Hoke vs. RR recruiting (Rivals data only)

Submitted by His Dudeness on July 26th, 2011 at 9:00 AM

I saw this on the Rivals message board and thought it would piss some people off this morning. Debate away!


Hoke current 1st full class:

0 5-star recruits
10 4-star recruits
10 3-star recruits

AVG Star rating: 3.5

R-Rod's 1st full class:

1 5-star recruits
13 4-star recruits
8 3-star recruits

AVG Star rating: 3.68

Hoke 1st partial class:

0 5-star recruits
6 4-star recruits
13 3-star recruits
1 2-star recruit

AVG Star rating: 3.2

R-Rod 1st Partial Class

0 5-star recruits
17 4-star recruits
6 3-star recruits
1 2-star recruit

AVG Star rating: 3.66

 I know people love to bash RR and rub a Hoke tummy, but the numbers seem to tell a different tale about the recruiting prowess of the loveable Hok-e bear.



July 26th, 2011 at 9:03 AM ^

The problem with this data is that RR's class average was done after recruiting was complete.  Hoke's class has an entire senior season to go and could easily get more stars.  It's not an even comparison at this point. 


July 26th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^

Another way of looking at it is that the class is mostly done.  As other teams add more prospects they'll gain, while Michigan won't.

Just looking at recruiting rankings, a typical Michigan class (regardless of if its Rodriguez or Carr) was in the 5-15 range.  Hoke's class may be #2 now, but projects to finish in the 7-13 range (per TomVH and common sense).

So...what you will get in the end is a typical Michigan class, as suggested by the data above.

As others have noted, the timeline is different and geographical distribution might be unusual, but the end result (at least according to recruiting rankings) is typical / average / normal.  That could change with a few 5 stars, but isn't that always the case...


July 26th, 2011 at 9:03 AM ^

With Kalis and Magnuson primed to get their 5th stars, and our position with so many other recruits, I have a feeling Hoke's first class will end up being even greater than RR's first.

Besides, how many of RR's first class is still on our team?


July 26th, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^

years. It was the first thing that popped into my head as well considering the attrition. Honestly this just seems like a useless comparison until those classes actually start producing. If RichRod had won or had a coaching staff that demonstrated  a bit more competence, nobody cares what his classes were rated. Hoke gets a belly rub from the coaching staff he has assembled and "wins" over MSU and OSU on the recruiting trail. Losses on the field may change all that in 4 months.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^

I believe four of the 4 stars from the 2009 class have left (didn't count 3 stars) and Campbell is just starting this year. Also, Denard was in that class. I know Rivals has been high on Magnusson, but his jump to a five star is much farther and harder to predict than Kalis's jump would be.

Also, as someone said above, Hoke's class is not finished yet. So lets assume we get Diamond, Burbridge, Pipkins, Madaris/3 star WR, Dunn/Fuller, Wormley that would give us really similar rankings to RR's 2009 class which was 8th on signing day, and then I am not sure but I think was 6th after kids enrolled.

And Hoke's first class was built after RR's fell apart when he was fired (mainly refering to Frost, Zettel, and Hart), so Hoke had a lower ranked class than RR who inherited a Loyd Carr class which didn't evaporate when he retired (less friction than RR's leaving), so it is unfair to really compare Hoke and RR's first partial classes. You should compare the kids they added and evaluate how many kids they lost as a better comparison, which is probably pretty equal.

I mentioned some of this on the Rivals ranking post, but we are probably looking at a top 10 class with the outside chance of moving up to a top 5 is a Peat or Garnett also find their way into this class. I know people are proclaiming Hoke is a great recruiter, and so far he IS. Your complaint that people aren't properly analyzing Hoke's recruiting against RR is true also. RR started recruiting very well, but after a 3-9 season and most of the 2010 and 2011 recruiting classes being hampered by consistent rumors about him being on the hot-seat, our recruiting went downhill. Nonetheless, I was slightly frustrated with the 2010 class anyways.


July 26th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^

Yeah but that always involved moving up in the rankings because they were "blowing up".

Kalis is currently 1 spot out of the 5 stars and Rivals always adds at least 15 more, so he just cant drop 15+ spots.  I would say that is primed for it.


July 26th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^

Besides, how many of RR's first class is still on our team?


Exactly I was/am a RR supported but damn man when you recruit 20 kids and only 12 make it past their frosh year WTF?! I will take a solid 16-7 kids by Hoke's standards and let him build them up into players. Why do you think TCU and Boise are so good? They get kids who fit their system and become 4-5 year studs who know the system in and out.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:08 AM ^

You can get a lot of stars from guys who are small and fast, just as you can from guys who are big and strong. Also RR had more time between being hired and signing day than Brady, and Brady's first full class is currently #3 in the county with lot's of big targets on the board. Let's see where the classes end up and how wins and losses go.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:08 AM ^

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not impressed that Hoke can recruit up to Michigan's traditional standards. I'm impressed that he can do so after the three worst years (as far as record goes) in Michigan football.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^

The other aspect is reputation. RR was coming off a season where his team was a game away from a national championship appearance and won a BCS bowl championship. Before Rich, Lloyd and Moeller could recruit off of keeping Bo's train rolling, and Bo was...Bo. Hoke is coming off a nice season in the MWC but nothing spectacular, as well as coming into a totally different situation than any of the coaches before him.

It's definitely harder for Hoke to be putting up equal results, IMO.


July 26th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^

You're preaching to the choir about some of RR's problems here. I didn't like the way things turned out with Rich and I even believe he should have been given another year, but looking at the recruiting job Hoke is doing, it's hard to say he could do any better, especially given the circumstances.

If Rivals had data going back that far, I'd be surprised if any coach in the modern era has done better before their first season, including Bo. Hoke deserves a lot of credit and it doesn't have to come by diminishing RR's accomplishments.


July 26th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^

On the other hand, DB didn't open the wallet for RR to get the DC he wanted).

Don't confuse Section 1's conspiracy theories with reality. The two only occasionally intersect, if ever. There is zero evidence that RR ever asked for more money for assistants and DB turned him down.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^

Hoke's first full class isn't finished yet.  Maybe we should wait and see what the final numbers are before making declarations.

Also, Hoke's first partial class was at least partially a RR class.  Is the low star average an argument for RR's poor recruiting... or Hoke's?  And RR's first partial class was at least partially Carr's.  Was Carr > RR then??  I'm confused. 


July 26th, 2011 at 9:27 AM ^

Frost wasnt really "lined up"... he was iffy.  Hart would likely have come if RR was solid.  None the less, we know that recruiting is unpredictable right up until signing day so you can't count Hart in the class since you never know (e.g. should we count Diamond & Wormley in Hoke's class since they seem "lined up"?).

As you said, it is an apples to oranges comparison anyway, so it is silly on multiple counts.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^

That's not really true: Frost was heavily favoring Michigan at a minimum for a long time. I am pretty sure he was even a Michigan silent commit for a while. I specifically remember Tom telling us after his recruiting was done that he had been silently committed to Michigan until the coaching change and decided for Auburn then. Here is a link I found searching here where a poster found a Sam Webb interview, which basically insuinated he was a silent commit: http://mgoblog.com/category/user-tags/kris-frost-2011-recruiting 

blue in dc

July 26th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^

We can talk all we want about the guys who were lined up, but no one had signed an LOI. After the bowl debacle and with a serious reshuffling of his defensive staff, it is not clear that RR wouldn't have had some serious challenges in the 6 weeks to signing day.
<br>Furthermore, in evaluating recruiting classes, it is important to consider more than stars, you also have to consider positions of need. One of the things that is exciting me about Hoke's recruiting is that he seems to be filling all the holes on the team (assuming he gets a DT). RR's recruiting has left some big holes on both the offensive and defensive lines.
<br>Finally - why can't people let go. RR didn't get the support he deserved from our former AD - I get that. He also had some bad luck with recruits, I get that too. He also made a bunch of mistakes. Without the first two - maybe he survives his mistakes, but frankly, recruits not panning out is part of coaching and getting your boss to support you is part of any job. But he's not our coach anymore, so why do sime feel compelled to keep pointing out how wonderful he was?

Coastal Elite

July 26th, 2011 at 9:11 AM ^

When he came in, RichRod was recruiting for a program that hadn't missed a bowl game in decades, was a routine contender for the Big Ten title, and had appeared in three of the last four Rose Bowls.

Hoke is recruiting for a program that went 15-22 the past three years, and arrived on campus amid questions of whether Michigan was still even an elite program with a destination coaching job.

Even if they came out even (and they won't; Hoke's recruits will gain more stars without a doubt), Hoke's accomplishment would be greater.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:11 AM ^

Look I can be honest and say I am an RR hater.  I don't go bashing him on everything that happens, and I think he can be a terrific coach in a different conference (big east).  He, in my opinion, was a fine recruiter, but I rather see him take 3 star receivers at 6 4 than a 4 star at 5 7.  That is just my personal opinion.  I think RR didn't FIT Michigan.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:34 AM ^

I really don't understand the concept of a coach "fitting". If RR had won, he would have been a good fit. Is it possible to be losing too much and be a good fit?

Had RR gone 39-0, nobody would be talking about him not understanding tradition, in fact people would likely be looking to name a building after him and heralding him as Yost's second coming. Fit = wins.


July 26th, 2011 at 5:41 PM ^

Fit matters.  RR's decision to let everyone go except Jackson rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.  His decision to invite only top in-state prospects to the Michigan football camp rubbed a lot of high school coaches the wrong way.  His decision to implement a new offense, in spite of what he inherited, convinced Mallett and Arrington that leaving was a better option (Manningham was gone regardless).  And so on.

Yes, if RR had won a ton of games, this stuff would have been swept under the rug eventually.  But by doing these things, he made his own job much more difficult.  The fundamental mistake he made was approaching the Michigan job as a reclamation project where he could start from scratch.  He should have tried to maintain as much continuity as he could have with Carr, and eased his system in.  He didn't and we saw the results.



July 26th, 2011 at 6:15 PM ^

But by doing these things, he made his own job much more difficult.

Yes, he obviously did make his own job more difficult. And it's hard to say exactly what games would have gone differently or what actors made decisions based on his handling of the situation, but it's fair to say that RR was capable of doing a better job than 15-22 and didn't perform. The part where this relates to fit escapes me. If I have my history correct, Bo changed a lot of things, wasn't a popular hire, ect. but he beat OSU while Michigan was down and everyone came in line to support him over the next few years. Had Rich done the same thing, he would have experienced the same reaction. High school coaches want to say that they send kids to win Big Ten championships, alumni and the AD like seeing Michigan competing where it has historically, ect.

The one place where I can definitely say that fit matters is dealing with a situation like Mallett or Arrington. If they liked the way Carr did things and had other options, of course liking (more like believing in, but close enough) the new coach is important. Then again, it seems expected that new coaches lose players recruited by the old staff.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:14 AM ^

If being ticked about going 0 for whatever against the teams Michigan must beat to be Michigan AND declining against them with time, is bashing Rich, I am guilty. It got so bad at the Gator Bowl, that it became an ABR scenerio for the 6 Michigan fans I was watching the game with. Meaning anyone but sounded fine.

Hoke definitely benefits perception wise because he isn't Rich.  No question about that. But it isn't about recruiting stats. Anything he does looks better by comparison.

Like the guys above me said, let's see where it lands in February on those numbers.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:16 AM ^

Here's why people are happy with Hoke's recruiting:

RR's first partial class is more of an indicator of the quality of Michigan's recruiting at the time he took over (End of LC era) - Avg: 3.66

Hoke's first partial class is an indicator of the quality of Michigan recruiting when he took over (end of RR era) - Avg: 3.2

RR maintained the standard of UM recruiting for one year before falling off considerably - a fact that is critical to people sense of satisfaction with Hoke's current class, and one that you didn't mention.  Hoke has immediately reversed the drop off and returned it back to the former standard.

I am not a RR hater, but I think that your presented comparison is missing some honest assessment.

Mr Mackey

July 26th, 2011 at 9:17 AM ^

Well, RR had a lot more time in his "partial" class - and this class isn't complete at all. This is a stupid comparison to get all riled up about


July 26th, 2011 at 9:19 AM ^

I think the classes are about the same - I think the difference is 1. the domination of in-state recruiting 2. the # of midwestern recruits in the class and 3. the timeline of the class.


1. Michigan already has 6 of the top ten recruits and might end up with even more vs. the 2009 RR class which only had two of the top 10 in-state kids. MSU controled the other's.

2. Hoke has 16 kids from Michigan and Ohio so far and RR only had 7.

3. Hoke's class is almost done going into the football season, something we've really never even seen before. RR got a pretty big start 1 year with like 13 or so commitments before the season but nothing like this.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:27 AM ^

the end of Hoke's 2011 partial class was surrounded by a lot more uncertainty than RR's.  Because everyone thought RR was probably going to get fired.  Hoke literally had 3 weeks.

Furthermore - 15 recruits in the 2008 class (12 4-star and 3 -star) were recruited by Carr. 

Totally different set of circumstances dude.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^

# Student athletes recruited by R.R. that have been arrested or academically ineligible:  5  (just a guess)

# Student athletes recruited by Hoke that have been arrested or academically ineligible: 0

Sorry, had to say it!




July 26th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^

So your argument here is that you guess a number of recruits who have gotten in trouble academically or with the law in nearly four years compared to about six months and say it like it's important?


July 26th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^

Let's wait and see how Hoke's first class shakes out. In the beginning, Richrod's problem in recruiting was getting his recruits onto campus and having them stay there. After the two years you use in your data, RichRod's recruiting dropped and the number of guys that didn't make it to campus went up.

I guess in the end, I don't see your point. It's the first off season in a while that the good news far outweighs the bad news. People are happy. Your problem with this is... what?


July 26th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^

LOL.  This is beyond hilarious.  There is a difference between recruiting after Lloyd Carr's win percentage at Michigan, and having to follow RR's win percentage at Michigan.  I think the OP is just trying to stir things up.


July 26th, 2011 at 9:37 AM ^

is the quality of offers that some of the current commits have. For example, Erik Magnuson is currently ranked a 5.9 four-star on Rivals. Jeremy Gallon was a 5.9 four-star on Rivals. Gallon's other offers were from Auburn, Iowa, Iowa State, Florida International, Kansas, UAB and UCF. 

Magnuson? Oh, just no-name schools like Miami (YTM), Notre Dame, Oregon, Stanford, Boise State and the bulk of the Pac-12. 

Your comment also doesn't illustrate the size issue. At 6-6, 275 pounds, Magnuson is a prototypical left tackle. He can bulk up to 300-315 and be an NFL left tackle. Gallon was 5-8, 165 pounds. Good luck finding many of those in the NFL.