TTB: "Fixing" Michigan recruiting
I mentioned I was working on this piece in a thread or two a couple weeks ago, and people said they were interested in reading it when completed. It took a little longer than I planned, but that's the way it goes sometimes.
Anyway, I put together an article on a few things I think Michigan needs to do to get better at recruiting. Michigan has the #6 class right now, and I don't think things are as dire as many Michigan fans thought (mainly because I realize that the staff always "trims the fat" by the end of the class). But it's still not a well oiled machine.
Here's the LINK.
Thanks as always, Magnus. You're a level headed voice of reason.
Agreed. This is great stuff. Thanks, Magnus!
Just hire me as recruiting director and we'll be havin' #1 classes for twenty years to come.
If it means you leave the blog, you might want to start a GoFundMe page for that position to be added somewhere.
I know someone who used to go to Michigan so I have that going for me.
We should be making you a permanent resident of outer space later this afternoon.
Only if Shea, my crush, and Ryan Day can come with me.
I'm starting to like you a little bit
All in all that's a pretty tame take there Magnus.
I'll ask the elephant-in-the-room question: in your opinion, if Michigan executes your script well, do you think it is sufficient to put us in the OSU/Clemson/SEC pantheon of recruiting prowess?
MIchigan isn't going to recruit on their level unless they win at their level. I think this is obvious enough that it shouldn't really need to be mentioned. Winning is good, and losing is bad.
Exactly, and what's it going to take to win at their level? I feel absolutely ridiculous even saying it because it's so blatantly absurdly obvious I shouldn't even have to say these things online, but you need to recruit at a higher level.
Both of these takes are correct, which is what makes the situation such a challenge.
Classic Catch 22
I get your point, but I don't think they're both true.
Michigan has recruited well enough to beat Ohio State. Beat them 50% of the time? No, not at all. Beat them once every five years? Absolutely. Michigan needs to do that, and have it come in a season where good fortune, circumstance, and a very good team culminate into a B1G title and hopefully a playoff run. Something like 2016 Penn State, but hopefully a little bit better. That team was the 3rd best in the conference but got a B1G title out of their run: they lost early, pressure was off, other teams didn't take them as seriously, kick 6 against OSU. This is their win probability in that game - it was 90% OSU until the blocked field goal.
Michigan needs to beat OSU, play well in the other big games, and get a touch of luck. Do that one year, get a championship, and recruiting benefits will follow.
You can't get the recruiting benefits first.
I agree with all of your points. We have talent, we have coaches. We severely lack the confidence to win. We have a few years of just terrible...whatever officials, breaks, just yeah. At this point, I struggle to believe we can win one in five every cycle...for the simple fact, they devote so much energy to beating Michigan, it's not the same as PSU, Purdue, etc pulling it off for the simple fact 'they ain't Michigan' to paraphrase sleepy jOe...we just need to run the table to get there, it's not impossible.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Michigan has a 20% chance to beat Ohio State each year.
In that case, there is still a ~33% chance for OSU to win 5 in a row, and an ~11% chance for OSU to win 10 in a row.
i don't think your math is correct. 20% chance twice in a row is 4%. 20% chance ten times in a row is something around 1/10000%
No, he's correct. OSU has an 80% chance to win, which is .8*.8*.8*.8*.8 = 33% chance to win 5 in a row, and .8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.8*.8 = 11% chance to win 10 in a row. Conversely there is an 89% chance Michigan would win once in the next 10 years, and a 66% chance Michigan would win once in the next 5 years.
I don't quite look at it like that though. That's the floor. I think if Michigan won this year in Columbus, as I say above, the recruiting benefit would be immediate. So now the odds in 2021 are 24%. If you lose another 4 in a row you go back to 20%. But if you can win two in a row you get another bump to maybe 30%. And so on. There's a path back to 50% or something like it that isn't 10 years away. Beating a top 5 ranked OSU team on the road and winning a B1G title vaults Michigan back to the top of CFB, full stop. Recruits will want to be in on that game on Michigan's side. In that really weird way, OSU's outsized won/loss and recruiting success can actually benefit Michigan, as long was gd beat them at some point.
For the sake of the exercise....
Chance of UM winning is = 1- OSU chance of winning
So chance of UM winning a game once in X years is....
1- (1- OSU Random Chance)^X ; where X is years in a row.
For UM to not lose THE GAME: 1 - (1-0.80)^1 = 20%. OSU chance of winning 1 game = 80%
For UM to not lose 2 in a row:1 - (1-0.80)^2 = 36%. OSU chance of 2 in a row = 64%
For UM to not lose 5 in a row: 1 - (1-0.80)^5 = 67%. OSU chance of 5 in a row = 33%
For UM to not lose 10 in a row: 1 - (1-0.80)^10 = 89%. OSU chance of 10 in a row = 11%
Of course these are all independent events and the probabilities of each game are all over the place, so this math is essentially useless.
This is also all forward looking...ie, once an event has occurred, you can no longer use it in the calculation as all future event are independent of prior ones.
that still doesn't sound right (and apologies for my rusty math / probability skills, it's been a long time).
the chances of a 80% event happening 10 times in a row would be 0.8 ^ 10, or 10.73%, agreed - but shouldn't the chances of a 20% event happening 10 times in a row be 0.2 ^ 10, or 0.00001024%?
1 in a row = 20%
2 in a row = .20 x .20 = 4%
3 in a row = .20 ^ 3 = 0.8%
(etc.)
again, my apologies if i'm missing something...i'm happy to be corrected.
This looks like you are calculating the % that UM could win 3 times in a row, each with a 20% probability.
We SHOULD have gotten the recruiting benefits first. Harbaugh proved he could win with Hoke's recruits and signed the #8 and #6 classes in 2016 and 2017 and has proceeded to go 8-5, 10-3, and 9-4 since. Whether that was lack of player development, missing on recruits, or bad gameplans I don't know, but I would say it's a combination of all three.
We're not even recruiting at the level we were a few years ago. That doesn't make me feel good about the next few years.
Some on here act like we're the early 90s Florida State and only lose one game a year to our biggest rival. Except we are seemingly guaranteed to lose 2 more games.
To be fair to the kids, they haven’t been necessarily put in positions to succeed. Harbaugh’s mismanagement of the QB/WR rooms and general offensive malaise/change ups mid-season come to mind. This goes without mentioning the weird regression that occurs to his QBs in-game along with the boneheaded time management skills. Doesn’t surprise me that it carries over to recruiting but the coaching also hasn’t been Clemson/Bama/OSU level since about 2016 or Florida opener 2017.
Ehh...Clemson has had some awful games as well, some questionable play-calling...OSU has certainly shit the bed here and there schematically over the last 7/8 years as well. Do you watch any of their games? Those fans complain about the same game management stuff.
OSU has certainly shit the bed here and there schematically over the last 7/8 years as well.
Yup. In the past three years, Ohio State has four-score losses to both Iowa and Purdue.
I think this whole board will take a random blow out loss a season vs. a bunch of seeming choke jobs or no shows on the national level that Michigan has been doing since Brady/Woodson left the program.
We complain about Bo losing random games but I’d kill for those results right now if it meant beating OSU and showing up for it. (Casually forgets his bowl record)
A hypothetical--is UM's fanbase less miserable if, over the past five years, you perfectly swapped Penn State and Ohio State?
UM still wouldn't have made the CFP or won the B1G. Ohio State would have the one fluke-tastic B1G title (that Penn State currently does). UM would be 0-5 against Penn State, but 3-2 against Ohio State.
Is the fanbase in a better place? Or are they equally miserable while bitching about something different?
How is that even a question? We would be much less miserable. Come on. The whole narrative of Harbaugh’s regime at Michigan would be different if he was 3-2 against OSU.
Recruiting would be different. Michigan would be at the cusp.
If only Michigan got Desmond King to stay home instead of going to Iowa. Michigan would have a Big 10 title.
In 2018 Urban got murdered in a game they had no business losing to Purdue.
Then they should have lost to Maryland in OT. I mean on the last play of the game two OSU defenders covered 1 Maryland WR, leaving a guy COMPLETELY wide open running into the QBs field of vision. A hot dog with arms could have completed the pass. Instead he short armed it and OSU wins. A reminder of cruel fate and the fact that people who holler "RESULTS" and "FOUND A WAY TO WIN" lack analytical skills. OSU did everything they could have wrong on that play, they deserved to lose. Maryland just out-deserved-to-lose'd them.
Take back that 1 play - that 1 extraordinarily, fantastically fortunate play for OSU, and Michigan beats Northwestern for a B1G title. This takes it too far, but I firmly believe The Game would have been different that year as well. Per S&P Ohio State played by far its best game of the year that week, and Michigan played one of its worst. If they've lost the chance to play for a B1G title I don't think they come out the way they do, and I don't think Michigan does either (the pressure of the game would have been significantly relieved with a B1G East title locked up).
Man you hit the nail on the head... I think about that play a lot and just remember crying out in anguish as they missed the 2-points... Winning the BIG that year despite losing to OSU would have been huge for the program.
I think it's just been unfortunate for us over the last decade that so many things just haven't gone our way (I'm not going to bother recounting them, but so many were against OSU). We've been unlucky on the dice rolls, but things are closer than they seem to achieving better results. That's the positive side at least.
I don't think OSU would've been at all lacking in motivation in 2018 even if they'd lost to Maryland. That's what everyone said about OSU in 2015, right after they lost to MSU.
They'd virtually lost the Big Ten at that point, after playing with fire all year, and supposedly had nothing left to play for after getting shocked by a backup MSU QB on their own turf. MSU was playing a hapless PSU team at home the following week. It was over. Michigan, trending upward every week, was going to catch OSU at just the right time and send their season spiraling out of control. At least that's what much of the media said. Then 42-13 happened.
Meyer is probably one of the best motivators the college game has ever seen. They still would've come out with something to prove in 2018: that Michigan still plays second-fiddle in the rivalry. Granted, I do think you're right in that Michigan would've played better because all the pressure to win the Big Ten would've been off its shoulders. Indy would've been locked up, and Northwestern would almost certainly be beaten. But I highly doubt OSU would've played any differently that day.
I'd say in that situation, instead of 62-39, you're probably looking at something like 49-42 OSU, or 62-53 OSU. Closer, but still a loss.
"This takes it too far, but I firmly believe The Game would have been different that year as well."
Sounds like you agree with me, based on your last paragraph. I didn't claim Michigan would win, just that the game would have been different. A 7 or 9 point loss would have meant a world of difference vs. the absolute drubbing we absorbed in its place.
The main issue is we still would have had injured and ineffectual Rashan, injured and ineffectual Chase, and injured and not playing stud DT who I can't remember (Mo Hurst?) so we still would have gotten destroyed on defense. But who cares we'd win the big ten.
True but neither OSU or Clemson is losing 3+ games every year. Clemson is winning national titles and making the playoffs every year. OSU is winning the big ten just about every year and competing for berths in the playoffs on an annual basis. No coach or coaching staff is perfect. You also have a bunch of 18-22 year old kids playing who re going to make mistakes. Every team is going to lay an egg once or twice during the season. Michigan just seems to have more of them then OSU and Clemson.
Dabo has 30 loses in 10 years at Clemson..and average of 3 loses 'every year'. People have serious recency bias with Clemson Dabo wasn't always winning championships.
When Dabo was losing early on at clemson how much was he making and did he have as much drama constantly surrounding him as Harbaugh has over the years?
I think these are important questions that tell a bigger story.
Getting tired of the Harbaugh / dabo comparisons. Stop clinging to this narrative.
Football? I want more of your hawt takes on Coronavirus and the deleterious effects of 5G wireless. I’ll hang up and listen.
I don't think its a chicken/egg argument there. Undoubtedly OSU is at a different level. The question is how different and what does it take to close the gap. Right now it feels like if we play 10 games with OSU we'll most certainly lose 9 of them.
There's argument to be made that fixing recruiting would make iterative gains to make it more possible to win say maybe 3-4 out of 10, which puts you in the B1G championship and maybe the playoff periodically. Which gets your still better recruits, until maybe you're winning 4-6 out of 10, and so on.
Michigan isn't recruiting terribly. They are a significant step below OSU and need to improve. But the route do that isn't likely to be suddenly and randomly begin to outrecruit OSU becuse...what...you work harder? or hire better coaches than them? I mean maybe but that seems less likely to work. It's less of an on/off switch problem and more of a helical gains type problem, IMO
One win against OSU, just one, will start to change everything.
There’s a reason that most new coaches win big while they’re new, or never win big at all. New coaches with a lot of hype get better recruits than their on field performance warrants. You need to turn those guys into big wins before they dry up.
Unfortunately, Harbaugh came in and won 10 games and never did anything more. Now the hype is gone.
Exactly, and what's it going to take to win at their level?
Coaching is a good start.
Rather than relying on lazy excuses of bagmen and online classes.
These are lazy excuses if you believe they are the ONLY reason UM isn't elite.
If you believe, however, that these aren't the two of the biggest reasons that schools like UM and ND are top 10ish programs that can't break into the elite category, you have your head stuck in the sand.
UM is still trying to uphold some semblance of a student-athlete model while other institutions are comfortable being NFL preparatory football factories - essentially the minor leagues. It's a choice for our Board and AD, and they are sticking with student-athlete for now.
Our record the past 20 years against OSU has a lot to do with plain bad luck, as we should definitely have 3-4 more wins in close games. However, under the current paradigm, with all other variables held equal, they should expect to beat us 75% of the time or so.
Yeah it's like those really excellent bike racers who did their best to stay clean, would have had amazing careers of others had followed the rules as they did, then had to stand by and watch the world idolize Lance Armstrong as he pumped himself full of EPO.
Those lazy gd bastards. They should listen to a pick yourself up by the bootstraps, old school company man of action like you. MMGA!
MMGA!
^Fuck you pal.
By the way, Michigan does similar stuff.
We have online classes.
Despite the "academics" cliché touted by your ilk, the football team isn't scoring 1450 on their SATs. They get admissions consideration the rest of us don't -- just like at every school.
MIchigan isn't going to recruit on their level unless they win at their level. I think this is obvious enough that it shouldn't really need to be mentioned.
Other staffs have had elite recruiting prior to winning. Saban did it at two places (LSU & Bama), Fisher did it at two places (FSU & TAMU), and Smart did it at UGA.
- Saban's first year at LSU: 8-4
- Saban's first full recruiting class: #2
- Saban's first year at Bama: 7-6
- Saban's first full recruiting class: #3
- Fisher's first year at FSU: 10-4
- Fisher's first full recruiting class: #2
- Fisher's first year at TAMU: 9-4
- Fisher's first full recruiting class: #4
- Smart's first year at UGA: 8-5
- Smart's first full recruiting class: #3
Average first year: 8.4 - 4.6
Average recruiting class: 2.8
What do they have in common? They're all in recruiting hotbeds: Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Georgia.
It doesn't change anything. Michigan isn't going to recruit at their level until they win at their level.
Honest question: if Michigan goes 10-3 this year, and in the off season Urban Meyer or Nick Saban is hired as head coach, would you expect his first full recruiting class to be in the top 5 or not?
I tend to think that a super-star coach that excels at recruiting would have a top 5 class immediately. Harbaugh was a super-star coach when he came to Michigan, but no one would have put him in their top 5 list of recruiters.
I don't think the answer matters much in practice, because there are so very few super-star recruiters, and none of them seem likely to wind up at UM anytime soon, even if UM targeted them. But I am curious in your answer; it would help clarify to me how much of a role you think the coaching staff has in all of this.
There are no superstar recruiters without results or a new coach bump.
What do they have in common? They're all in recruiting hotbeds: Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Georgia.
You're making excuses Magnus Van Magnusson. We can't even hold down our top in state talent with any regularity! Other coaching staffs have failed in those same places before or after those coaches were there. It's not the place that makes them elite, it's their ability to recruit. You're selling UM short.
Michigan isn't going to recruit at their level until they win at their level.
JH isn't...unless he changes. But, I guarantee you if any of those became the next coach at UM they'd do the same thing in AA. It's the coaching staff, not the location, at least when it comes to UM. UM is a blue blood national brand and has all the resources needed with the right approach to field top 5 classes.
What else do these schools have in common? They are known cheaters with systemic ways to pay players... It was Saban who started the modern "professionalization" of college football and you can see how his disciples have spread it (see Kirby Smart, Georgia vs. Mark Richt, Georgia).