. Our 10th in the nation ranking for the current class is most certainly inflated from having more commits than most teams out there.

Jay

June 18th, 2009 at 11:05 AM ^

When you factor in player defections from that '08 class, (McGuffie, Hill, Witherspoon, O'Neill & Wermers) I'm not exactly sure that it can be considered "great" anymore. The same thing kind of happened to our '05 & '07 classes, too. This is part of the reason why we're hurting for talent and depth and key positions right now.

wildbackdunesman

June 18th, 2009 at 3:22 PM ^

You act like Witherspoon is head and shoulders above the other LB's in the class. We got 3 LB's that were ranked about exactly the same - all 4 stars. Sure it stinks to lose him, but it is not a back breaker. We still have 2 essentially equally ranked LB's from that same class. 2008 UofM LB commits with their Rivals rankings: Witherspoon 20th best LB Hill 21st best LB Demens 23rd best LB

marvel99

June 17th, 2009 at 11:25 PM ^

I know these rankings are really meaningless now, but its still cool to see UM #10 in the country after such a dismal 3-9 season. And I'd be willing to bet that if we were ranked really low right now, people would be complaining through the roof. So let's just enjoy this bit of good news. GO BLUE!!!

Monk

June 17th, 2009 at 11:35 PM ^

Michigan was 8 in the initial rankings (actually may be 5 or 6) and slipped to 10 and with only one top-100 player is only top-10 because of quantity as another poster noted. This class will probably end up dropping to 15-ish unless the commits get their stars increased.

marvel99

June 17th, 2009 at 11:46 PM ^

I agree Monk. I think the teams that could jump us from behind are: Georgia, USC, Notre Dame, O$U, and possibly Tennessee. But I also believe we will jump ahead of: Texas A&M (#7), Stanford (#8), and Washington (#9). That should put us at around #13 - 15 or so, which is still pretty dam good, all things considering.

Maize and Blue…

June 18th, 2009 at 7:47 AM ^

have as many or more recruits than we do. M will pass both Texas A&M, Stanford, and also Washington who are barely ahead of us and probably be passed by some below us such as Georgia and SC. Of course this depends on how we fair with the big names we are still in on. Coming off of a 3-9 season I will be happy being in or very close to the top 10 which is where I believe we will end up.

KinesiologyNerd

June 17th, 2009 at 11:50 PM ^

I've heard it mentioned before, so correct me if I'm wrong here. But... If the higher rated player won't be scared away by 3*'s and the like, is it possible that a good season will bring some better players our way? I'm not saying that I don't like the guys we already have, but let's face it, 4* and 5*'s give us all a warm fuzzy feeling on the inside. So, if guys like Prater come, and push out a lower rated WR, it's plausible that our ranking will stay put or even improve... no?

MichFan1997

June 18th, 2009 at 12:05 AM ^

We are in a couple of other higher rated guys (Cullen Christian, for example). This recruiting class, while I doubt it will end up as good as 2008 or 2009 overall (man, who would have thought that about 6 months ago when we thought Robinson, Garnder, et al. were 5 stars) will have some very good pieces.

marvel99

June 18th, 2009 at 12:26 AM ^

Sam Webb said today on Recruiting Roundup that he thinks Gardner is deserving of a 5th star. He also, said J. Robinson is the best receiver in our class and is deserving of a 4th star. Not saying they will get it, but I'm sure some of our recruits' rankings will improve such as the 1 star guys like C. Jones and Drake. This should also help to improve our rankings or at worst maintain our current spot.

Magnus

June 18th, 2009 at 1:28 AM ^

I don't think any of our recruits this year are overrated, so the chances of their rankings slipping are pretty slim. But it's important to note that if a guy's position ranking goes up, that means someone else's is going down.

marvel99

June 18th, 2009 at 12:13 AM ^

Great point. I didnt think of certain guys getting "Peace'd" out by the coaches. I think the possibility of this is higher this year than normal because of the overloading of certain positions with lower ranked players. Also, don't forget that with the new scholarship limits recently put into place, it should help us out since the other cheating (SEC) schools won't be able to load up on all the good players. This should help our rankings.

TomVH

June 18th, 2009 at 12:22 AM ^

This sucks, wE aRe Michigan and ShouLD hav such a bETter raiting then this. How cum we cant ReCruit more good guys?!? (sorry, I had to)

foreverbluemaize

June 18th, 2009 at 12:26 AM ^

I like to think that this ranking will last or get better but let us all keep in mind that it is only June and the biggest factor in this class and the next few is what we do on the field this year. I really think that a lot of kids are waiting to give us the thumbs up becasue they want to see what RR can do in the Big 11. I look for the recruiting to be easy in 2011 if we go to a good bowl this year. A Jan 1 bowl would be huge for us.

jg2112

June 18th, 2009 at 6:22 AM ^

....Full season yet to play. Not everyone has their full recruiting classes yet. No one has signed a letter of intent. These rankings are essentially filler. Moving on...

Monk

June 18th, 2009 at 9:24 PM ^

I don't think we should panic but I'm not totally sure we're looking good, we have one top-100 player on Scout and none on Rivals, no five stars and a couple of four stars on either site. We're doing ok, nothing to get excited about, nothing to get down on either.

lhglrkwg

June 18th, 2009 at 7:31 AM ^

seems like that means we'll be no better than 10th due to the fact that we have a ton of verbals right now. as other schools gain commitments we will start to slide

jg2112

June 18th, 2009 at 7:34 AM ^

....Once Northwestern, for example gets 13 more verbals I doubt they will have a better ranked class. Many of the teams in our general "ranking" area already have 10 or more verbal commits now. Say, Texas A & M, Washington, etc. The ones below us, well, if they move up, so what. We're going to take 10 more kids probably and I'm sure some will be highly ranked.

jrt336

June 18th, 2009 at 11:19 AM ^

Rankings don't matter. I trust RR over any idiot that rates players on scout/rivals. If these people were great at evaluating talent, they would be scouts for college football teams.

Magnus

June 18th, 2009 at 11:33 AM ^

Okay, what about the #121st best guy out there, who can't find a Division I job as a recruiting coordinator because there are 120 guys better than him. What if he works for Rivals and/or Scout? Wouldn't you say #121 is still probably pretty good at evaluating talent? That's like saying, "Yeah, well, if you were a good quarterback, you'd be in the NFL. Not in the CFL. You must suck, Doug Flut...I mean, you must suck, Warren Moon!"

jrt336

June 18th, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^

There is more than one recruiting scout per team I'm sure. I'm not saying they're terrible, because they're not. They're just not as good as RR/Michigan's scouts.

Magnus

June 18th, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^

A direct quote: "I trust RR over any idiot that rates players on scout/rivals." Anyway, no, there's not "more than one recruiting scout per team." There are the coaches and many schools have a separate "recruiting coordinator" (Chris Singletary, in Michigan's case); sometimes the recruiting coordinator is one of the coaches, and regardless, the recruiting coordinator doesn't do as much scouting as he does coordinating coaches' trips, recruits' official and unofficial visits, etc. Colleges don't have "scouts." This isn't MLB.