UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[Da Geezer]

Yup Jeff, you make a valid distinction. For the 18 year old recruit, particularly a 4 or 5 star, recruiting has a business aspect to it. Recently, UM has not sent many kids to the pros, and that is the metric I would use if I were R. Gary for example. Clark is being mentioned here today, and I thought he made a bad business decision when he chose to go to a school that did not use tight ends much. There are a few recruits, Peppers sounds like one, who actually care about the quality of the academics (B/R has a story about Tom Brady's recruitment today). But, most of the time, with big time recruits, academic excellence is down the list of things to consider. And the more big time recruits a school gets, the more pros it produces, which produces a virtuous cycle. UM had that at one time, but, I don't think they are elite now. That cycle has been broken, and it is going to take some time to rebuild it.

And Jeff, that was indeed one of the best games I've ever seen. The Arkansas fans around me could not figure out why LC benched Tom Brady and put in Drew Henson though. I explained the promise LC made to Henson. American Exceptionalism was on display to Hanna that day, and that is something we all should be proud of. My theory as to why opposing sides in soccer have riots and fights is that there is really nothing much to going on, but, be that as it may, it is to be celebrated that we root for our team with actual sportsmanship which just doesn't exist in Europe.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

You're moving the goalposts a bit. For recruiting to be consistently "elite" then you have to be an elite brand AND win. I would define "elite" as top 6 (5% of 120). For recruiting to be "good" then you can get by on an elite brand. I would define good as 7-18 (6% to 15% of 120).

Another way to look it at, I guess, is through P5 schools -- there are, I think, 65 including ND. I think top 5 amounts to elite amongst that group and top 15 amounts to very good.

In either case, you will not find many "elite brands" outside the top 20 in recruiting. It doesn't happen. Good, bad or in between. Beating out other "elite brands", however, requires something more.

I reiterate -- this year we'll see OSU, PSU and M top the B10 with MSU finishing 4th. Explain that.

[froot loops]

Maybe the rankings are skewed towards those brands?

Mark Dantonio's first recruiting class that he cobbled together had 2 current NFL starting QBs on it and it was rated #42.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Buchanan:

You're moving the goalposts a bit. For recruiting to be consistently "elite" then you have to be an elite brand AND win. I would define "elite" as top 6 (5% of 120). For recruiting to be "good" then you can get by on an elite brand. I would define good as 7-18 (6% to 15% of 120).

Another way to look it at, I guess, is through P5 schools -- there are, I think, 65 including ND. I think top 5 amounts to elite amongst that group and top 15 amounts to very good.

In either case, you will not find many "elite brands" outside the top 20 in recruiting. It doesn't happen. Good, bad or in between. Beating out other "elite brands", however, requires something more.

I reiterate -- this year we'll see OSU, PSU and M top the B10 with MSU finishing 4th. Explain that.

Moving the goal posts? Probably but that's a result of this discussion where we seem to have arrived at a couple of decent definitions of elite football programs.

Obviously, in the eye of the beholder is an important distinction.

Regardless, IRT recruiting you make a good defense of your position using the B10 as an example. However, I do think I can explain MSU ...... but to do that you have to bring in the historical back drop that involves Geezer's look at the meaning of elite as it relates to tribe culture.

As much as MSU fans might not agree with their status when you do bring these sorts of things into the picture, all three of the programs whom you think will finish ahead of MSU in recruiting class rankings have some pretty impressive CFB histories ....... of WINNING.

[lineygoblue]

Maybe the rankings are skewed towards those brands?

Mark Dantonio's first recruiting class that he cobbled together had 2 current NFL starting QBs on it and it was rated #42.

So you're saying that if Harbaugh's next class is not in the top ten it may turn out to be good anyway?

[froot loops]

Well yeah, that is entirely possible.

[Jeff Buchanan]

...... I would call that throwing the baited line out there to see if Froot takes it.

[Jeff Buchanan]

..... he did ...... Linesman is sandbagging there given his previous comments about all the shit everyone has been giving Harbaugh's recruiting efforts.

He thinks the class of mainly 3* is just fine.

[WM Wolverine]

It's only fine for the Spartans & Badgers.

[Da Geezer]

Another way of saying what Jeff is getting at is whether you consider Texas or TCU to be the more elite football program. I consider Texas to be more elite. Texas is not going to beat TCU this year, but there is a deep history there. The same applies to Oregon or Boise, or MSU. They just don't have the history, and their tribes are substantially smaller.

And academics do add to the allure of joining a particular tribe. Shoot, I was born before MSU was allowed to join the Big 10. They are making their history now. Another metric is the number of fans who watch a given team on TV. I think UM was second last year to Alabama. UM v BYU is on ABC at noon; not on ESPN, and it is not because there is a vast Mormon audience at 9-10:00am out west.

[iam416]

all three of the programs whom you think will finish ahead of MSU in recruiting class rankings have some pretty impressive CFB histories ....... of WINNING.

I thought this discussion began when you were bemoaning how M's LACK of winning will hurt them in recruiting. I mean, I agree with your above quote -- the decades of winning that make a program "elite" outweigh a stretch of 5 or 6 or 7 years of suboptimal performance.

IMO, it takes way more than 8 years of suck to significantly erode a brand like M's.

Anywho, I'm done trying to pay your shitass program any more compliments. You suck!

[froot loops]

Texas is a big hat no cattle program.

[lineygoblue]

He thinks the class of mainly 3* is just fine.

No,.. what I think is, if Harbaugh and his staff thought highly enough of a recruit to offer them a scholarship, then it doesn't really matter how many stars the recruiting services have assigned him. Harbaugh must think the kid can play, and so that's good enough for me.

I still have confidence in Coach Harbaugh and his staff. I'm not about to call his recruiting efforts a failure, simply because they don't have all the gawdy star power that others have.

[Mike]

I don't know Liney. The whole thing looks like a lost cause. He can't recruit, has only won two measley games his ENTIRE tenure at Michigan, and is only happy if he can coach Andrew Luck. It seems we're completely screwed.

[Da Geezer]

I accept your complement, Talent. UM is an elite program.

Froot:

Winningest football programs all time
1. Michigan
2. Texas
3. Notre Dame
4. Nebraska
5. Ohio State

These are elite programs. Texas in particular is elite. Texas has their own TV network for crying out loud, and they have a whole conference that exists primarily to provide programming for the Longhorn Network. They are down, like UM, PSU and Florida. They will be back. The only school I can think of that reached elite status and then lost it permanently is the University of Chicago.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Michigan-tops-college-footballs-winningest-teams-35690393