Online Now 941

Wolverine247 Board

The place for discussion on the Michigan Wolverines

On this Board 631
Record: 2671 (1/26/2013)

Online now 920
Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)

Reply

Takeover

  • I'm looking at the Rivals 2014 top100 and honestly these rankings look pretty bad to me. Ever since I've followed recruiting, I've used Rivals whenever I look at rankings, but so far I think 247 is doing the best job with them. IMO this is the year 247sports becomes the best recruiting service. flex

    Steve, Clint, Mark, and Thomas all do fantasic jobs of bringing us info and writing articles.

    This post was edited by Rabid on 2/16/2013 at 12:50 PM

    signature image

    Rabid

  • Then halfway through the year 247 has 100 guys that came out of nowhere and they move them up

    Michmania ●

  • Michmania said...

    Then halfway through the year 247 has 100 guys that came out of nowhere and they move them up

    Exactly. 247's rankings change too much. They should put out an initial set of rankings after junior year and then update them once each for summer camps, senior season and maybe the all-star games. Also, the fact that 247 openly factors in where a prospect commits is bizarre. A prospect should not get a higher ranking because he commits to one school over another. Offers I understand, because if the top schools want a prospect that's a very good confirmation he's probably good, but where he commits should be irrelevant. I look at all four services, but think Rivals still does it best.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by MrWoodson on 2/16/2013 at 1:19 PM

    MrWoodson ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    Exactly. 247's rankings change too much. They should put out an initial set of rankings after junior year and then update them once each for summer camps, senior season and maybe the all-star games. Also, the fact that 247 openly factors in where a prospect commits is bizarre. A prospect should not get a higher ranking because he commits to one school over another. Offers I understand, because if the top schools want a prospect that's a very good confirmation he's probably good, but where he commits should be irrelevant. I look at all four services, but think Rivals still does it best.

    Let's not forget the bumps for uncommitted prospects too, just to keep things interesting down the line.

    Personally, I still go by Rivals too.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • I usually go with whoever ranks Michigan guys higher.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Ducksworth

  • Michmania said...

    Then halfway through the year 247 has 100 guys that came out of nowhere and they move them up

    Is this a bad thing? Not every prospect is going to be discovered immediately. For example, nobody knew who Eddie Jackson (going to Bama) was until about 3 or 4 weeks until NSD. If somebody gets discovered late, no reason they shouldn't update the rankings to include prospects who come on the scene late.

    signature image

    Rabid

  • MrWoodson said...

    Exactly. 247's rankings change too much. They should put out an initial set of rankings after junior year and then update them once each for summer camps, senior season and maybe the all-star games. Also, the fact that 247 openly factors in where a prospect commits is bizarre. A prospect should not get a higher ranking because he commits to one school over another. Offers I understand, because if the top schools want a prospect that's a very good confirmation he's probably good, but where he commits should be irrelevant. I look at all four services, but think Rivals still does it best.

    I agree that 247 shouldn't rank players on where they commit. Overall I'm liking their 2014 rankings the best though.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Rabid on 2/16/2013 at 1:38 PM

    signature image

    Rabid

  • Ducksworth said...

    I usually go with whoever ranks Michigan guys higher.

    Ducksworth's rankings, imho.

    buttesnake ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    lso, the fact that 247 openly factors in where a prospect commits is bizarre. A prospect should not get a higher ranking because he commits to one school over another. Offers I understand, because if the top schools want a prospect that's a very good confirmation he's probably good, but where he commits should be irrelevant.

    I didn't know 247 ranked based on final destinations. Seems like one of the least logical things they could possibly do when it comes to rankings. They need to change that as soon as possible.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Mitch Again ●

  • Rabid said...

    I'm looking at the Rivals 2014 top100 and honestly these rankings look pretty bad to me. Ever since I've followed recruiting, I've used Rivals whenever I look at rankings, but so far I think 247 is doing the best job with them. IMO this is the year 247sports becomes the best recruiting service. flex

    Steve, Clint, Mark, and Thomas all do fantasic jobs of bringing us info and writing articles.

    Thanks for the support. It's fans like you that make this site great.

    signature image

    Twitter: ClintBrew247 E-Mail: Clint.Brewster@yahoo.com

    Clint Brewster ●

  • CMXI said...

    Let's not forget the bumps for uncommitted prospects too, just to keep things interesting down the line.

    Personally, I still go by Rivals too.

    Exactly. TBH I think 247 moves the rankings around so much intentionally to build website traffic. Every time they move a guy up or down someone starts a thread to complain about it. I can't say I really blame them, because this is a business. But worrying about every update they put out 12 months ahead of NSD is a waste of time. If you are going to use 247's rankings, there's no point even looking at them until at least November.

    MrWoodson ●

  • buttesnake said...

    Ducksworth's rankings, imho.

    Well, those are usually the ones that have Michigan guys highest.

    But they're totally unbiased.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Ducksworth

  • Michmania said...

    Then halfway through the year 247 has 100 guys that came out of nowhere and they move them up

    I like that.

    If they get more videos or see another prospect in person and he has improved, and he deserves to move up, why should they have to wait for some arbitrary date to change? That is just stupid IMO.

    Rankings should be fluid, and I like that the 247's rankings are.

    signature image signature image

    Go Blue and Go Titans!

    CorchBlue

  • Mitch Again said...

    I didn't know 247 ranked based on final destinations. Seems like one of the least logical things they could possibly do when it comes to rankings. They need to change that as soon as possible.

    JC said they factored that in because some staffs (i.e. Alabama) have a better track record of developing talent than others. It created quite the discussion on tBB several weeks ago. These are their rankings so in the end they are entitled to factor in whatever they want. But a lot of posters were surprised to find out.

    MrWoodson ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    JC said they factored that in because some staffs (i.e. Alabama) have a better track record of developing talent than others. It created quite the discussion on tBB several weeks ago. These are their rankings so in the end they are entitled to factor in whatever they want. But a lot of posters were surprised to find out.

    lol I was thinking this exact same thing when all the Ohio guys moved up. It's just a way to make the site look like they are evaluating the recruits better.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine ●

  • Ducksworth said...

    Well, those are usually the ones that have Michigan guys highest.

    But they're totally unbiased.

    I agree.

    buttesnake ●

  • WillyWolverine said...

    lol I was thinking this exact same thing when all the Ohio guys moved up. It's just a way to make the site look like they are evaluating the recruits better.

    I'm not trying to bash 247. The message board set up is the best around and I love the writers and content we get here. I was just responding to the OP's comment that somehow Rivals' rankings are flawed. I simply disagree with that. I think they do the rankings the best. FWIW I also think 247's scoring system is too complicated. Does anyone really believe they can accurately distinguish between thousands of HS players to the point they can distinguish a 91 from a 92 or a 92 from a 93? It's hard enough just to figure out the four stars from the three stars.

    This post was edited by MrWoodson on 2/16/2013 at 2:40 PM

    MrWoodson ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    I'm not trying to bash 247. The message board set up is the best around and I love the writers and content we get here. I was just responding to the OP's comment that somehow Rivals' rankings are flawed. I simply disagree with that. I think they do the rankings the best. FWIW I also think 247 's scoring system is too complicated. Does anyone really believe they can accurately distinguish between thousands of HS players to the point they can distinguish a 91 from a 92 or a 92 from a 93? It's hard enough just to figure out the four stars from the three stars.

    Oh i wasn't saying you were bashing 247. If anything i was bashing them more than you.

    I do disagree with you on the scoring system though. I love 247s scoring system. To me there is a difference between a high 4 star(94-96) and say a 90 or 91. I just don't get all riled up over who is better when you start talking about a kid ranked 1 or 2 numbers a part.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    JC said they factored that in because some staffs (i.e. Alabama) have a better track record of developing talent than others. It created quite the discussion on tBB several weeks ago. These are their rankings so in the end they are entitled to factor in whatever they want. But a lot of posters were surprised to find out.

    Well, IMO, that's really stupid.

    What happens when a recruit commits to USC, or another school that has an entire coaching staff on the hot seat. Who knows who will be there to replace the coaches, or if their current coaches just aren't good at developing talent, or if there's no tangible way to measure it in the first place.

    All in all, there's far too much going on with coaching staffs to factor that in to a recruits' ranking, and I think it's ridiculous they even entertained the idea. Let alone implement it.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Mitch Again ●

  • WillyWolverine said...

    Oh i wasn't saying you were bashing 247. If anything i was bashing them more than you.

    I do disagree with you on the scoring system though. I love 247s scoring system. To me there is a difference between a high 4 star(94-96) and say a 90 or 91. I just don't get all riled up over who is better when you start talking about a kid ranked 1 or 2 numbers a part.

    Rivals basically has three caregories of four stars ... 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9. In my mind, that kind of corresponds to low, middle and high. Do you really need more than that? Can 247 really tell the difference between a 94 and a 95? At some point, it becomes random noise.

    This post was edited by MrWoodson on 2/16/2013 at 2:16 PM

    MrWoodson ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    Rivals basically has three caregories of four stars ... 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9. In my mind, that kind of corresponds to low, middle and high. Do you really need more than that? Can 247 really tell the difference between a 94 and a 95? At some point, it becomes random noise.

    shrug I like it.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine ●

  • Mitch Again said...

    Well, IMO, that's really stupid.

    What happens when a recruit commits to USC, or another school that has an entire coaching staff on the hot seat. Who knows who will be there to replace the coaches, or if their current coaches just aren't good at developing talent, or if there's no tangible way to measure it in the first place.

    All in all, there's far too much going on with coaching staffs to factor that in to a recruits' ranking, and I think it's ridiculous they even entertained the idea. Let alone implement it.

    That's a good question. Or even if you consider how often assistant coaches move around. I don't know how they rationalize that.

    MrWoodson ●

  • One more thing to consider is the affiliation the major recruiting sites have with their All Star games. It has become very bias if you ask me.

    signature image signature image signature image

    SteelBlue0348

  • SteelBlue0348 said...

    One more thing to consider is the affiliation the major recruiting sites have with their All Star games. It has become very bias if you ask me.

    Absolutely. And ESPN has always seemed to be the worst when it comes to that sort of thing.

    MrWoodson ●

  • Rabid said...

    Overall I'm liking their 2014 rankings the best though.

    Can I ask why?

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

Michigan
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports