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.
The place for discussion on the NFL
The place for discussion on college baseball
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.
Here, Cope, let me get you started on your quest to prove your hypothesis. Below is a link to a an analysis showing the predictive value of football recruiting rankings when it comes to defense. It's not the only such study out there, but it's an interesting one. Sorry, I know you will be disappointed to discover it uses math. Hopefully you can find someone to help you understand it. So many numbers and all.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 15 months ago
Still a bump..
And way to ignore every other example that showed a bump in overall rankings for that commit..
You going to answer the basketball question?
It's Delaney's fault. He has a deal with all the recruiting sites to give bumps to Michigan commits.
I'm saying that plenty of kids commit that are NR and aren't bumped a short period after committing
One last thing, you are talking about a kid that wasn't evaluated and then commits to Michigan, gets evaluated as a 3*.
Somehow though, it is different that Reschke went from unevaluated, commits to MSU, gets evaluated as a 4* top247 recruit.
#MSU bump. Lmao
Gerry works for 247, so every one of his half-baked opinions are true? No wonder you are so bad at picking games. You really need to come up with more reliable sources and methods.
[ostrich head in sand]
This point I have to disagree with you on. Trying to disprove the validity of the rating system seems to correlate pretty well with Cope's distrust of it.
laconophilia is everywhere...
You are just focusing on the one example and not the six or so others I provided..
Never said it doesn't happen to MSU.. but there are lots of examples that I showed, just from UM's latest class that showed a bump a short period after committing.
Why only focusing on the non evaluated recruit and not looking at everything I provided? Because you have no rebuttal for that?
Cope has two pages of rantings on our site in the last two days trying to prove that Dantonio has elevated MSU's recruiting. What does he offer up as evidence? Recruiting rankings and stars. Cope is perfectly happy with recruiting rankings when they are favorable to MSU. He just disses them when they're not.
Wait, what? Reschke wasn't unevaluated when he committed to MSU. He was already a 4* recruit.
As valid of a point as you might have, you are doing a terrible job arguing it.
Four-star LB Jon Reschke comments on his Michigan State pledge.
Taco Charlton ended up ranked lower than what you provided in the pic. Is that a Michigan bump?
Dukes went from unevaluated to a 3* after ccommitting to Michigan. Is that a Michigan bump?
York was rated before committing to Michigan and never had his rating changed. Is that a Michigan bump?
I don't remember your other ones, but based on your throwing crap against the wall so far, I am expecting more of the same.
4* to what service. His timeline shows no rating until after he commits to MSU.
I'm not interested in what the recruit ended up with (if the recruit had a bad senior year or got injuries, etc) There are tons of examples why a recruit would drop.. I'm only interested, and pulled the data based on, guys that committed to UM and then a short time later got a bump in their 1-star ranking or 2- bump in their overall ranking. If the services decided at a later point they overcompensated that recruit and dropped their ranking, well, that's their decision.
No need to look back, I'll provide the list:
Taco Charlton commits.. rated as #99 player 3 days later.
Jaron Dukes wasn't rated by 247.. commits to UM.. becomes a 87 3star
Csont'e York was rated 85.. bumped to a 88/89 same day UM offered and day before he committed to UM
DeVeon Smith commits and a month later gets bumped to the #231 prospect overall
Wyatt Shallman commits and 3 days later is rated #187 overall
Ben Gedeon commits and a week later is rated a 90 and #171 overall
David Dawson commits (the 1st time) and 3 days later is #196 overall
This post was edited by CaliSpartan0606 15 months ago
So, which kids answer the original question?
"Can you show some examples of Michigan commits being rated before they commit to Michigan and then getting a rating bump up after they commit?"
All of them showed a bump
I question how much of this simply has to do with the fact that after someone commits to a school there is almost always an analyst that watches their film and then gives feedback. For example, Clint Brewster does it after every player commits.
A perfect example is Bryan Mone this year. He plays in Utah and he doesn't do combines so not that many people had seen him play. So, during the process, he wasn't rated very highly. Then, after he committed to Michigan, Gerry watched his film and said that he was drastically underrated for his skill set which led to a bump in the ratings.
Could absolutely be the case in some instances.. but wasn't Mone a 4star on Rivals prior to 247 catching on?
Many of the examples I provided however were kids that were already ranked, but got a bigger push in the rankings after committing
Well I don't think it's common practice to refer to a recruit as a 4* based on other services, prior to the composite rating anyway.
And all his timeline shows is a ranking, which is different than a star rating. He very well could have been rated as a 4* prior to being ranked the #222 player (which, btw, it's worth pointing out that 1 month later he was demoted to #247).
I'll never get my mind around why anyone cares if they showed a "bump" or not? It's talked about on sirus 91 and I usually have to switch channels in the morning. Please explain to me once a kid is picked and signed for his college why it's a big deal? Why is having an average of 3.78 per kid better then an average of 3.3? The kid is the same damn kid. These kids dont' change just because some guy says "Well, they had a good camp this summer" It is what it is. The kid has been chosen, and given a scholarship. Now he has to play. Move on.
Jandy, 4 (Charlton, Dawson, Smith, Shallman) of the kids cope mentioned he is talking about rankings. 1 (York) was rated before committing to Michigan and never changed. 1 (Dukes) wasn't evaluated before committing and after committing was evaluated as a 3*.
I have asked for examples of kids rated before committing to Michigan and then getting bumped afterwards. He hasn't shown any. Hell at this point there might be one or 2 he can find, but is that really a pattern?
York got a bump the day he visited UM and the day before he committed...
And let me ask you a question- if someone goes from not rated in the rankings.. up to a top #100-#200 ranking.. wouldn't that also correlate directly with an increase in star ranking? Meaning, you're not going to see a high 3 star in the top 100 rankings of any service, are you?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports