Three star recruits reflextive of new recruiting strategy? The answer is an aboverage YES
Before you take away my hard earned points (do you know how many useless comments I had to make? 20) I am not here to whine about our recruit's rankings.
Actually I was thinking back to a quote from Rich Rod (no link, sorry) when he said that he is trying to bring in recruits who have a passion for the game. I am paraphrasing, obviously, but that was the idea. At the time I dismissed it as coach speak, but I think he might be sticking to philosophy.
Of course you can't determine the "passion" of each recruit, but the evidence I offer is Jonathon Hankins, who most of us recruiting nerds probably thought would inevitably receive an offer. While he was very talented by all accounts, he wasn't offered because he couldn't get into shape.
I was thinking at the time, Barwis will fix that in one summer, but the offer never came and it suggests that maybe Rodriguez really means it when he says that he wants players who are truly committed.
The other possibility is that Hankins is just tubby and Rodriguez had flashbacks of Justin Boren.
Anyways, it led me to think that maybe we are bringing in players who are supposedly less talented, but have more desire to win and prove themselves. Thoughts?
Edit: this was a serious idea at first, but my typos are much more interesting
No, I think the best players are extremely dedicated, that is why they are the best. Even players who make it look easy train more than you can imagine, it comes with the territory. Of course there are exceptions to every rule.
+1 for using "Reflextive"...whatever it means!
Edit - Awww you already changed it...you can keep the +1 anyways
Yeah, that was supposed to be reflective. Although maybe i should just keep making up words and see if they start catching on.
That is an aboverage idea. Change it back just for the hell of it.
I've posted this before, but here are the numbers and rankings of our past recruiting classes......
2002 - Class ranked 16th
Five Stars: 1, Four Stars: 11, Three Stars: 9
2003 - Class ranked 17th
Five Stars: 2, Four Stars: 11, Three Stars: 3
2004 - Class ranked 5th (yay!)
Five Stars: 1, Four Stars: 12, Three Stars: 8
2005 - Class ranked 6th
Five Stars: 1, Four Stars: 10, Three Stars: 11 (OMG)
2006 - Class ranked 13th
Five Stars: 2, Four Stars: 9, Three Stars: 7
2007 - Class ranked 12th
Five Stars: 2, Four Stars: 5, Three Stars: 12 (NOOOO)
2008 - Class ranked 10th
Five Stars: 0, Four Stars: 17, Three Stars: 6
2009 - Class ranked 8th
Five Stars: 1, Four Stars: 13, Three Stars: 6
....as you can see, 2005 and 2007 were our highest "3 star" years. Rich Rodriguez was not recruiting for us. He is looking for kids that love the game, and FIT with his philosophy. If it happens to be a 3 star that chooses us, then fine, but we have also found plenty of 4 stars to choose us as well.
at WV. Generally, he did it with 2*
Here is RR at WV from 2002-2007 from Rivals DB. . .
Broke out into 2 tables for formating:
YEAR 5 * 4 * 3 * =2 * Total 2002 0 2 6 25 33 2003 0 0 13 12 25 2004 0 1 7 14 22 2005 1 0 13 19 33 2006 0 0 10 6 16 2007 1 4 16 7 28 Totals 2 7 65 83 157 YEAR Ave * Points Rank 2002 2.3 1245 37 2003 2.52 1120 46 2004 2.41 450 47 2005 2.48 867 31 2006 2.63 431 52 2007 2.96 1367 23 Ave 2.55 913.3 39.3
August 7th, 2009 at 11:29 AM ^
Maybe RR is not as opposed to over-recruiting as everyone on this site seems to think he is.
Look at those recruiting classes: 33 recruits in two separate years, and an avg. class size of 26+.
I maybe can believe he had 33 open slots in 2002, being his first year at new program with all the attrition and everything. But you can't tell me that he had another 33 open slots AGAIN in 2005 when his system had been well established.
Again, to clarify, I think that a limited amount of over-recruiting is something that can be useful to a program, and it seems that RR agrees.
Interesting, very interesting...
I dont have time to check but that total may include walk ons and or early enrollees that belong to the previous class..
August 6th, 2009 at 10:02 PM ^
You may be on to something (regarding recruits with passion), but I suspect it is often difficult to tell which players will be hard workers in college, and which will slack. Moving to a new place, having an all new coaching staff, having new friends and influences, etc.- these are probably all huge factors in the behavior of a player.
Please note that I have absolutely no evidence to back up this broad assertion.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:13 PM ^
I'm not sure why people always comment on Boren's conditioning (or lack thereof). He was 2nd team All-Big Ten as a sophomore and there's a pretty good chance that he'll get similar honors this year.
Don't get me wrong, I hope that he gets his ass handed to him on November 21st. I just think that he'll be tough enough to hold his own, regardless of what people think about his conditioning.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:16 PM ^
That was with the old slow-paced offence. He was a little out of shape there but the problem really comes with him trying to be in RR's spread-n-shred fast paced offence. He would not have been able to function half if he stayed at his conditioned level.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:05 PM ^
And like it or not... he will be playing on Sundays and during MNF we'll have to watch him say "THE Ohio State University". Jerk. But a jerk who can play great football, probably in any system.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:23 PM ^
Unless it snows the night before in Columbus and Dad needs help.
Like hell he will. Punk is going to be destroyed to the tune of "nation wide embarassment" in this year's game.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:20 PM ^
I think RR is also willing to take a lower rated player if they have good speed and/or athletism. He also pays more attention to things like a camp performance or game tape than any rating.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:34 PM ^
And, to stress one of Scooby's points, it makes sense that any coach would rather go with his own observation in his own controlled setting than the opinions of others which involve many variables.
For example, off the top of my head, here are some game-tape variables:
How good was the competition?
How good were his teammates?
How predictible was the coach's playcalling?
Was the coach properly utilizing the player's talents?
Does he have a decent S&C program?
How is his diet?
August 6th, 2009 at 10:38 PM ^
This argument has merit. Rodriguez and Barwis have some reputation of being the Mad Scientists of S&C--but they really are doing what has been going on at most other Big Time schools for awhile now. UM is simply on par with how S&C has been handled for nearly a decade--run, run, run, BARF! Run some more--getting away from lifting fucktons of wieghts and supplementing the lifting with donuts, pizza and cigarettes. And yes, Barwis is a bit revolutionary and is GREAT at what he does--but any upgrades in S&C like this are probaly a +4 for UM.
As for the recruiting angle--I may be out on an island here, but I do not, for one freaking second, believe that Rodriguez came to Michigan to simply recruit more three star guys. Anyone who thinks that is just justifying the lack of Big Names in the 2010 class. Sorry, but IMO, he took a look at Pat White going down in the Pitt game and thought, "Hail. Ah am at West Virginia, cain't git no depth, one guy goes down and mah whole team goes into the taink. Ah am sick and teered of gittin' close. Ah'm a have mah agent call me some Michigan and git outta this here rut."
I know Rodriguez and staff (and most UM fans) thought: MICHIGAN TALENT+Chocolate Milk=JUST WIN BABY!
No way is Rodriguez "targeting" lower-ranked players, thinking that jus tbecause they love football more than their Mamas will Michigan beat the Big Boyz. He may have to take some this year, but my guess is that he hopes by next year those guys provide depth, someone to hit in practice, and good report cards for the (thing that you measure GPA, graduates, and academic achievement with).
August 6th, 2009 at 11:38 PM ^
So, like, since MySpace is out of style are you going to pretend to be a 17 year old girl on Facebook?
I never meant to say that Rodriguez is targeting the lower ranked players, and I have no problem that we have them. I am excited about quite a few players in this class.
The only point I am trying to make is that I do believe Rodriguez is specifically going for players who truly love the game. Specifically, guys like Martavious Odoms. He was recruited because he fit the spread, but Michigan was the only big time offer he got (I think). My theory is that Rodriguez is targeting hard workers who want to prove themselves, like Odoms.
Your theory is about as vague as one can get. Don't you think that "hard workers who want to prove themselves" can be applied to about 99% of the athletes out there?
And my "counter theory" is that Rodriguez didn't come here to recruit the same type of players he could have brought to West Virginia.
I don't understand why "players that love the game" and "lower ranked players" would have a strong correlation. I mean, I've seen Rudy and everything, but I'm sure there are plenty of amazing players who love the game.
Exactly correct. We are looking for the best players we can find, who love the game.
August 7th, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^
Tim Tebow is a great example.
While I agree in principal, there are plenty of examples of great players don't love the game because it feels like work. Barry Sanders has said he's not a football fan, Robert Smith is another example.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:37 AM ^
maybe we are bringing in players who are supposedly less talented, but have more desire to win and prove themselves.
I think you are right, but this is only part of the equation. In general, I think he prioritizes kids who will be a good fit with the organizational culture he wants to build the team around. Work ethic and passion are a part of it (necessary but not sufficient) but I think there are other characteristics he looks for, which would explain some of the mysterious recruiting decisions he makes, which cause us to scratch our heads and wonder. Trust The Rod.