Harbaugh will surpass Saban in National Titles

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

7-6 and lost to LA Monroe with what is considered possibly one of the best coaches in the history of the game.

As I said, it doesn't fucking matter what star a player is if it's not the kind of player the coach needs. Florida has been bringing extremely high classes, but with all the coaching changes(especially at OC under Muschamp), the entire squad that was stocked with tons of NFL talent was a cluster fuck.

Well, it's a combination of things that matter. As mentioned early in the thread, there is a serious link between a player's star ranking the the probability of success. Very few teams are able to compete at a national level without getting plenty of highly ranked kids out of HS. And very few teams completely fail with a lot of talent coming out of HS. Unfortunately Michigan has been one of those exceptions the last few years.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

But it doesn't. Go through the class rankings for any year. There are just as many 4* guys that don't pan out as 4/5* guys that do. Depth is extremely important. As I already illustrated, these 3* guys are important. There's a reason USC had down years even though they were bringing in highly rated guys - they had no depth. Without depth, you will fail.

Yes, and Michigan is extremely deep. As mentioned, we have a high average star ranking across all classes. The individual star ranking is a probability of success. And sure, plenty don't pan out. But a good portion do.

 

[4down20]

Well, it's a combination of things that matter. As mentioned early in the thread, there is a serious link between a player's star ranking the the probability of success. Very few teams are able to compete at a national level without getting plenty of highly ranked kids out of HS. And very few teams completely fail with a lot of talent coming out of HS. Unfortunately Michigan has been one of those exceptions the last few years.

You're dumb, not repeating myself.

You make Michigan fans look bad.

You should do your fan base a service and stop posting.

 

[Across The Field]

Yes, and Michigan is extremely deep. As mentioned, we have a high average star ranking across all classes. The individual star ranking is a probability of success. And sure, plenty don't pan out. But a good portion do.

Great. But those classes weren't. Which is why they aren't highly rated classes. I don't know why you aren't understanding this.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Great. But those classes weren't. Which is why they aren't highly rated classes. I don't know why you aren't understanding this.

But they were in terms of star ranking. "deep" is relative to the amount of space you have open, I just don't see how you can't see that. We had 14 or 15 spots open and we recruited enough kids to keep our average star ranking well above 3. That's consistent with the other classes in the previous 3 signing periods. That maintains our deep team.

 

[ericd7633]

Depth is definitely important IMO. Notre Dame pulled in 10 3* in the 2012 and 2013 classes respectively. Corey Robinson is a projected first rounder for next year. William Fuller was 3rd in the country in TD receptions last year(both are going to be juniors) Keivarae Russell is a projected 2nd day pick next year, Romeo Okwara started every game last year at DE and CJ Prosise is a very valuable slot/hybrid player. So half of their 3* are significant contributors and 4 of them have a great chance to be drafted, and 3 of them have a chance to be drafted in the first couple of rounds(Robinson, Fuller, Russell)

 

[Across The Field]

But they were in terms of star ranking. "deep" is relative to the amount of space you have open, I just don't see how you can't see that. We had 14 or 15 spots open and we recruited enough kids to keep our average star ranking well above 3. That's consistent with the other classes in the previous 3 signing periods. That maintains our deep team.

Yes, I understand that perfectly fine. You had X amount of space to fill, and so you signed X amount of recruits. Great.

What you don't understand is that, simply as a single, stand-alone recruiting class, X is only ranked 38th in the nation compared to all of the other programs' X. That's how recruiting rankings work.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Yes, I understand that perfectly fine. You had X amount of space to fill, and so you signed X amount of recruits. Great.

What you don't understand is that, simply as a single, stand-alone recruiting class, X is only ranked 38th in the nation compared to all of the other programs' X. That's how recruiting rankings work.

And I'm saying that's a bad way of doing it. Because class quality should be based on how many spots you have to fill and how you fill it. Not sheer number of recruits.

 

[Across The Field]

And I'm saying that's a bad way of doing it. Because class quality should be based on how many spots you have to fill and how you fill it. Not sheer number of recruits.

Why? Because it fits your current criteria and helps your argument?

It's not based just on sheer number of recruits, we've already established that.

Recruiting rankings are not designed to tell you how well they fit with a program's current agenda. They're designed to tell you which individual class is better. It's completely and entirely independent of the team's current roster, as it should be. It's a recruiting ranking, not a "how does my team look with these new recruits" ranking.

 

[7Samurai13]

And I'm saying that's a bad way of doing it. Because class quality should be based on how many spots you have to fill and how you fill it. Not sheer number of recruits.

You think that way because that makes Michigan's mediocre recruiting class look best. You weren't talking about average stars when Michigan had a top 5 class signing nearly 30 players.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Why? Because it fits your current criteria and helps your argument?

It's not based just on sheer number of recruits, we've already established that.

Recruiting rankings are not designed to tell you how well they fit with a program's current agenda. They're designed to tell you which individual class is better. It's completely and entirely independent of the team's current roster, as it should be. It's a recruiting ranking, not a "how does my team look with these new recruits" ranking.

No, I've always made this argument -- even in years where ranked high in the standard class rankings. Those mean nothing. It's all about how you fill the spots you need. If LSU signs 15 four star QB's in one class but needs a bunch of lineman, they're class will be ranked high despite failing to get players they need. That's a problem.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

You think that way because that makes Michigan's mediocre recruiting class look best. You weren't talking about average stars when Michigan had a top 5 class signing nearly 30 players.

Sure I was. I can't prove I was, but I've always thought that mattered more.

 

[ericd7633]

And I'm saying that's a bad way of doing it. Because class quality should be based on how many spots you have to fill and how you fill it. Not sheer number of recruits.

Yes, and then Michigan will be in trouble in a couple of years when they only have 30ish upperclassmen on the roster, and the majority of the roster is freshman and sophomores. And not everybody in the 2014 and 2015 class will pan out. Michigan is in trouble because they have shitty seniors and juniors and a lot of them, and because of that the 2014 and 2015 classes were small, and because of that, it will hurt depth once again in 2017 and 2018.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Sure I was. I can't prove I was, but I've always thought that mattered more.

Well, I give you permission to hold me to that when we inevitably have a top 15 class this year now that we need a lot more spots. Luckily, our average star ranking is currently fantastic.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Yes, and then Michigan will be in trouble in a couple of years when they only have 30ish upperclassmen on the roster, and the majority of the roster is freshman and sophomores. And not everybody in the 2014 and 2015 class will pan out. Michigan is in trouble because they have shitty seniors and juniors and a lot of them, and because of that the 2014 and 2015 classes were small, and because of that, it will hurt depth once again in 2017 and 2018.

Yes, there will be an upperclassman problem here in a few years. Hopefully we can get that balanced out.

 

[ericd7633]

No, I've always made this argument -- even in years where ranked high in the standard class rankings. Those mean nothing. It's all about how you fill the spots you need. If LSU signs 15 four star QB's in one class but needs a bunch of lineman, they're class will be ranked high despite failing to get players they need. That's a problem.

And when was the last time a school brought in more than like 3 QB's in one class...Outside of Michigan of course.

 

[Across The Field]

No, I've always made this argument -- even in years where ranked high in the standard class rankings. Those mean nothing. It's all about how you fill the spots you need. If LSU signs 15 four star QB's in one class but needs a bunch of lineman, they're class will be ranked high despite failing to get players they need. That's a problem.

And the scenario you just laid out is extreme and never, ever will happen.

At this point, you're just angry because you can't legitimately make an argument that michigan will be good this year based on recruiting classes. One thing you've completely ignored: Several teams are successful without the benefit of highly-rated recruiting classes, ie. Utah, TCU, Wisconsin, Arizona, etc

What you think should be the case for recruiting class rankings is irrelevant. You're taking a defined set of parameters developed for a ranking and trying to make it entirely subjective. For example, say Ohio State really needs depth at QB, WR, and CB. They go out and fill those needs with 3/4* guys, and none of them pan out. Do they get a high rank for that class since it filled the holes, even though those players didn't even end up working out?

 

[7Samurai13]

Well, I give you permission to hold me to that when we inevitably have a top 15 class this year now that we need a lot more spots. Luckily, our average star ranking is currently fantastic.

Problem is, you are known for constantly changing what is most important to make Michigan look better. Who's won more the last five year, 10 years, who's won the most recent, all time record. Average stars will be another thin you conveniently forget if Michigan ever has another high recruiting because they brought in 28 players. That's your MO. Spin and spin and spin until Michigan looks like lipstick on a pig.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

And when was the last time a school brought in more than like 3 QB's in one class...Outside of Michigan of course.

Well, we very clearly had a need.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Problem is, you are known for constantly changing what is most important to make Michigan look better. Who's won more the last five year, 10 years, who's won the most recent, all time record. Average stars will be another thin you conveniently forget if Michigan ever has another high recruiting because they brought in 28 players. That's your MO. Spin and spin and spin until Michigan looks like lipstick on a pig.

Well, that's true in that aspect. But hey, in terms of winning games I don't have much to go on at this point. No argument here -- I do, do that.

But in terms of recruiting, my opinion has been pretty consistent ever since these rankings became popular.