Rivals 100: A Michigan History
Okay, my point of this is NOT to say that rankings don't matter and that a 5-star is the same as a 3-star.
My point will be to show that if any particular high-4 star or 5 star commits (or, perhaps more shockingly now, decommits) there is around a 50% chance that a few years later you won't give a crap. At all. So let's just remember we are talking about 17 year old boys and getting a little too excited (I'm mocking myself, too). Perhaps you're sick of that reminder, but I think it is interesting to review how these classes worked out every once in a while.
Now, of those that we have enough data on, one could break them into five categories: ++ (studs, unimaginable to have been without), + (good starters), R (replacement level, okay starter as senior or probably junior too), - (barely worth a scholarship, sometimes not his fault [injury, etc]), -- (bust, due to injury or transfer possibly)
2002: Gabe Watson (++), Matt Gutierrez (-)
2003: Prescott Burgess (R or +), LaMarr Woodley (++), Shawn Crable (+), Clayton Richard (--), Jim Presley (-), Ryan Mundy (-)
2004: Chad Henne (++), Tim Jamison (+), Alex Mitchell (R), Brett Gallimore (--), Doug Dutch (--)
2005: Kevin Grady (-), Marques Slocum (--), Mario Manningham (++), Antonio Bass (--), Cory Zirbel (--), Terrance Taylor (+), James McKinney (--)
2006: Brandon Graham (++), Stephen Schilling (R or +), Carlos Brown (R or +), Jonas Mouton (R or +), Justin Boren (--), Adam Patterson (-), Greg Matthews (R)
2007: Ryan Mallett, Donovan Warren, Toney Clemons
2008: Darryl Stonum, Boubacar Cissoko, Dann O'Neill
Out of 27 from 02 to 06, that's 5 guys who helped define the era in a good way (Watson, Woodley, Henne, Manningham, Graham). Some might even disagree on Watson. Plus another 3 to 6 (Crable, Jamison, Taylor, maybe Burgess, plus maybe some of the 06s) that were good starters. The rest (and Gutierrez might have been great if he started, Matthews might have had a defining junior season with a better QB, and so on) have had no appreciable impact on your fandom.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
was a 2-star and Braylon Edwards was a 3-star. Also, Jerome Bettis is from Detroit and Brett Farve is like a kid out there on the football field.
Now that that is out of the way, let the real debate begin.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
Let's not forget that Kelly Baraka was a 5-star and that Ray Lewis just loves The Game.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^
2 STAR GLORY
XAVIER LEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 14th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^
Yeah, I don't get too excited about every prospect being the next super-hero that will save us or a complete dud that is doomed to mediocrity.
It is what it is.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
Thanks for the work, but it is only marginally meaningful without the other half - the two or three star recruits. To assess whether these rankings or stars really matter, you need to look at where the 2 or 3 *s fit - what proportion of the 2 or 3 stars were ++ or - (or whatever the rest of the confusing categories were)? Alternatively, what proportion of your good players were 4 or 5 stars and what proportion were 2 or 3 stars? I think there is meaning in the data, in the rankings, but only a richer analysis will find it.
Of course, I critique but do not volunteer for the work.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
Like I said in the beginning, I wasn't trying to take that angle. I've seen that work elsewhere (but am too lazy to look for it) and it is convincing.
My point is just a reminder that even with the superior recruits, it is a 50/50 (or so) crap shoot. 4 years from now we'll be like, "wow Roh (or LaLota) is a 4th year junior and hasn't even started yet?" Or, "William Campbell, remember him?"
January 14th, 2009 at 1:43 PM ^
I see. I do appreciate the work - it has got us thinking. I am just saying that it helps to consider what the crap shoot is with lower stars (70/30? 80/20?). I think the stars are meaningful, that coaches and scouts know what they are looking at and assessing. We can point to outliers, P. White or K. Grady, but doing so only clouds things.
Perhaps another meaningful thing to do would be to look at playing time by star or a comparison of stars out on the field in any given season. The thing is that there might be busts every year, but over several years, who is actually getting the playing time? Which players with which rankings are cumulating on the field?
Ok, I will stop suggesting analyses that I have no intention of carrying out.