UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[hack]

Often what makes the difference between a top-3 class and top-10 are a few variables that really are out of the control of the coaches. Some years the breaks fall favorably on those 5-star kids, and in others they don't. Hoke will have years when they do. If Michigan is still bridesmaid at the rate it's been in the last 2 years with kids like Isaac and Levenberry for another year or two, then it's time to start wondering. Until then, I'd think, the sample size is too small to spot a pattern.

[Chuck Mallory]

Well what if Michigan is "still the bridesmaid at the rate its been the last two years" but we are finishing in the top ten in recruiting every year and winning big ten titles? I'm not gonna wonder about anything as long as we are getting on the field results.

[hack]

The comparison Jeff made was to programs in the MNC conversation, and their recruiting successes.

[WM Wolverine]

When M is regularly in BCS bowls, it'll make it easier to land 'elite' recruits; like Ty Isaac...

Good news from this weekend is that Laquon Treadwell is [allegedly] recruiting for the Wolverines. Seems like a matter of time. Tough to be much happier with the offensive class (if they land Treadwell) imo, Isaac would've make it nearly perfection...

Defensively they still have some work to do on the defensive line, all in the 'interior'; NT, 3-tech & 5-tech... Sounds like they have their NT once he visits. After that, M will likely use its lone scholarship left on a tall cornerback/free safety type. Mattison and his staff values 'size' at corner. Not sure if they'll have scholarships available for a BRA and/or late bloomer.

[whodean]

Treadwell would certainly go a long way to ease minds about Hoke's ability to recruit playmakers.

[Paul L]

Landing Treadwell would assuage some of these concerns, definitely.

[lineygoblue]

Braylon Edwards was a 3 star coming out of HS.

So was Mike Hart.

Just sayin ....

[iam416]

5* players are almost 5 times more likely to be drafted than 3* players. Just saying.

[hack]

Yeah but if you only go after the 3*s that end up being incredibly awesome, you're good.

[lineygoblue]

5* players are almost 5 times more likely to be drafted than 3* players. Just saying.

Tell that to Kevin Grady.

[hack]

Maybe lets end all this 5/3 confusion and just stick to 4* players.

[Pasadena Blue]

talent's point is correct of course. It's a percentages thing. Doesn't mean a 2* can't turn our to be star ... just less likely, and I doubt there is anyone with a good enough crystal ball to hit on all their 2 and 3* recruits.

[iam416]

Of course, PB. Obviously, there are outliers. But if someone offered you a class of all 5* or all 3*, you'd be stone f'n stupid to take the 3* class.

People can point out failed 5* players or great 3* successes, but the reality is that 5* are almost 5 times more likely to get drafted than 3* and twice as likely as 4*.

As for M, the article I linked on the previous page suggests they've been thoroughly mediocre in player development. That is to say, based on the recruits they've brought in, they've produced the predicted draft picks. Whereas USC and OSU, e.g., far exceeded what their recruits projected to. I thought that was interesting in view of someone's blathering about M's "hard work" and "coaching" and all that fantasyland crap.

[lineygoblue]

heh ... attaboy, Talent.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.......As for M, the article I linked on the previous page suggests they've been thoroughly mediocre in player development. That is to say, based on the recruits they've brought in, they've produced the predicted draft picks. Whereas USC and OSU, e.g., far exceeded what their recruits projected to. I thought that was interesting in view of someone's blathering about M's "hard work" and "coaching" and all that fantasyland crap.

How far back does that analysis go? Not far enough.

Michigan football has indeed been thoroughly mediocre, as you point out, since a hay-day they reached in the 70's, repeated during portions of the 80's ,then became somewhat dominant in the early to mid 90's. Since then? Basic suckage with a few seasonal bright spots. Despite this, the program has still managed to finish in the top 20 with the exception of the period that was the horror. I can't complain and apparently they did this with a slew of mediocre (3/4*) players and not a lot of 5*.

There is no question whatsoever that osu and USC recruited better and have put much better teams than anything Michigan put on the field since 2000. No question. But the two principal head coaches of those programs left both of them in embarrassing disarray over questionable recruiting and player benefits.

There is also no question why as many 5* players that went to play football at those two schools did so. None. These are 18 year old stud football players with 5 bucks in their pockets, families/advisors with dollar signs in their eyes, set to hit a jackpot of significant proportion. Coaches like jim tresssel and Pete Carroll made a lot of dreams come true for these studs and not in a good way. At least not for CFB.

Frankly, I'd rather Michigan football be an also-ran (which is exactly what they are right now with a lot questions about whether or not Hoke is the right guy to change that) than have the reputation of these two programs that goes along with putting players in the NFL. But that's just me.