Online Now 3386

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

On this Board 2542
Record: 12118 (3/18/2012)

Online now 3245
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

MSU Recruiting vs. UM and Conference.

  • Read through the earlier post on MSU's 2013 class points/ranking. I have posted most of this on the Rival's site, but thought it would add a historic data and help summarize a few major data takeaways.

    #1) Stars Matter. Looking at Rival's data since 2002, here is the BigTen breakdown on odds of making all-conference (1st or 2nd team / media or coaches):

    5 Star: one in 1.2
    4 Star: one in 3.9
    3 Star: one in 6.8
    2 Star: one in 9.0

    #2) Other aspects are also important such as identifying talent, developing players, character/personality, and recruiting to team's needs.

    #3) UM is recruiting very well right now, but they have always recruited well. Nothing has changed. If anything, Hoke's first two classes were not very good versus Carr's 02-07 or RichRod's 08-10. See chart/picture #1 below. Also, please note that the gap between UM and the B1G average has closed quite a bit.

    NOTE:
    Skill = DB, WR, RB
    Power: LB, TE, FB
    Line: OL, DL, DE
    QB: QB

    #4) Dantonio and staff have done a fantastic job in recruiting. An argument could be made that JLS and BW did a bad job, but MD has improved MSU recruiting in every position group. See chart/picture #2 below.

    Note that MSU has been beating the conference average consistently over the past four classes. 2002 to 2008 MSU beat the average 11 times out of 28 player groupings. The last four years (2009 - 2012) has seen MSU beat the conference average 14 out of 16 groupings. MSU's talent is on a big upswing.

    #5) Regarding the MSU vs. UM fan bases, I believe the UM fan base is the one that should be concerned. Over the past four classes, MSU has made a strong move to close the gap. See chart/picture #3 below.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Carl_N on 3/14/2012 at 10:50 AM

    attachmentattachmentattachment

    Carl_N

  • No comment. Lol

    Keeping the sunshiners in check since 2000.

    Tanfan

  • Good stuff. Thanks for posting. I'll take a Dantonio-coached 'equal talent' team over a Hoke-coached 'equal talent' team every time.

    As a science nerd, can't help but ask what the values on the y axes are?

    Fred Garvin

  • Rivals shifted to a sub-ranking under the star system back in 2004.

    5 Star: 6.1
    4 Star: 6.0, 5.9, 5.8
    3 Star: 5.7, 5.6, 5.5
    2 Star: 5.4 and less

    Carl_N

  • Carl_N said...

    Rivals shifted to a sub-ranking under the star system back in 2004.

    5 Star: 6.1 4 Star: 6.0, 5.9, 5.8 3 Star: 5.7, 5.6, 5.5 2 Star: 5.4 and less

    Yeah, sorry, realized that as soon as I posted before. When your initial post talked about 5-star, 4-star, etc. my brain couldn't make the switch to the Rivals rankings quickly enough. 3 hours earlier out here in Arizona; still don't have all my caffeine in me yet.

    Again, though, good stuff. Thanks for posting. Care to elaborate on what positions are 'power' vs. 'skill'? 'Line' and 'qb' are pretty obvious.

    Fred Garvin

  • Fred Garvin said...

    Yeah, sorry, realized that as soon as I posted before. When your initial post talked about 5-star, 4-star, etc. my brain couldn't make the switch to the Rivals rankings quickly enough. 3 hours earlier out here in Arizona; still don't have all my caffeine in me yet.

    Again, though, good stuff. Thanks for posting. Care to elaborate on what positions are 'power' vs. 'skill'? 'Line' and 'qb' are pretty obvious.

    Tried to loop the positions together based on height/weight.

    Skill = DB, WR, RB
    Power: LB, TE, FB
    Line: OL, DL, DE
    QB: QB

    Carl_N

  • I have a hard time believing that Michigan 11 and 12 class were equal in talent.

    Jack Passion ●

  • Jack Passion said...

    I have a hard time believing that Michigan 11 and 12 class were equal in talent.

    There were not, except in the skill position. Their Line position jumped up a full 0.2 and the Power jumped up around 0.1

    The bigger story is that UM is no longer beating the B1G conference average they way they used to.

    Carl_N

  • Carl_N said...

    Read through the earlier post on MSU's 2013 class points/ranking. I have posted most of this on the Rival's site, but thought it would add a historic data and help summarize a few major data takeaways.

    #1) Stars Matter. Looking at Rival's data since 2002, here is the BigTen breakdown on odds of making all-conference (1st or 2nd team / media or coaches):

    5 Star: one in 1.2 4 Star: one in 3.9 3 Star: one in 6.8 2 Star: one in 9.0

    #2) Other aspects are also important such as identifying talent, developing players, character/personality, and recruiting to team's needs.

    #3) UM is recruiting very well right now, but they have always recruited well. Nothing has changed. If anything, Hoke's first two classes were not very good versus Carr's 02-07 or RichRod's 08-10. See chart/picture #1 below. Also, please note that the gap between UM and the B1G average has closed quite a bit.

    NOTE: Skill = DB, WR, RB Power: LB, TE, FB Line: OL, DL, DE QB: QB

    #4) Dantonio and staff have done a fantastic job in recruiting. An argument could be made that JLS and BW did a bad job, but MD has improved MSU recruiting in every position group. See chart/picture #2 below.

    Note that MSU has been beating the conference average consistently over the past four classes. 2002 to 2008 MSU beat the average 11 times out of 28 player groupings. The last four years (2009 - 2012) has seen MSU beat the conference average 14 out of 16 groupings. MSU's talent is on a big upswing.

    #5) Regarding the MSU vs. UM fan bases, I believe the UM fan base is the one that should be concerned. Over the past four classes, MSU has made a strong move to close the gap. See chart/picture #3 below.

    What's the relationship between stars and # of wins?

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    What's the relationship between stars and # of wins?

    Have not ran that one yet. Maybe later this spring.

    Carl_N

  • Carl_N said...

    There were not, except in the skill position. Their Line position jumped up a full 0.2 and the Power jumped up around 0.1

    The bigger story is that UM is no longer beating the B1G conference average they way they used to.

    Oh I see, misread the graph.

    Jack Passion ●

  • Number 1 doesn't really jive with #5. The conclusion doesn't really seem to match with everything else.

    Michael Strahan

  • One thing to keep in mind is that most of the national recruiting analysts that were at Rivals a few years ago, are no longer there now. That's going to have some sort of an effect on ratings as well.

    Trevor Barnes

  • Michael Strahan said...

    Number 1 doesn't really jive with #5. The conclusion doesn't really seem to match with everything else.

    The point of number 5 is that MSU has closed the talent gap with UM. Yes, UM is still winning the head to head recruiting battle as far as the Rival's data concerned. However, the MSU's talent level has increased and is much closer to UM.

    Carl_N

  • Trevor Barnes said...

    One thing to keep in mind is that most of the national recruiting analysts that were at Rivals a few years ago, are no longer there now. That's going to have some sort of an effect on ratings as well.

    Trevor,

    I did not know that! You are correct that those changes will turn the data upside down somewhat. One trend that I did notice is that Rivals data (at least the B1G conference average) has slowly been inflating.

    Carl_N

  • Carl_N said...

    The point of number 5 is that MSU has closed the talent gap with UM. Yes, UM is still winning the head to head recruiting battle as far as the Rival's data concerned. However, the MSU's talent level has increased and is much closer to UM.

    Saying "close the gap" is definitely a mischaracterization. From 2008-2011, you could definitely say the gap was narrowing, but for 2012 and 2013 that simply isn't even close to being the truth.

    Michael Strahan

  • Carl_N said...

    Trevor,

    I did not know that! You are correct that those changes will turn the data upside down somewhat. One trend that I did notice is that Rivals data (at least the B1G conference average) has slowly been inflating.

    I think that over the last few years Rivals has paid more attention to the Midwest, so that could be part of it.

    signature image

    We are not the same, I am a Spartan

    msusnee ●

  • Carl_N said...

    Trevor,

    I did not know that! You are correct that those changes will turn the data upside down somewhat. One trend that I did notice is that Rivals data (at least the B1G conference average) has slowly been inflating.

    I think only one of these guys is still at Rivals. The rest are either at 247Sports, ESPN, or elsewhere.

    Burton is one of the founders of 247Sports for instance, and he basically ran their national team of analysts.

    Crabtree is now at ESPN, etc. I believe Farrell is the only one still there.

    http://rivals100.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=146002

    Rivals.com Football Recruiting - Meet the Experts

    The National Football Recruiting Authority

    rivals100.rivals.com

    Trevor Barnes

  • msusnee said...

    I think that over the last few years Rivals has paid more attention to the Midwest, so that could be part of it.

    Josh Helmholdt who used to be the recruiting analyst for The Wolverine for years, is now the Rivals Midwest recruiting analyst.

    Trevor Barnes

  • Trevor Barnes said...

    Josh Helmholdt who used to be the recruiting analyst for The Wolverine for years, is now the Rivals Midwest recruiting analyst.

    So a UM guy does Rivals Midwest, and a UM guy (Trieau) does Scout's Midwest recruiting.

    Hmmmmmmm.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky ●

  • Michael Strahan said...

    Saying "close the gap" is definitely a mischaracterization. From 2008-2011, you could definitely say the gap was narrowing, but for 2012 and 2013 that simply isn't even close to being the truth.

    I will say this...if you look at 2007 and 2008 compared to 2011 and 2012 the teams are much closer.

    Rivals Rankings

    2007 Lloyds last year?
    5.7 avg. rank.
    2008 DickRods first?
    5.775 avg. rank

    2011 um - 5.63 avg. rank
    2012 um - 5.752 avg. rank

    Compared to MSU
    2007 MSU - 5.2347 avg. rank
    2008 MSU - 5.5 avg. rank

    2011 MSU - 5.648 avg. rank
    2012 MSU - 5.639 avg. rank

    www.housekeepingassociates.com

    morgarc ●

  • Carl_N said...

    Trevor,

    I did not know that! You are correct that those changes will turn the data upside down somewhat. One trend that I did notice is that Rivals data (at least the B1G conference average) has slowly been inflating.

    I'm looking forward to the '11 - '14 ranks, so you can use all 247 #s. That's not me shilling for the site, it's because 247 gives more "precise" rankings; an 87-89 is a high 3-star, instead of just "5.7". Now there's a difference between an 89 and an 87, while Rivals would just have them both at 5.7.

    That should give you more precise, if not accurate, depictions of the relative talent.

    MSU doesn't have to out-recruit UM, it just has to have enough talent to stay competitive and beat them for 1 game/year. Also, MSU can still go 7-1 in the conf. despite an L to UM; there isn't a conf. opponent on our schedule in '13 or '14 that has outrecruited State drastically beside's UM's '12 (and apparently '13) classes. Given that UM has to play tOSU every year, it could render an earlier L to UM moot, as long as MSU can keep ahead of the rest of the pack.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    So a UM guy does Rivals Midwest, and a UM guy (Trieau) does Scout's Midwest recruiting.

    Hmmmmmmm.

    I hear both are really nice guys, but yeah, there's that.

    Trevor Barnes

  • Trevor Barnes said...

    I think only one of these guys is still at Rivals. The rest are either at 247Sports, ESPN, or elsewhere.

    Burton is one of the founders of 247Sports for instance, and he basically ran their national team of analysts.

    Crabtree is now at ESPN, etc. I believe Farrell is the only one still there.

    http://rivals100.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=146002

    Hmm. . . where I have seen the name Bill Kurelic before . . .

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky ●

  • Nice analysis... the sudden jump in POWER positions coincides nicely with MD as head coach and shows his concentration. I'd like to see that same focus on Linemen too eventually. Those are critical to long term success in a Smashmouth Offense. It also shows we've improved a lot too. Another type of analysis I'd like to see is how the "bottom 10" look in each recruiting class... because that's really where depth is made. MD has done a hell of a job improving that.

    As for Michigan, they're going to get their recruits. Hoke is going to heavily fill a few classes with 25+ people. Part of that is warm bodies (although good talent) to fill some huge gaps left by RR... but the other portion is to try and establish dominance locally and starve out other programs (ie, us) from talent. Good plan, but eventually, they are going to run out of scholarships or have to run more people off. If its the former, means there's more talent for us to choose from if its the later, it will mean bad press for them which can lead to better long term recruiting for us. Either way, we win there... we just have to weather the storm of 2-3 years of Hoke pulling in 50 to 75 kids...

    ... and by weather, I mean we need to keep winning and make sure that MD and the MSU brandname gets high (positive) visibility. Really would be a huge help if we got a couple of MSU Beat Writers in the local Detroit rags and if Hollis could pull out a local Detroit station like UM has in 1050 am... spend an hour interviewing MSU FB recruits, talking recruiting and deep diving game analysis on a weekday afternoon goes a hell of a long way to promoting the program.

    Robbub

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports