The Athletic reranks 2018 recruiting class, Michigan #3

Submitted by canzior on February 14th, 2022 at 11:04 AM

Few things from the article...2/3 of P5 schools have had a coaching change in the last 5 years.

Re-rank as follows:

5:for All-America, award winner or top 50 NFL pick

4: Multiyear starter/all-conference honors

3: 1 year starter or key reserve

2: Career Backup

0 Minor/no contribution/left program

 

Amounts are averaged throughout the class:

1 Georgia 

2 Clemson

3 Michigan:

Originally ranked 22nd, 10 guys made all conference, 8 starters on this years squad, only 4 left pre-graduation and 2 as post grads.

5 Bama

6 Iowa

9 Penn St (originally ranked #6)

12 Ohio St (originally ranked #2) 

 

FauxMo

February 14th, 2022 at 11:24 AM ^

I am retroactively more excited about the potential future performance (but now, in reality, observed past performance) of the 2018 recruiting class. 

RedRum

February 14th, 2022 at 11:26 AM ^

I SAID 50 MILES FROM THE STADIUM! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE. I SAID FIFTY MILES. I'M GOOD WITH THE GOD DAMN CUSTOMER. 

all caps = logic

WestQuad

February 14th, 2022 at 12:09 PM ^

Is 4-star a multiyear starter or all-conference honors or is it an AND?     Seems like you'd need both to be a legit 4 star, otherwise half the players on Illinois or Rutgers are 4-stars. 

Creedence Tapes

February 14th, 2022 at 1:36 PM ^

I think what he's trying to say is that sucky teams, like Rutgers, still have players that start. So being a starter alone doesn't tell you how good they actually are as players in relation to other players from that same class. Every team has the same number or starters, so you can't say that Alabama's starters are equal to Rutgers starters simply because they are starters. 

canzior

February 14th, 2022 at 3:58 PM ^

I get that but I would venture to guess that the value added to their team is the basis for the re-rank.  There are many variances though, Take OSU linebackers, while highly recruited, have often underperformed and not many have started a lot of games. Compare that to that guy at Indiana (Micah McFadden) who has been lights out for 2 years and and was just barely inside the top 2000 (1985) as a recruit. The re-rank places value on McFadden, while moving down the OSU guys. (same number of starts at LB for each team, one gets rated higher than the other. 

Also factor in, how many guys from other classes are taking up those starting spots and there is an idea of how valuable a starting position is, albeit at Rutgers or Alabama.  

Keep in mind, for all highly touted kids Bama gets, 10 out of this class left the program. 

ndev.sports

February 14th, 2022 at 12:44 PM ^

This is what I wanted too - Googled and forgot it is a paid service.


https://theathletic.com/3128181/2022/02/14/recruiting-revisited-ranking-college-footballs-class-of-2018-four-years-later/

Do you have a sub? Curious if it is worth, I used to really enjoy the content before it was paid.

 

https://twitter.com/ndevsports/status/1493281191075762180

SMart WolveFan

February 14th, 2022 at 2:45 PM ^

Further illustrating trying to "rank" all players 1-2000, regardless of position or fit is a near impossible task.

Cool thing is this gives a great blueprint for the types of recruits that can be very successful at UofM.

  1. Children of former players. Welcome Will Johnson!
  2. Multi-sport athletes with position flexibility
  3. late risers from under evaluated areas
  4. JayBaugh's
  5. leaders!

You can see this was the year they really figured out who can best be successful here,

MGoFoam

February 14th, 2022 at 7:30 PM ^

Who fucking cares??? Do we get a trophy? Hang a banner? What difference does the ranking make after the players have already played?

Edit: I meant a recruiting rank trophy.

grumbler

February 14th, 2022 at 9:47 PM ^

That's not what "begs the question" means.

To beg the question is to assume the truth of a claim as part of the evidence for the claim.  This report begs the question of whether CJ Onyechi  was more valuable to Rutgers as a multiyear starter than Ojabo was for Michigan as a one-year starter.