ESPN: UM 2011 Class Remains Unranked

Submitted by 2014 on October 20th, 2010 at 2:22 PM

We're not in the top 25. OK, I guess that could be true theoretically at this point in the season. But...

According to our man Tim's Diary, this does not compute:

Our average recruit ranking on ESPN is 78.17 vs. Nebraska's average of 75.85. Nebraska has 13 commitments, we have 12.

Nebraska is ranked #15. We are not ranked.

Am I missing something other than the obvious "ESPN blows" response?

edit: link behind paywall added:



October 20th, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^

since the whole ranking thing is subjective, does it really matter if our avg ranking is higher then Nebraskas? Really, in these rankings, 1-5 are about the same and 6-25 are about the same. The only way to truly evaluate is after their careers are over.


October 20th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^

The answer is that Nebraska actually develops its recruited talent where we have shown an incredible knack for running off high rated players and not develop the ones that stay.


October 20th, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^

They are based on how they evaluate the player and who get's them. They aren't considering each school and if they will develop them. They are basing it on how this player should be developed and the level they should get to.

Slippery Rock …

October 20th, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^

There may be a bias toward ranking big name programs higher on the list, but there certainly isn't any ranking neg bang for some silly thought that UM doesn't develop talent.  It's true, a player's upside is a big factor in their individual rankings, but no one thinks that upside goes to hell because they chose UM.  If anything, the opposite seems to be true.  How many unknown kids got the "obligatory 3-star" treatment after picking Michigan? 


To the OP, not that I know much about Nebraska's recruiting class, but it may be thought of as better "fits for the system/needs".  That is pure guesswork, though.


October 20th, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^

That's true. I myself saw RR use a shotgun to pepper the pavement at the feet of Ryan Mallett, Justin Boren, Austin White and JT Turner as they ran down the middle of State Street late one night. Ran 'em off in the same way an enraged father does to the punk who knocked up his virginal 15-yr old daughter.


October 20th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^

Can we stop with the stupid "Will Campbell was a 5 star" or "But Mike Hart was a 3 star!". It has been shown that star ratings do matter on a large scale. Higher star = better chance of being a great player. Fact. There will always be recruits that out perform their rating and there will always be those that do not live up, but overall, ratings matter. Look at the rankings in recent years. If you want to know who's PROBABLY going to be winning championships, look at the top 5 recruiting classes for the past few years


Edit: and this isn't meant as a direct shot at you profit


October 20th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^

It's true that stars are positively correlated with on-field performance.  Two additional points:

* Remember that Rivals and Scout are skewed at least slightly to the south in the sense that it's not uncommon to find 5-6 SEC schools hanging around the top ten.  Never seems to work out that way on the field, though (as measured by performances in nonconference games like bowls) ...

* Please don't bother RichRod (or any coach) if the precious 4-star recruit winds up being a lemon.  (Not saying you personally would do that ...)  Stars shouldn't matter after practices start.


October 20th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^

It's pretty hard for 5-6 teams from the same conference to hang around the top 10.  Odds those teams are going to beat each other up.  Where you are ranked is heavily determined by the number of losses you have.  A 3 loss team from a real good BCS conference is probably going to be ranked behind a 1 loss team from a bad BCS conference.

The SEC West this year is a good example.  To varying degrees Auburn, Alabama, Arkansas and LSU are all pretty good teams.  However, they all have to play each other and odds are one or two end up with 3 losses and not hanging around the Top 10.


October 20th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^

On the bottom of the rankings page there is a "On the Cusp" section. Listed:


Michigan State


Not listed:




October 20th, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^

I did a little number crunching, the issue may be that if you remove the one NR recruit from Nebraska's class, their average rating is actually 78.42.

In order to get to the average of 75.85 that Tim has Nebraska down for, the NR recruits rating would have to be a 45. 45 may be the default for non-rated players, but it seems like a severe drop off from the their lowest rated recruit of 75 especially when the NR recruit has a 5.8 from Rivals.

Basically, I'd say Nebraska's true average rating is right in line with ours. Maybe a smidge higher actually.

I heart you Tim, and I think 45 is the default ranking on ESPN, but it really throws off the avg. rating. Maybe there is a fix for this in your analysis?

FYI, Wisconsin has 3 NRs which is really hurting their ranking.


October 20th, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^

It's all good.   EspnU Recruiting Website always for the most part undermine the rank or potential of Michigan current verbal recruits.  I don't pay much attention to them.  It is what it is.   If we can wrap up Zettel, Kris Frost, another receiver, not sure about S.Watkins,  and a good safety whether it's long show Ha Ha Clinton Dix or Avery Walls we will see then going into February 2011.  


We have to beat PS Who, Illinois & Purdue for sure to at least wrap up a 8 win season.


GO BLUE.... 


October 20th, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^

It's tough to predict someone's will and determination. Some 5 star guys can come in and never play up to their potential. Some 3 star guys can bust their ass and make it to the pros.