2013 class breakdown and pontential
Hey everyone, I was bored so I decided to do a little breakdown of the 2013 recruiting class, including current and potential commits. To determine if a recruit will be 5* status, I averaged the # of 5*s in each class, from each website (247,ESPNwatch, Rivals) in the last 5 years (Besides 247, they started in 2010). So for 247 has averaged about 22 5* prospects since 2010, so the top 22 players receive 5*s (I realize this isn't going to be 100% accurate, just havin a little fun). The top 29 players in Rivals top 100 will receive 5*s. ESPN and Scout have not ranked any recruits thus far, so I used the ESPN Watch List and just left Scout out. I did however, notice Scout gives 5* status to the top 50 players every year. So i decided to see what our class would look like if every recruiting site gave their top 50 the honor. In BOLD, is the 5* status of commits and potential commits that would receive the honor because of their top 50 ranking.
247 ESPN Rivals
Commits
Kyle Bosch 4*(42)5* x 4*(60)
Taco Charlton 4*(99) x 4*(183)
Shane Morris 5*(14)5* x 5*(16)5*
Dymonte Thomas 4*(40)5* x 4*(77)
Wyatt Shallman 4*(187) x 4*(160)
Chris Fox 4*(47)5* x 4*(46)5*
Mike McCray 4*(168) x 4*(44)5*
Logan Tulley-Tillman 4*(89) x 4*(109)
David Dawson 4*(196) x 4*(199)
Jake Butt 4* x 4*(96)
Jaron Dukes 3* 3*
Khalid Hill 3* 3*
Jourdan Lewis 4* 4*(167)
Patric Kugler 4*(190) x 4*(54)
Potential Commits
Ty Isaac 4*(28)5* x 5*(18)5*
Laremy Tunsil 5*(4)5* x 5*(3)5*
Kendall Fuller 5*(19)5* x 5*(4)5*
Su'a Cravens 5*(5)5* x 5*(9)5*
Vernon Hargreaves III 5*(3)5* x 5*(10)5*
Joey Bosa 4*(37)5* x 5*(14)5*
E.J. Lavenberry 5*(21)5* x 5*(15)5*
Eddie Vanderdoes 4*(43)5* x 5*(21)5*
Robert Foster 5*(11)5* x 5*(26)5*
Ethan Pocic 4*(60) x 5*(27)5*
Laquon Treadwell 4*(75) x 4*(31)5*
Montravius Adams 5*(7)5* x 4*(33)5*
Dorian O'Daniel 4* x 4*(37)5*
Henry Poggi 4*(66) x 4*(43)5*
Priest Willis 4*(155) x 4*(84)
Demoria Stringfellow 3* 4*(107)
Devon Allen 4* x 4*(110)
Chris Hawkins 4*(214) x 4*(159)
Jonathan Allen 4*(23)5* x 4*(100)
Ben Gedeon 4* x 4*(224)
I know I left quite a few prospects off this list. But the purpose of this was to show the highly touted prospects, so I just listed prospects in the top 250 (247) of each recruiting service. It's pretty crazy how many 5* types we are in on this year. As I'm sure you all know, we currently have 14 spots filled. The staff has said they plan on taking 22-23 in this class, although I think (Hope) we may reach 24 (always seems like there is more attrition than predicted). So lets say we do reach 24, we would have 10 spots remaining. Heres a breakdown of what I think is probable, and what I'm hoping for:
3BA (best av) 2BA
2LB 1LB
1 RB 1RB
1WR 2WR
1CB 1CB
1DT 1DT
1DE 1DE
0TE (coaches want 1) 1TE
Hopeful Probable
1RB- Ty Isaac 1RB- Ty Isaac
1WR- Laquon Treadwell 2WR- Laquon Treadwell
- Demoria Stringfellow - Demorian Stringfellow
- Devon Allen -Devon Allen
1CB- Priest Willis 1CB- Chris Hawkins
- Chris Hawkins - Priest Willis
- Veron Hargreaves - Vernon Hargreaves
- Kendall Fuller - Kendall Fuller
1DT- Henry Poggi 1DT- Henry Poggi
- Martravius Adams - Martravius Adams
- Rod Crayton - Rod Crayton
1DE- Eddie Vanderdoes 1DE- Eddie Vanderdoes
- Joey Bosa - Joey Bosa
- Jonathan Allen - Jonathan Allen
2LB- E.J. Lavenberry 1LB- Ben Gedeon (likely)
- Dorian O'Daniel - E.J. Lavenberry
- Ben Gedeon - Dorian O'Daniel
3BA- S Su'a Craven (MUST!) 1TE- Scott Orndoff
- LB Ben Gedeon (best LB) 2BA- OL Laremy Tunsil
- OL Laremy Tunsil - LB E.J. Lavenberry
- OL Ethan Pocic - S Su'a Cravens
- OL Ethan Pocic
If either of these options are even close to what we end up with, I think we will all be VERY happy. We could potentially end up with 8-12 5*s in this class!!!! I know stars aren't everything, but its pretty amazing this staff has been able to put this kinda class together in just their second year. Sorry if this is hard to follow, I had a little trouble with formatting.
You know you can edit your board entry instead of reposting it 3 times? Though this one is a bit easier to read.
Also, while I appreciate the effort, why explain the most services have 20-30 5-star players, but then turn around and call the top 50 on each service a 5-star?
If you want a "true" definition of a 5-star at least an average of the services (33-34 players/year) if not the most restrictive (22-29) criteria seems more appropriate.
Microsoft Excel
Just making sure I'm following what you're saying. It sounds to me like this: If a we assign five stars to some of our higher picks that aren't really five stars, do the same with players we've offered but who haven't committed yet, we might end up with 8-12 five stars in this class.
Try using this method with previous Michigan classes (including players we might have gotten), and I'll bet you will see them swimming in 5 stars too.
Don't get me wrong. It's a great class, but we don't need to inflate how good it is.
Well-said. That's what I was getting at above, but this sums it up much more nicely.
We have a realtively new poster here trying to actually provide data and analysis. Let us be kind with our remarks, and our suggestions, on how he can make that analysis both better and more easily read. Are these not the kind of people we want to encourage to both read and post on this board?
I second this. I very rarely will post any board topics. Probably shouldn't take it too personally though.
I hope the guy posts again too. I do appreciate the effort, but there are two serious problems with the OP: the formatting sucks and the conclusion is ridiculous. Now perhaps I could be more gentle in my wording, but unless we're responding to just the effort someone makes, this OP has some problems. The formatting problem can happen to anyone: you never quite know how it's going to look until it is posted. I appreciate the Microsoft Excel comment because it provides a way to improve the formatting. Here's my bit of constructive criticism: make sure your conclusion can be reasonably defended. If the post isn't some breaking news that has to be posted immediately to be relevent and you.ve put a lot into it, perhaps wait a day or two to take a second look before posting. And keep posting. Don't let me or anyone else who criticizes what you do dissuade you from creating new posts. Not everything works out as planned.
If we got two 5* commits from this class, which may already have, that would be an amazing haul (when added to our 10 4* recruits--and it's still March!). But I think that, in general, the 5* thing is vastly overrated. Every now and then there are a few players who should be stars and are just so dominant at the HS level that they are likely to be dominant in college as well. But this is not common, and is still somewhat uncertain.
The key isn't to get more 5* players. The key is to get very good players that fit our system. As is often pointed out, Mike Hart was a 3* prospect and was a four-year game-changer for Michigan. Will Campbell was a 5* player and has been nothing more than a good back-up at this point in his career.
Yes, I'm excited that we're getting some of the best players (according to recruiting services) in the country. But I'm more excited that we're getting good kids, and that all of our recruits are very good players, even the 3* players.
But, for fun, let's say we get 3 5* players, 15 4* players, and 5 3* players in this class (very realistic). That could very well land us the #1 class for 2013. And it's not a stretch at all.
I think Jaron Dukes will be a four-star before it's all said and done.
Thanks for putting this together- nice to visualize how great the talent interested or signed with Michigan is right now
Is it crazy to think how awesome it would be to have Martavious Odoms and Montravious Adams in the same 8 year span?
the Martavious/Montravious comment made me laugh
Are you saying the players listed under "Probable" are probably going to commit to M, or that the number of recruits per position is more likely in the "Probable" column?
Thank you, I appreciate the input everyone. I realize it def would been easier to use Excel, I just don't have it. I know this was a little far fetched, but thats why I put both what will be close to there star rating (averaged), and the "Scout" method (top 50, more for fun). And as for the poster that said we could't have anywhere close to 8-12 5*s, I disagree. If we average the amount of 5*s in each class, for each service, as I did in the OP. We currently have five commits that would be 5* to at least one site. With guys like EJ Lavenberry, Ty Isaac, Su'a Cravens, Laquon Treadwell, Eddie Poggi, (the list goes on) who are all 5*s, so high on UM, it's hard to believe we wont land at least 3 of them.