Recruiting: 247 Updated Rankings.
Today, 247 released their updated rankings on the class of 2020, making it notable because it's the first major re-rank of either of the 2 reliable recruiting services since Michigans mega recruiting weekend. All updates I post are strictly 247, not the composite. This update was a pretty serious mixed bag for Michigan. Some really good things, some disappointing drops. Not early enough to get concerned yet since a solid amount of targets havent camped extensively yet.
Michigan target RJ Moten from New Jersey is widely expect to commit to Michigan by the end of the week moved up 84 spots to 93 overall. I think he'll end up in the 60-75 range by the end of the cycle.
Braiden McGregor fell 79 spots to 107, which is a little confusing, but not surprising bc he hasn't gone to too many camps. I expect him in the top 50 again barring injuries.
Jordan Morant fell 68 spots to 115, which is a little more concerning considering he camped pretty extensively and never showed off that breakneck speed. I think the 100-125 range is pretty accurate for Morant.
AJ Henning fell one spot to 128. Basically stayed the same, Henning is a guy that could go up to the top 30-40 with a good season, but also a guy with enough history with injuries that could drop him in the 200's if he has some bad luck. I think he's in the top 50 in terms of pure talent.
Michigan target Maliq Carr (WR/TE) from Oak Park moved up 90 spots to 136. Haven't watched any of his film, no opinion on him.
Michigan Target and Stanford Commit Myles Hinton (OT, and Chris Hintons brother) dropped 134 spots to 191. Missed most of last year with an injury, not surprising. Will probably work back up into the top 100 if he's healthy.
Michigan Target Makari Paige (Safety) is at 203. Probably an accurate spot for him.
Roman Wilson is at 219, and I think he probably gets to the 150-175 range by the end of it all.
Kalel Mullings dropped 54 spots to 240, and Aaron Lewis is at 243. Both are pretty accurate, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Mullings drop to around 300.
Matt Hibner moved up 800(!!!!!!!) spots to 249. I think he's a top 150 guy, he's a bonafide 4 star on 247 now. Major Win for Harbaugh getting him so under the radar. Shoutout to Maizen for ordering his Hibner jersey today.
Reece Atteberry fell 80 spots to the mid 300's, and 247 is still really low on Andre Seldon and Blake Corum imo. No other major moves, but this class is looking pretty deep, probably in the 8-11 range when it's all said and done.
Subtract yourself. There’s no way you make it to aug 2.
I'm still standing by my prediction.
It looks highly likely.
Clemson has 9 guys in the top 70 and we have zero. Clemson happens to be super dirty, but that doesn't make me feel any better. Same sort of thing with Bama, OSU and LSU.
I like a lot of our players coming in. Most of Brady Hoke's top rated guys ended up flaming out. Harbaugh has had some transfers/misses too, but overall I think we've got some great players. More Willie Henrys/Mo Hursts than Rashan Garys/Jabrill Peppers, but I think we're getting some good ones.
Hoke had some top guys flame out but he also had a ton of guys that were hits
Lewis, D Hill, Taco, Wormley, Gedeon, Darboh, Butt, Cole Hurst, Peppers, Winovich, etc were all 4 star or higher and panned out great.
I don’t understand why this particular comment got downvoted. Quite a few of Harbaugh’s best players were Hoke recruits.
Quite a few of Harbaugh’s best players were Hoke recruits.
Generally speaking upperclassmen are better than freshman and sophomores. Harbaugh's oldest recruits are now just becoming seniors. Bush, Long, Gentry, and Gary all just got drafted before their eligibility ran out and Higdon and Kinnel were UDFA signings. Bredeson, probably Onwenu, and Ruiz will all be drafted. Possibly even Runyan. The reason why quite a few of Harbaugh's best players have been Hoke recruits is because we just finished up with Hoke's upperclassmen.
Also, Winovich was a Hoke recruit, who they tried to make play offense and OLB before Harbaugh and Co came in and put him in a position he could actually get drafted at.
I don’t understand why this particular comment got downvoted. Quite a few of Harbaugh’s best players were Hoke’s recruits.
People are just frustrated because the championships are just not happening with Harbaugh as quickly as they thought they would.
Winovich was ranked #299 in the composite and #319 to 247Sports. We all know what you do when Michigan signs someone with those kind of numbers.
What major college programs do you think aren't dirty?
This is the first time Clemson has even come close to a top five class. People keep forgetting that; they may be way dirty, but Michigan has finished with better classes two or three years since Harbaugh came on board. The results on the field have obviously not reflected this.
The question could be asked by Michigan loyalists, "how in the world did Michigan out-recruit Clemson given that Clemson is dirty and Michigan isn't?"
Which reminds me of the question I once asked regarding the Tour de France: "How did Lance Armstrong beat all those great cyclists given that they weren't clean and Lance was?"
The answer to the latter question explained quite a bit: "He wasn't."
Yup.
That's why I lay the lion's share of the blame on coaching and scheme, not stars or top 10 or top 5 classes.
Heck, we averaged 90 stars on the 2009 class for gosh sakes! Once our coaching and scheme catches up to the talent we bring in every year, we'll finally get over the hump and won't end the season with the wheels flying off and the bus driving over the cliff in a fiery implosion.
The comments from our interim AD regarding Rashan Gary should cement the conclusion that there is a significant difference in how clean our program is versus Clemson.
Your conclusions regarding which classes are "better" seem to be based solely on the final 247 rank, irrespective of class size. From each of the years 2015-2018, Clemson's average recruit rating was higher than ours.
This whole endeavor is reductive, as it fails to capture the relative importance of position groups. Clemson has hit on great DL and QBs. If I'm trying to unseat Alabama, those are fantastic areas to land elite five-star and high four-star recruits.
These discussions are largely meaningless, because of course Harbaugh and his staff would love to land their top targets every year, of course their top targets are more highly rated, and they presumably (like most staffs outside of three or four) do not hit on many, if not most, of their top targets. That said, Michigan does have top-10 talent. For a clean program in the Midwest, that is very good.
I was rather critical of Hackett's comments at the time and I continue to think that they were unwise. In part because he can't know whether his own house was clean or not.
The average ranking isn't very telling. In the 2017 class, for example, Clemson narrowly outpoints Michigan on average with 2 5-stars and 8 4-stars. Michigan landed 2 5-stars and 19 4-stars, but since it was such a large class, they also pulled in 8 3-stars compared to Clemson's 4 and got just nipped on average. Michigan *solidly* beat Clemson in recruiting that year.
If you think Michigan is squeaky-clean, can I interest you in a suspension bridge for sale?
You don't own a suspension bridge....
If Michigan isn't squeaky clean, if we're intentionally crossing the line on something worth mentioning, then do a top 5 (#1) job of it. ...or shut it down. We get penalized for stretching too long. Our basketball program got destroyed by not having our house in order. (and picking bad coaches). LSU and Will Wade laughs that stuff off.
My issue Stephen is I disagree with the current recruiting approach in three areas:
1. Not emphasizing Ohio enough
2. Not locking down state of Michigan kids
3. Offering borderline players early in cycle and not waiting to see if you can land the big fish target
Yes beating OSU will help tremendously. But I think they could and would improve if they just did those three things, regardless of how the game itself plays out.
Go back and look at the roster composition of Michigan from 1969 through 2007 and I would bet you anything that 80% of the players came from either Ohio or Michigan. That's not the case anymore. 22 current commits according to 247 - 3 From Michigan....0 from Ohio.
That's a very fixable problem IMO. If you see it as a problem that is and I dont think the current staff does.
They didnt have the internet, accessible recruiting film, massive databases of prospects, or recruiting camps to feature high quality prospects in the south/Texas. Any recruiting strategy from before the Hudl/recruiting camps age is outdated
Yup pretty old fashioned and outdated.
As is beating OSU, winning the B1G and playing for the National Championship for that matter.
What's amazing to me is that people get more upset about anyone who wants to have an honest and realistic talk about recruiting than they do about UM losing to OSU every year. It's bananas.
Your buddy JCP said that he would accept 3 losses a year, if it meant we would beat Ohio. That screams little sister to me. Sad. Weak. Pathetic.
That comment really stuck in your twatwaffle. You seem hot. Maybe you should take off your clothes.
He's a walmarter. Pay him no mind.
You'd be lucky to be a walmarter. At least those people have friends.
This kind of comment should trigger an automatic banhammer.
One of the 5 best coaches in college football history didnt coach Ohio State 30 years ago, so causation doesnt equal correlation.
Regarding #1: It's not clear to me if Ohio CAN be emphasized, at least not while we're getting hammered by the local team every fall. I would like Michigan to get more of the great recruits out of that state, but it's not clear to me that it is realistic to do so.
Regarding #2: Michigan has definitely whiffed on too many good local kids, though there have been years where they've locked up virtually all of them and the results have still been disappointing.
Regarding #3: The major issue with the "borderline" kids early is not that they're failing to wait on the big fish targets. It's that they have big fish targets that they know will replace some of those borderline kids if they land them, and those kids will be processed and that will be a negative story every couple of years. Michigan goes after top-end guys every year that it misses on and there is always room for those guys, but it comes at the expense of lower-ranked guys in the classes.
There are two main issues with recruiting, to me:
1. The OL recruiting was a real problem under Drevno, preventing us from properly rebuilding the line in post-Funk years and leaving us with question marks this season that should have been solidly answered already;
2. Just not getting enough highly-ranked guys, especially recently, which I believe is mostly a function of underperformance on the field. This underperformance is magnified by how late in the season this underperformance occurs, leaving the program with negative momentum and reduced energy going into each offseason.
Michigan would be in on more guys if we hadn't been humiliated by OSU and Florida to conclude the season. There's no getting around that, to me.
The solution to the top-end recruiting trouble is to win big games. When Michigan had positive momentum after 2015, recruiting was very good. 2016 ended sadly, but the trajectory was still pointed upwards, and the recruiting results reflected that. But after 2017 and 2018 ended Michigan has looked like a sinking ship.
Win The Game. The window is closing.
I think the issue of getting those borderline kids is the thing that really has me scratching my head! Every single recruiting cycle, we all privately say to ourselves “welp, I doubt that kid ends up in this class” yet the staff offers scholarships to these lower level recruits. I think it would save them bad press and improvement in the class if they hold off on those guys until at least later on in the cycle. Are on the field performance is not as bad as most make it out to be. Yet we reach for guys that we shouldn’t early on.
MGrow, I don't agree with all of your points but can at least respect that they make for a reasonable debate and discussion, which is exactly what is missing elsewhere in this thread. It's one thing to constantly whine that THINGS AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH and quite another to discuss practical solutions that might yield different results.
What is frustrating is how close the team has come. The narrative around Michigan and Harbaugh (and recruiting success) probably looks a lot different had "That Play" never happened against MSU, had the defense stopped JT (another) inch shorter in Columbus, and had John O'Korn played like a functional QB that one day. Harbaugh would be 2-2 against OSU with a 3-1 record against MSU, and then nobody would care as much about last year's Game; it would be a blip, though still painful.
But none of those things happened so last year's game was an utter disaster. And I don't think we can expect much to change recruiting-wise until Michigan proves it can take the next leap with the current level of players it has. They've got to find a way to win.
The problem is even if you play the what if game and say Um beats OSU in 2016, they still get waxed in the playoffs by Clemson or Bama. Even if they win in 2017, they still finish the season with 3 losses. At some the what ifs are lame. We are at that point right now. We lost. Lets all move on and figure out how we can get better.
Strongly disagree, it makes a huge difference. Making the playoffs is a boon to recruiting for a blue blood program like Michigan. So is winning the B1G and demonstrating that Michigan can beat Ohio State. Momentum matters. Turning around the disastrous record against MSU under RR and Hoke certainly helps in-state recruiting, which you've argued is a problem for the program. Dantonio can still claim the in-state title over the past decade-plus AND say that he's holding his own against Harbaugh.
What's funny is that Clemson's current program wasn't built in a day. Dabo lost 19 games over his first four seasons and had the same problems beating more talented teams, then established himself and turned the corner.
The point in bringing up the close losses is not to lament about "what ifs" but rather to provide important context for the state of Michigan's current program. The team did lose those games and so there have been negative consequences for the program. That is the current reality. Full stop.
I have no idea why anyone would expect to recruit at OSU's level when Michigan hasn't been winning at OSU's level.
Michigan needs to turn the corner and just win and recruits will follow.
Why is Harbaugh constantly compared to Dabo Swinney? Dabo was a WR coach when he ascended to the job full-time in 2009. It took him awhile to remake the program, but by 2011 he had done that and by 2015 they became 1B to Bama's 1A.
Harbaugh had already been a head coach. For 11 years (8 at the Power 5 / NFL level if you want to discount the USD stuff). He's been the header here for 4 years. He was already established when he walked in the door 4 years ago. He's remade this program. There was no growing into the Michigan job by Harbaugh. This is HIS program in the image he wanted. The excuses need to end.
People need a way to find a way to make themselves feel better about things because the current reality isn't acceptable. That's why you so many people caveating the rankings and playing the "what if" game on the field. You'd think after losing 14 of 16 to OSU people would wise up but nope, there's always an excuse.
No, the answer is because you continue to compare Michigan's program to Clemson's despite it being a terrible comparison for point you profess to be making. At this stage of Dabo's tenure Clemson was no better off than Michigan except that it played in a weaker conference. It took more time to build a consistent winner.
In short: If Dabo had been at Michigan and lost 21 games his first five years, you'd have demanded he be fired.
The rest of this post is nonsense. It's obvious that Michigan's recruiting is negatively affected by losing 14 of 16 to Ohio State. It's obvious that Michigan's had opportunities to change that these past few years, and failed. So, here we are.
Recruiting won't magically get better under those circumstances just because you want it to. Programs do not suddenly start recruiting top-100 players across the board unless (1) they are winning championships or (2) blatantly cheating a la Ole Miss. It does not happen when you lose repeatedly to your rival every year and never win your conference.
I guess you can call that an excuse if you want. The rest of us live in the real world.
Michigan began their Ohio recruiting inroads during the dang WOODY HAYES era. If you don't try you will never succeed and right now we don't try.
I think that's a mistake. We could pull some of the kids if we showed them the love OSU does-but we dont.
I agree with #1 and #3, but lately a lot of players out of Michigan have ended up being busts. So I'm okay with moving away from Michigan recruiting, but we definitely need to snipe recruits out of Ohio.
Why can’t Harbaugh get top recruits? Texas A&M sucked last season and Jimbo seems to be doing just that.
You can only sell the new program smell for so long. Harbaugh put together elite, top 5 classes in his first two years here. Once that wore away, you gotta win more to get top 5 consistent classes.
I think it’s the inconsistency with Harbaugh’s recruiting. A couple years ago UM needed offensive linemen and Harbaugh gets Mayfield, who excelled on the defensive side in high school, and a 230 pound TE out of Travers City.
This is Michigan. Harbaugh should be grabbing elite recruits every year, not every other.
And most of the kids from Harbaugh’s first two classes have fizzled out or transferred. Satellite camp offers were no bueno.
He's had entire WR RB, and DL classes fizzle out. His hit rate on these lower ranked recruits is actually pretty terrible.
Actually his first class was #8. His 2017 class was #5 but has since been gutted by attrition.
I actually think that's the difference - since many are comparing - between Michigan and Clemson. Only a hand full of Clemson players - unlike Bama, OSU and Michigan - leave the program early. A good example is their NC DL last year. They could have left early for the NFL but chose to come back. The result: a NC. We - on the other hand - along with many other teams - have a huge turnover rate. My point: yes, recruiting is vital but it helps if some of your star players love the school enough to return.
His first class was #37 you idiot.
This wouldn't annoy me so much if Harbaugh and Co. were winning with these types of classes. Top 10, solid classes, but not elite. Unfortuantely, we're not. That's the problem with Harbaugh and Co. They don't win with these classes. And yet, we're stuck with a class that doesn't bring us any closer to beating OSU.
It's great butt sexing Rutgers every year, but I'm tired of getting butt sexed by OSU and our bowl opponents, year-in, year-out.
Until Michigan fields a complete team that can beat big time opppontes, this is all we're gonna get....solid recruiting classes, but nothing specatular. That's the purgatory that we're in. Not able to get to the next level.
Bingo.
1-9 against top 10 teams BUT...
37-5 against everyone else.
This is why I think that our problem isn't talent and stars, but coaching and scheme.
We've seen coaches win big without "top talent" before at various stops around the country. It definitely can be done. We just haven't done it. The only time we've won is when we are supposed to win because we out-talent other teams on paper. We have to coach and scheme in a way that gives us a competitive edge over more talented opponents. And this is why I believe Harbaugh has finally switched to a spread OC. Because spread football does a great job of "leveling the playing field" whereas man-ball usually requires the bigger bodies and better talent to steamroll the competition.
It's the same way that Beilein was able to do so well with the less than amazing recruits he brought into the basketball team. Beilein out-schemed and out-coached his opponents and led perennial underdogs to to national title games, conference championships, and conference tourney championships. I realize that basketball recruiting isn't a 1-to-1 relationship with football recruiting, but the foundational principle still stands I think.
Once the football team starts actually out-scheming and out-coaching our more talented opponents, the bigger wins should follow. Then, once the bigger wins start coming, the recruiting stars we all know and love should follow as well.
Except Harbaugh is literally beating all the teams he has more talent than. It's when he has to play teams that recruit at an equal or higher level that he loses.
If Harbaugh is only ever able to win big games when he has a clear talent advantage, then he's not that great of a coach.
Given his reputation, and how many people vouch for his coaching prowess, I think it's more than reasonable to expect him to be able to out-coach a slightly more talented opponent on the field. This is the wall we're currently running into.
Hopefully what Gattis brings to the table will change this.
We have seen enough evidence that Harbaugh doesn’t “out coach” anyone. It’s shocking actually given his NFL playing and coaching experience. You’d think someone with the vast amounts of football knowledge he has would be able to outsmart the coaches of football he Big Ten. He doesn’t