In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Committing to a school makes you a priority when it comes to being ranked. Campbell for OSU was unranked when he committed to OSU and now he's rated in the low 90's. I don't really have a problem with it since he's a good player who was going to end up with that rating anyway imo. Committing to OSU just sped up how quickly his tape was looked at by analysts. I'm sure this sort of thing has happened with MSU as well.
This post was edited by hownowbrowncow 15 months ago
Wilton Speight offered by Miami. He's blowing up!
MSU has never had an unranked guy commit, and then he is given a ranking within the next day or two?
None showed a bump after committing to Michigan. As was stated by someone else, they were evaluated since they were committed to a team, but I didn't see a bump up from a previous rating.
I'm sure all this only happens with Michigan recruits though.
Of course not. None that committed and then were soon ranked in the top 247.
On this point, I have to agree with Cope. It does happen, but it's not common. Usually, the site will wait 2-4 months, and subsequently rate the kid 85 (aka - not worth our time to evaluate him) or 81 or something. This sometimes flies in the face of the kid's offer list, as well as ratings on other sites.
It's just not feasible for analysts to accurately rate as many recruits as are assigned ratings every year. Which is why I don't have a lot of faith in the system.
laconophilia is everywhere...
Your Bullough example shows a commit in the beginning of August and SEVEN months later a bump in ratings AFTER an entire football season (which is exactly the type of jumps I didn't include in the UM example, because those ratings are 1- long after a person committed and 2- after an actual football season)
And none showed a bump??.. I guess I don't even know how to respond.. Dukes wasn't rated.. commits.. then gets rated a 87.. how is that not a bump?
All the other examples showed a bump a SHORT PERIOD (not 7 months as you tried to bring up with Bullough) after committing to UM (outside York who must just be lucky to get a bump the day he visited UM and the day before he committed).
You'll see what you want to see.. but facts are facts
If you don't care about ratings and stars, why do you bitch and moan about them constantly?
Oh I'm sure it happens, absolutely..
But not close to the frequency it happens at UM and other major schools that have a large subscription base to the recruiting services.. that I'm sure of
Haha, you and Cope are keeping pace with each other some how.
I think you have a point, but Byron Bullough is a terrible example of it, being that he's borderline grossly undervalued by 247 right now.
Because the discussion isn't whether I care about them or not.. it's about if some of UM's players get a bump after committing..
It's the offseason.. if not for recruiting rankings, this thread would be nothing but MSU folk dissecting Maxwell's awful arm
No, I don't see a ratings bump for the kids. Do they get evaluated since they committed somewhere, yes. Bump as I have said, you aren't giving examples of kids getting rated higher than they were previously because they committed to Michigan.
It's ok Cope, remember they don't matter to you.
That bump also happened seven months after committing..
And in my UM examples, I noted that I didn't include those bumps that came over a football season or an extended length of time
Well, he has to have something to bitch about. How else can he deflect attention from his crumbling football and basketball programs?
So going from Not Rated to a 87 3 star (mid-high 3) isn't a bump in your eyes?
Increasing the overall ranking in America after committing isn't a bump in your eyes?
Hey Woody, is this a good enough "study" for you??
copemoney0 said: On that, with the AAU circuit, would you say college basketball recruiting rankings are closer in predicting college success rate (if that's what the rankings are supposed to gauge) vs. football rankings?
Gerry Hamilton said: No question about it. AAU is a best on best scenario for college coaches and people in our industry to evaluate from when guys are 13-14 through their junior years.
That just doesn't exist in football...with pads on other than Dec-Jan. all-star games.
Well, if MSU could close on a kid before the sites evaluate him... Michigan is just ahead of the curve.
Wait, does coach D wait to see what a kid is rated before taking a commit?
They went from not being evaluated to being evaluated. They didn't get rated and then after committing to Michigan end up being rated higher. That is all you on that. [tinfoilhat]
How is that a study?
What about every other example provided that showed a lift in the recruits overall rankings a short time after committing to UM?
And it doesn't matter if he went from not evaluated to being evaluated.. plenty of kids aren't evaluated prior to committing.. But going from NR to a 87 is a bump. One day he wasn't a 3 star.. the next day he was..
Well Gerry works at 247.. assume he is an expert in the field..
Do you now agree with us and Gerry? Or do you somehow need more proof that basketball rankings are a better reflector than football in college success?
Unevaluated to evaluated.
I can't help and your conspiracy theories, not my problem.
Are you trying to say that Jaron Dukes wasn't good enough to be ranked? Or that it's unfair he committed and was ranked as a three star almost immediately? He would have been a three star player anyway, even if he had to wait a longer time for his ranking.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports