Yay: Michigan 10th worst in Recruit-to-Performance Rankings

although obviously much worse in recent years.

Frankly, I'm surprised there are frankly 9 teams worse than us.

I knew we had to be high on this list. Just another indictment of this coaching staff that we already knew as they don't develop players.

I have a feeling we catapult well into first place once this season is over.

Thanks for the link - data like this is fun to pour over for us data nerds.

I was going to get snarky and say "give us 6 weeks and we could climb into the top 5" but this is a rolling 5 year average so 2011 alone should keep us out of that storied level. 

Wisconsin is the #1 Big 10 team at +31.1

Others of interest:

• TCU: +30.0
• Stanford +23.8
• Kansas State: +23.1
• Oregon: +15.9

On the bad side:

• Maryland: -45.3
• Colorado: -44.2 (people Wolverine Devotee's age dont realize Colorado was a NC in  90 and had a Heisman winner in 94!)
• Tenn: -40.4
• Virginia: -40
• Illinois: -36.4
• Michigan: -27.4
• UCLA: -25.7
• Minn:  -24.1
• Miami (YTM): -23.7
• Texas: -19.4

No surprises there - as Kelly has improved Notre Dame, Miami has come down to replace ND as a fallen angel... and joined UM and Tenn as the 2 major tire fires relative to recruiting and the previous 20 years of performance.

"How are we not lower on the list?"

-Everyone who opens this thread

I think this week is more depressing then the aftermath of the Horror.

Are these adjusted for youth in any way?  Because that's a big confounder.  A senior 5 star is a lot different from a freshman 5 star.  It would also be interesting to see how the data changes for different positions in which some are less likely to predict future success than others.

Player development is a very important metric to consider when hiring a new Head Coach.

Gotta figure they're getting mroe bang for the buck, right?

Texas would be far higher on this list. 

And about half of those teams appear to be on the upswing. We could be the worst in the country in a year or two. Happy Friday.

I'm really disappointed with that ranking. I'd prefer us to be first just so it can be yet another sucker-punch to the jaw - no pun intended towards C'Sonte York of course.

By my count, 10 of the 14 B1G teams are below the line.  Even Ohio State.  That's saying a lot considering that Big Ten recruiting was already garbage to begin with.  Our coaches suck ass collectively at developing players as well.

I do not buy their explanation for not giving different weights to different years of seniority.  The authors said they did that because some of the class members would no longer be around when they are seniors.  True, but if these members are not around and you still include them in the recruiting rankings--which they did--- then teams with coaching changes and high attrition will almost surely underperform these spurious rankings of the the class.

I do not have time to correct for such attrition, but I did at least redo the analysis with different weights different to given years (more weight proportionately given to a recruiting class in predicting performance four years later, less given to it in predicting immediate performance). 

One can divide the teams into better or worse than average performance teams.

Consider first only the group of above average BCS performers.  Four teams clearly separated themselves out as underperforming their recruit rankings: Tenn again was an outlier and by far the worst; and the next worst group included Miss, Mia, and Fla.  The next group did include UM as well as Tex, USC, Auburn, WVa, Pitt, UCLA, NC, Ark. 

Among the lower than average BCS performers, there were 19 teams worse than UM.  So UM was not among the ten worst teams or even among the worst 25 (it was about #32)  

You might attribute these teams' underperformance to poor player development, but there were a lot of coaching changes in the underperformers.  Plenty of player attrition also occurred during the transitions.  eg Fla had enormous attrition in the early transition between coaching regimes at least thru the 2013 class, which was #3 or #4 nationally in Rivals.  Since they did not possess many of the recruits initially ranked so highly, one would expect them not to do as well as might be otherwise expected from the rankings of the (absent) recruits.

What makes UM diff from some of underperformers, like Fla, however, is that it largely retained and even strengthened the 2013 class (especially if you consider Ty Isaac, the #1 Rivals RB as a redshirted member of that class).  In fact, UM was either #2 or #3 in the nation—better than Urban’s best class at Ohio-- if you redo the Rivals rankings based on the former recruits who are still around.

If there is again a coaching change again at UM, however, it would be critical to get the new guy in right away to prevent attrition.  I wonder if this might be an argument for Schiano.  I know that the Pats coach thought very highly of him and drafted an inordinate number of his players from Rutgers.  His is immediately available and some think this week’s game at Rutgers could facilitate his recruitment.

I guess this is a decent place to put this, as there's no need to start ANOTHER thread about it.

In the last few weeks, I've watched many non-Michigan CFB games, and I'm seeing offenses click all over the place. OLs open holes, RBs run with burst and vision, and QBs make different throws requiring combinations of touch, timing, and arm strength. Teams like Utah State (that I am watching now, just an example) do all these things at various times.

In no way does USU (for example) have the caliber of recruits that Michigan has, so it just reinforces to me how piss-poor our offensive coaching/teaching/development is. Hoke's old-boy network combined with the coaches that were retained in the changeover are truly not power-5 level.

So much potential talent being wasted. I just can't believe it's being allowed to continue -- but it is. Sad and frustrating!!