In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 525
Online now 509 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Uhh, we're doing a pretty good job keeping up with them.
This.....quite an anomaly I would say
I am going to try and combine some things I have been thinking about in regards to our recruiting rankings. If you look at our team rating for this year, we are at 754.03. If you put that in the 2012 rankings, we would have the 12th ranked recruiting class. We may get 3 more guys, but as recent commits show, that won't move the needle much, we may get up to 758, which would put us as the 10th ranked class last year.
Earlier I pointed this out,
"Looking at recruiting last year compared to this year and how the rankings didn't move much with the committment of Hurst.
In 2012, Michigan had 14, 4* commits. 11 of those kids had a rating of 93 or higher.
This year, Michigan has 16, 4* commits. 6 of those kids have a rating of 93 or higher.
I believe that these kids will receive slights bumps here and there as they camp and send in more film."
That got me to looking further into the ranking, and I came up with when comparing the 2012 and 2013 classes overall,
"Treadwell will give a slight bump, but if you look at last year top 247 compared to this year, there is still alot of change to be done.
2012 ratings and rankings for kids.
5* kids, 1-25
97 rating, 26-43
96 rating, 44-84
95 rating, 85-147
94 rating, 148-191
93 rating, 192-231
92 rating, 232-???
For the 2013 cycle so far,
5* kids, 1-21
97 rating, 22-23
96 rating, 24-36
95 rating, 37-78
94 rating, 79-132
93 rating, 133-158
92 rating, 159-209
91 rating, 210-243
90 rating, 244-???
There is still alot of change if the 2013 ratings are going to end up in the same ballpark as the 2012 ratings."
What I looked at this morning, making me late for work, was where the 2013 kids ratings would be if they part of the 2012 class. I took the kid, his ranking this year and what the rating is, then put the rating on him for the what the kids last year were ranked. The +1 and +2 are the improvement for the kids ratings wise using that comparison.
Shane Morris, 22nd ranked kid, 97 rating. Last year the 22nd ranked kid had a 98 rating. +1
Dymonte Thomas, 45th ranked kid, 95 rating. Last year the 45th ranked kid had a 96 rating. +1
Kyle Bosch, 46th ranked kid, 95 rating. Last year the 46th ranked kid had a 96 rating. +1
Chris Fox, 60th ranked kid, 95 rating. Last year the 60th kid had a 96 rating. +1
Logan Tuley-Tillman, 85th ranked kid, 94 rating. Last year the 85th ranked kid had a 95 rating. +1
Taco Charlton, 90th ranked kid, 94 rating. Last year the 90th ranked kid had a 95 rating. +1
Henry Poggi, 105th ranked kid, 94 rating. Last year the 105th ranked kid had a 95 rating. +1
Ben Gedeon, 174th ranked kid, 92 rating. Last year the 174th ranked kid had a 94 rating. +2
Mike McCray, 176th ranked kid, 92 rating. Last year the 176th ranked kid had a 94 rating. +2
David Dawson, 196th ranked kid, 92 rating. Last year the 196th ranked kid had a 93 rating. +1
Patrick Kulger, 206th ranked kid, 92 rating. Last year the 206th ranked kid had a 93 rating. +1
Deveon Smith, 229th ranked kid, 91 rating. Last year the 229th ranked kid had a 93 rating. +2
Gereon Conley, 234th ranked kid, 91 rating. Last year the 234th ranked kid had a 92 rating. +1
Once again, where am I going with all of this? I don't know, but I found it interesting. New players will pop up and bump our guys down. Our guys will perform well this summer in camps, this fall on the field, this winter at AA games, and move up.
The bottom line is I am trying to figure out where are class will end up being ranked. It is looking like worse case scenerio, if nobody gets a bump up throughout the year, then they will end up around 10th. If some kids get bumps as they should be receiving, then I expect the class to end up around top 5. We will see as new rankings and ratings come out throughout the year.
One thing i would like to add to this is that 2013 just might not be as strong an overall year as 2012. My point being there might not be as many overall points to be handed out to the teams so a score of 758 might end up a top 5 class for 2013. If you look at 2014's top 100 the top 37 are all 97 or above and like you pointed out 2013 stops at the 23rd recruit for the 97 rankings. So, we may not see the 2013 class get in the same ballpark as the 2012 class.
Agreed, this isn't scout that gives out a set # each year. These kids are rated based on how good they are individually, not where they fall at in the rankings.
My only issue is the ranking of our LS. He is the #2 LS in the country. If he is the #2 at any other position on the field besides K/P he is a 4-5 *. So I don't see how a team takes a hit like that in team rankings when they take a position of need.
He's still a LS, though, you're not ever going to find a LS that's ranked a 3*, let alone a 4 or 5*.
Go Blue & Gig Em'!
You must be referring to our average star ranking. The team point total didn't take a hit and 247 doesn't use average star ranking to rank the team classes.
Yeah I was considering star average but the same argument can be made about the number rating. Why should it be so low if they are the best at their specialty?
Because, no matter how elite he maybe, he is limited on how much he will see the field and impact the game. Punts/FGs/XPs combined, a half dozen to a dozen times at the most per game. Other positions see 50+ snaps a game.
I understand that but I ask why. If you look at the ratings on some sites they 5* means immediate impact kid, potential all-american blah blah. If this kid is snaping the ball at .72 seconds as a junior, that is nearly the same or better than the best LS in college right now. SO if they gave an award for best LS, he potentially is an all-american at that position. It meats the definition of many of the ranking explanations.
That seems like a fair explanation. Thanks.
I see what you are saying but I think the answer really is the sites don't rank long snappers. Not one of the sites has the kid rated.
Michigan will wind up in the lower top ten, maybe 11 or 12 in this year's recruiting class.
Regardless of where UM's class finishes, you still will have no friends.
I posed this question to you previously: what would happen if I went over to your site, BOL, and posted something similar? I'd appreciate an answer this time.
Top 20 is more accurate, 11 or 12 might be pushing it
Don't expect one till tomorrow.
Go Blue and Go Titans!
Either stop trolling or stop posting here, we have given you a bunch of leeway already but any continuing trolling will be dealt with.
doin' work.. Would you mind doing my team now?
Are you guys really that bothered about your LS's ranking? We signed the top LS in the country last year and it is what it is. If it makes you feel any better we have 2 scholarship LS's on this years roster..
Don't know who you are, first I've seen you post, but calling BS!!!!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports