ESPN Missing M Recruit?

Submitted by U of M in TX on

Over on ESPN, they have Michigan ranked #8 with 24 recruits signed. They are #4 and #7 on Scout and Rivals, respectively. But both of those sites show Michigan with 25 recruits.  Since I do not have ESPN Insider, I can't see the individual recruits, so the question I have is, what recruit of Michigan's is missing and would it make a difference in their ESPN ranking?

kmedved

February 1st, 2012 at 6:44 PM ^

Add up the recruits: "Four-star: 11 Three-star: 12 Others:2"

 

On Michigan's team page, they show all 25 recruits as having been signed.

 

Volverine

February 1st, 2012 at 6:45 PM ^

AHHH ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ESPN'S SEC AND ANTI-MICHGIAN BIAS!!!!

/s

But seriously, when you click on the link, it shows all 25 recruits. I don't know why it says 24 before clicking.

Geneticblue

February 1st, 2012 at 6:50 PM ^

Cos ESPN sucks.  They spent 10 minutes today talking about why their rating system was great during their 10 hour recruiting special.   They also interviewed Saban who they allowed to discuss how clean his recruiting practices are without challenging him.  Gotta love it

kmedved

February 1st, 2012 at 6:52 PM ^

It's just a typo. That same page which shows 24 recuits has a breakdown of them by star rating which adds up to 25.

I can't believe I've posted twice now to try to calm people down about this.

kmedved

February 1st, 2012 at 7:03 PM ^

Done by an unusually unpleasant looking dude, found that ESPN was in fact a little bit worse than the other guys. Rivals had the lowest bust rate, and the best overal success rate.

But while ESPN was clearly the worst, they're not so bad as to be useless. An ESPN T100 player had a 9% chance of being a bust, compared to a 4.3% chance for Rivals. The study is also a bit old, so maybe ESPN has gotten better by virtue of experience.

BlueVball8

February 1st, 2012 at 7:07 PM ^

Northfleet is a really solid back on all of the websites, but he is terrible on ESPN.  I really am interested why the most powerful sports company really doesn't hire better people for their rating service.

mgowill

February 1st, 2012 at 7:37 PM ^

From the front page -

 

Greg Mattison

After looking at his film and evaluating him for yourself, did you feel like he was underrated as a recruit?

“I don’t care about stars. And I really don’t. There are some five stars out there that I hope we play against. To me all I care is what we, our staff, when we look at the film and say yes he can play or no he can’t play. When we looked at this guy on film, we said, Wow, this is one that we want.’ I don’t care if he’s a five star, three star, or two star. Those are the kind of guys we want in this class.”

 

I just love this statement.  He doesn't make it because he's never seen talent.  He makes it because he knows talent.  ESPN, Rivals, 24-7....stars are fun and help to pad your ego; if you are into that kind of stuff.  After watching our defense develop this year, I trust our coaches more than the aforementioned sites.

 

 

 

SF Wolverine

February 1st, 2012 at 9:15 PM ^

Also helps keep everyone firmly seated at the "team" level. Makes the five-star know he's gonna have to come in and complete hard, and let's the two-star know that Matison doesn't care what others think of him, and that if he puts out and competes, he will play.