New Rivals 250 Released

Submitted by MichiganMan2424 on August 21st, 2012 at 12:09 PM

After releasing the Rivals 100 yesterday, the new Rivals 250 has been released today.

Michigan players appearing;

Dymonte Thomas-#102 (Previously #95)

Chris Fox-#112 (Previously #57)

Jake Butt-#132 (Previously #118)

Jourdan Lewis-#150 (Previously #147)

David Dawson-#165 (Previously #171)

Wyatt Shallman-#206 (Previously #182)

Ross Douglass-#232 (Previously #222)

Taco Charlton-#233 (Making his debut)

Logan Tuley-Tillman-#241 (Previously #235)

Ben Gedeon dropped out of the 250 completely but with a Rivals rating of 5.8 he is close to being ranked more likely.

Every other Michigan commit is a 3 star or lower, with Maurice Hurst Jr., Deveon Smith, Csont'e York, and Jaron Dukes all receiving ratings of 5.7, meaning they are close to becoming 4 stars.

Michigan now has 14 players in the top 250.

Ohio State has 11.

Notre Dame has 8.

Michigan State has 0.

There is going to be a Rivals chat at 2 PM today to discuss the new rankings. Any questions about why Michigan players dropped will most likely be answered the same way that they were yesterday in the Rivals 100 chat. That being that it's not that these players dropped and got worse, but other players imporved and passed them.

Certain players were discussed in the chat yesterday, namely Fox and Dymonte. The stated reason for Fox's drop was his streaky performance at the 5 star challenge in the summer. Dymonte's drop was more because he was not a big camper, so he did not have the same exposure as other recruits.

Comments

AAB

August 21st, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^

But I think every Michigan commit but Shane Morris and Dawson dropped.  Particularly surprised about Lewis and Butt, since they had strong summers.  

Brian

August 21st, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^

all players always drop on average because they are in the top 1% of high school prospects and as time goes along other guys get unearthed. If we're talking more than 10 spots then that's an actual drop. otherwise, it's just time passing. 

AAB

August 21st, 2012 at 12:23 PM ^

McCray , Kugler, Bosch, Fox, Charlton, LTT, though I get that some of these guys may have been overrated to begin with.  I'm actually less surprised at those guys falling than at a couple of the guys (particularly Lewis) not making jumps after getting rave reviews.  I get that he's small, and that Woodard isn't, but at some point a guy getting torched by everyone has to count for something, doesn't it?

flysociety3

August 21st, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^

Obviously, I dont think sliding a few spots in rankings matter at all, because we are still getting the same player... but i would LOVE to hear an explanation as to why Jake Butt, Jourdan Lewis, and Ross Douglass fell in the rankings? 

By all accounts, they performed extremely well at camps.... It just pisses me off that not attending camps equals a slide in rankings for no apparent reason (Gedeon, Thomas, Shallman), but performing well doesnt get you anything unless you fit the bill of the Rivals.com storylines that they need to carry into the fall...

Either way, I couldnt care less what are guys are ranked, but the rationale behind their movement in the rankings just bugs me

AAB

August 21st, 2012 at 12:20 PM ^

is incensed that Burrows, Woodard, and Swoopes stayed close to 5 star status while Michigan guys who performed far better stayed static or dropped.  Allegations of bias are stupid, but some of the moves are head-scratchers, unless they're just rating on physical tools (which I get for Swoopes, but have a harder time understanding for a DB).  

AAB

August 21st, 2012 at 12:34 PM ^

so did Swoopes and Woodard.  I'm just surprised they didn't fall further, especially as people aren't sure Burrows or Woodard are even corners anymore.  Obviously not a big deal or anything, and I get that physical potential counts for a lot, but the disconnect between camp reports and ratings can be surprising sometimes.  

AthensOriginal

August 21st, 2012 at 5:06 PM ^

WHY do they care? If they are getting the better player in their minds, I don't see the relevance of a rating now that will be rendered irrelevant by the time they start playing their first snap of collegiate football.

This fan obsession with recruiting numbers is classic penis measurement stuff. Nothing more.

 

Leaders And Best

August 21st, 2012 at 12:26 PM ^

Rivals 250 on May 30th:

Butt- 118 (down from 96)

Lewis- 147 (up from 167)

Dawson- 171 (up from 199)

Charlton- 175 (up from 183)

Shallman- 182 (down from 160)

LTT- 235 (down from 109)

Gedeon- 237 (down from 224)

 

- The only really major changes are the drops by Taco Charlton and Chris Fox. Everyone else is about within 20 spots of their previous ranking. When you start ranked out high, you are most likely going to move down as new prospects are discovered and evaluated. If you don't participate in camps like Dymonte, Shallman & Gedeon, your evaluation stays in neutral and ranking can only go down.

superstringer

August 21st, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^

This is unbelievable nonsense.  How can you say, "No the guy is really #237, not #224."  Guys at different positions from different parts of the country play different levels of competition etc.  Some guys perform differently in practice (e.g. camps) than in games (e.g. reality).  The gurus cant even agree with each other, showing the massive level of variability in the rankings to begin with.

On top of that, the "probability error" for rankings of HS players has to be enormous - and thus dwarf these minor movements.  I think it's more realistic to say, a guy is "#237, give or take 20 or 30 [or 40 or 50] positions."  So moving from 237 to 224 is like, noise level -- you should ignore it.

Plus, there is a whole other level of this -- a player might perform better for one college than other (coaching, teammates, extra-curricular considerations, etc.).  That's totally unmeasurable.  And renders this entire ranking thing POINTLESS.

So, while the star rankings are bad enough, this whole idea of putting recruits in some numerical order is just STUPID.  Its nothing less than trying to sell subscription services, and trying to provide a basis for the equally mythical recruiting class champion and recruiting class rankings.  We're feeding the monster, people -- simply starved for more information before the game kicks off.

Or, I could be wrong about this.

EDIT:  But I'm not.

Michael Scarn

August 21st, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^

Am I the only one dumbfounded at David Dawson not being ranked higher? I couldn't care less about the rankings, but just doesn't match up with every camp report and tape of him stoning the best D lineman on the camp circuit. What am I missing? Lack of elite size?

teamangel

August 21st, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^

due to simply not camping?  I mean, if I got my scholarship offer and commited to a school, why should I waste my time and money just so I can camp?  It's not like my skill set got diminished.  Oh, well.  Still LOVE this class though!

Leaders And Best

August 21st, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^

I don't think the drop in ranking for players who don't attend camps is an indictment of the player's talent.  That player's evaluation remains constant while the other players around him are shuffling in ranking. In order for a player like Dawson to rise in rankings due to camp performance, a player like Shallman has to move down.

Frank Drebin

August 21st, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^

I don't understand how the sites can differ so much on Gareon Conley. Scout has him ranked in the 60's, and he isn't even in the top 250 for rivals. I really thought he would be in this release, but he is nowhere to be found. I love the kids size and think he could be a great corner for us in the future. Most of the recruits are fairly even across the sites, but he is a major outlier in the rankings.

Leaders And Best

August 21st, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^

Makes him hard to evaluate. Some analysts have had different takes on his highlight films, and some analysts have had a chance to see him in scrimmages already this year.

His senior season and Under Armour Game should give him plenty of opportunities for people to see him. His opening game will be broadcast on FSN this week for starters.

not TOM BRADY

August 21st, 2012 at 3:49 PM ^

Who cares about rankings and stars. They are the same players who commited. They didnt change this is based off whay guys like Mike Farrell saw at some camp. Not on the field with pads on.