UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[iam416]

Poor, wretched Buchanan.

You know, if you'd read the article you would have seen that M outrecruited OSU from 2002-09 thereby rendering your silly spiel even sillier. Tressel did do a much better job of developing players than Carr. But that's no surprise.

[WM Wolverine]

Tressel had a much better eye for talent than Lloyd. There were many times M would sign a 4-star recruit during the last several years of Lloyd's career (usually M was his only 'big' offer) that I wondered why they would take said recruit. Meanwhile the state of Ohio was deeply loaded with talented and I'd argue that talent in Ohio was underrated by the recruiting services.

[Optimus Prime]

Ted Kaczynski, I pray for your soul.

[iam416]

That's probably true, WM. I mean, that's the other explanation for data. Probably a mix of both. Tressel's 5* players were probably subpar - below the 38% draft rate for 5*. But he hit really big on 3* and 4* players.

[Jeff Buchanan]

...... M outrecruited OSU from 2002-09 thereby rendering your silly spiel even sillier. Tressel did do a much better job of developing players than Carr. But that's no surprise.

You're missing my point ..... or maybe I didn't make it well enough.

It's widely accepted by most observers of CFB that USC, under Pete Carroll, enticed a lot of talented players to come to USC with the promise of benefits. While Carroll may or may not have been directly involved in arranging benefits, his record of wins there in the setting of the Reggie Bush affair, speaks volumes about the underlying reasons for USC's success during his coaching tenure there.

I don't think there is much doubt that tressel achieved the degree of success he did at osu, not only because he was a good football coach, but also because he played by the same rules and used the same slimy recruiting tactics that Carrol did at USC. tressel wasn't writing the checks to terrell pryor or mo-c or devier posey, among a dozen or so other very talented osu players, but no one with a brain believes tressel didn't know about the boosters that were.

No one disputes that programs that recruit more talented kids are going to have greater success on the field and put more players in the NFL. The argument that Michigan out-recruited osu for a period in the 2000s does not disprove the hypothesis I'm advancing.

That hypothesis is that too often teams that achieve great success have done so by recruiting on the margins if not completely out of bounds. Auburn and Oregon are good examples of the later. I think there is plenty of factual evidence that supports that hypothesis applies in the case of both USC and osu.

Michigan football in the modern era, OTH, and if my memory serves me, has never had even a whiff of questionable football recuriting going on inside Schembechler Hall. Because of that, some top players enticed by that sort of thing go elsewhere .... and there are a bunch of players I can name who were seriously interested in Michigan over the years but went elsewhere, it can safely be presumed, because of the benefits.

[iam416]

Whatever. This is the recruiting thread, not a place rehash this. Go over to the OSU thread and sure you'll find some M fans to babble with.

[Jeff Buchanan]

...... the corollary then, and getting back to my original post on this, is that while M has lost a good deal of talent to other programs, not bringing in the star power so to speak, Michigan football has nonetheless competed with most programs that weren't cheating and even some that were. M's record (excluding the Horror) is an enviable one considering what they are up against with the Auburn's, Oregon's USC's and osu's of the CFB world and the SEC in general.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Whatever. This is the recruiting thread, not a place rehash this. Go over to the OSU thread and sure you'll find some M fans to babble with.

This is most definitely about recruiting ..... the shady side of it that made osu football what it thought it was.

[Rob F]

Awesome and "timely" analysis re recruiting: http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2...school-recruit

What's particularly interesting, to me at least, is that M slightly out-recruited OSU (per Rivals) from 2002-09.

Thanks for that link, Talent---I just read the last 1 1/2 pages of this thread and finally went back and clicked on that link after reading your very recent post that referred to the link. As I hadn't looked at that link until now, suddenly it became apparent to me that it does indeed have some very interesting data.

Just wish it weren't so late right now (bedtime), so I'll take a better look at it tomorrow.

Want to say one thing, though--that Iowa Blog, Blackheartgoldpants.com, is definitely quality stuff.

[iam416]

Thanks, Rob. It's an interesting and, unsurprisingly, pro-Iowa take on the data. But overall, a very interesting read. As WM pointed out, two of the other things that explains the gap in "stars" and "draft picks" is the coaches ability to identify talent that will succeed in his system and the undervaluing of players say in the Midwest. I think a third is that it captures "oversigning" casulties -- so Mississippi has a fairly high recruiting rating which has to be based on some of Nutt's massive classes.

It is nonetheless an interesting post. And I agree that blog is a good one.

[WM Wolverine]

One aspect I thought of last night but didn't have time to write was that not all 4-star are created equal, some 4-stars are borderline 5-stars; USC & more recently Alabama signs tons of these, top 75-100 overall types; likely NFL talent...

Same is true for 3-stars, the 3-stars M and Ohio State sign are clearly a level better than those that MSU, Indiana, Purdue, MSU and Minnesota sign. Rivals is good at breaking down 4-stars into a couple different levels (5.8, 5.9 I think) and separates 3-stars into three levels (5.7, 5.6 & 5.5)... M & OSU sign mostly 5.7 rated 3-stars while other B10 programs are usually happy when they sign a 5.6 or 5.5 rated 3-star.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Seriously, and I don't mean to demean anyone here, but you are discussing the relative value, in terms of his potential contribution to a college football team, of an 18 year old HS athlete with maybe a year's worth of observation in a football uniform. Evaluating these kids then comes down to a numeric differential of 0.1 to 0.3?

I think that's bunk. Can't be done in a reliably meaningful way.

This kind of stuff might be fun to talk about for fans but when you get down to this level of differentiation, it just seems absurd. Can you explain to me how this sort of thing is of any value at all in assessing a HS football player's potential?

I'd argue that coaching staffs doing the recruiting look at tape, go to camps and talk to a players coaches when assessing a HS players potential. I doubt they care a wit about these player star and numerical rankings that fans fawn over.

I understand there is some correlation (though I don't know the strength or mathematical values of it) between stars and wins.

I often wonder if the correlation has been massively over-hyped and player rankings has little more to do with on field success than coincidence. Has anyone ever seriously looked at that to determine if the relationship between player rankings coming out of HS and future on field success is as strong as it is claimed to be by those doing the ranking (and making a lot of money in the process)?

[iam416]

That's a fair point, too, WM. I think the blog entry is giving a really general view of things as it is limited in terms of precision. But, I suppose you could do a breakdown of Rivals on the 5.4 up to 6.1 scale (or whatever their lower limit is).

I think the better point is that some of these coaches are just better at identifying talent, as you noted.

I doubt they care a wit about these player star and numerical rankings that fans fawn over.

I have no doubt -- they don't. That said, Hoke and UFM and Lane-O and The Nick spend most of their time recruiting kids who happen to be highly rated. Now, part of that is that the ratings folks pay attention to offer lists. But the larger part of it is that the ratings are generally accurate.

I often wonder if the correlation has been massively over-hyped and player rankings has little more to do with on field success than coincidence. Has anyone ever seriously looked at that to determine if the relationship between player rankings coming out of HS and future on field success is as strong as it is claimed to be by those doing the ranking (and making a lot of money in the process)?

I know there's a blog entry on this somewhere. Average recruiting ranking over, say, 10 years and then your average final season ranking over a corresponding time frame. There's obviously a correlation and probably a pretty decent one.

[hack]

Mattison said recently he doesn't see stars, and evaluates players on his own. Great -- that's how it should be. As it happens, though, quite often his conclusions probably ratify the rankings. This is how it should be -- coaches do their own homework and don't rely on the services.

[drok]

Yes the coaches don't pay attention to stars and instead evaluate based on tape, camps, etc. But so do the recruiting services, that's why their rankings often match up with who the coaches are targeting and which prospects get drafted.

I believe Matt Hinton from Dr. Saturday did the recruiting rankings analysis Talent was referring to that showed overwhelmingly how much stars DO matter - showing how much more likely a 5 star is to be drafted versus a 4 star and how a 4 star is much more likely to be drafted than a 3 star. People get caught up in the branding of 5 star versus 4 star, etc. but the actual scouting work these services do are generally pretty good and is the only glimpse into the process that most fans have access to.