The Blue Board

Yeh the National Champs never recruit well.

They can say what they want in regards to stars and all that, but the video on some of these recruits looks so promising. The video of the QB was outstanding. Someone posted video from his junior year which I then found video from his sophomore year. He looks pretty damn talented for highlights from a 15/16 yr old. Reminds me of Tony Banks.

It's all how you develop them. The recruiting rankings are based on a combo of potential, athletic ability, and college readiness. So when you see a 4 star like Taco Charlton, he has all the potential in the world but he will need a ton of coaching or else he will be a bust. Three star recruits are usually either kids with low ceilings in terms of potential or they need correct coaching.

Who knows man... not enough analysts on these sites anyway. Too many kids to look at unlike basketball. I understand that there are can't miss kids though. Just gotta get your kids and coach them up. As long as Dantonio is getting plan A and plan B guys, I'm cool with it. It's when you end up with some 2 star or unranked kid from Montana like JLS was doing. Ugh, awful.

It's just that IMO, so many of these kids have their own crap going on. To just label them in broad categories is lazy, but I get that it's needed to try and run a site like this.

What numbers are those? The same rankings that had Fred Smith a 4 star. The same ones who had Antonio Jeremiah a 4 star. The same ones who pimped Will Campbell.

Lulz. Of course there are busts, and guys who come out of nowhere. This happens everywhere including the NFL, doesn't mean rankings are useless.

5 stars are more likely to make NFL than 4 stars, 4 stars more likely than 3 stars etc. Direct correlation.

EDIT: Thanks for Never Lose Hoke for posting Mathlete's work, you can find similar stuff on the internet. Some schools are better at recruiting good 3 stars obviously, but every national champion recently has had at least one top 5 class.

They look to be pretty good players. Just have to coach them and get them on the field. It seems like the #4 kid from Michigan will be headed to MSU.

You can have your smug, arrogant attitude, but at the end of the day these kids are beating up on Michigan. Can't win by taking something from rivals and applying it to on the field results. In one area you are playing the actual game of football. The other is a bunch of guys looking at kids on a computer and judging their talent, while seeing the top players in person from around the region/country. I'll take the wins.

Anyway, computer rankings and spreadsheets made by guys that don't coach football are more of your thing xxxmgoblue. You can argue with Rocky about that stuff. He's into that as well.

Dantonio is working out quite well. I have to say, it's fun watching MSU basketball and football win/play for the Big Ten Championship each year. Being a Spartan Alum is just a very rewarding experience all around. The wins feel so good. I'm off to bed.

I think that every BCS NC has at least 1 top 10 class, but the point is that to get to the top, you need elite talent.

I don't think the recruiting services are perfect, and I think some of UM and MSU's 4-stars in the '12 and '13 classes will be complete busts who never see the field. That's just the way these things work; you're going to miss on some recruits, no matter what their ratings.

I also think that a program that brings in 50 4-stars is more likely to field a stronger team than one that brings in 50 3-stars. On a recruit-by-recruit basis, stars are pretty meaningless; either the kid works out or he doesn't and it doesn't really matter how many stars he had next to his name in H.S.

The point that mrider makes, and one that I agree with, is that, as a whole, 5-stars work out more often than 4-stars, who work out more often than 3-stars. By bringing in higher talent, a program makes it MORE LIKELY that they'll field a team full of competent BCS conf. level performers. These #s are unscientific, but say that roughly 80% of 5-stars become high level players (I thought it was higher, then I read Rivals' "where are all our 5-stars now" article and realized there were more 5-star busts than I previously thought), 65-70% of 4-stars and 50-55% of 3-stars (depending on where they fall on the 3-star scale).

Here's the kicker, and why both MSU and UM fans could be correct at the same time: These #s are across ALL of the 5-star/4-star/3-star prospects. There are roughly 300 4-stars every year. 70% of that means that about 210 of them will work out. That leaves 90 4-stars, or enough to fill 4 decent-sized recruiting classes full of nothing but 4-stars, who will not work out. There are about 750-900 3-stars every year. Even if you go with a low-ball 50% success rate, that's between 375-450 guys who can make it in any given year.

The problem? You don't know who's going to work out and who won't till they get on the field. A team that grabs 10 of those 90 4-star busts is going to look pretty good on signing day . . . but then likely struggle in the future. Likewise, a team that snags 15 of those 375 3-stars that work out will look merely o.k. on signing day, and exceed those modest expectations.

However, there is absolutely no way to determine who's going to work out and who won't based on signing day alone. What Hoke is doing, however, is ensuring that Michigan has a very good chance at having most of their recent recruiting classes work out.

On the flip side, Michigan State is bringing in mostly 3-star talent. That's less of a sure thing, but not a guaranteed bust either. I hear a lot of Dantonio developing talent; there's truth in that, but I think the Spartan staff has done an excellent job of identifying those 3-star prospects in that 375-450 "success" group.

In short, both teams can continue recruiting as they are and have sustained success in the long run. The law of averages dictate that more of Michigan's prospects will work out, and at a higher level, than the guys Dantonio is currently bringing in. But this is football, and not a stats class, so the only way we'll know who wins out is once these kids line up across from each other in a few years. After all, games are played on the field, not on paper.

I, for one, am looking forward to the MSU - UM rivalry over the next decade.

Lulz, USMCAG is funny as hell IMO. He says some things that really piss me off, but the guy is stubborn and trolls effectively.

It's funny because you're not

Texas, Michigan, MSU, OSU, Bama, Auburn, USC, LSU, Florida, FSU.

A quick 10 there.