Iowa's Recruiting Class (LOL Hawks) [Archive] - Hail Victors Michigan Sports Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Iowa's Recruiting Class (LOL Hawks)

StevieBrownforHeisman

12-14-2008, 12:22 PM

TNTWolverine

12-14-2008, 12:41 PM

This comes as no surprise to me. Who wants to live in Iowa anyway?

Bossgobbler23

12-14-2008, 01:34 PM

This comes as no surprise to me. Who wants to live in Iowa anyway?

What do you mean? You can always watch professional uh, uh, uh, well corn shucking, yeah!

Hawks

12-14-2008, 03:19 PM

just browsing around on rivals today and i found the big 10 recruiting rankings to date. predictably they went:
1. OSU #3
2. UM #7
from here on in gets a bit subjective:
3. MSU #16
4. Illinois #21
5. PSU #22
6. Minny #32
7. Wisky #33
8. Indiana #42
9. Northwestern #59
10. Iowa #69
11. Purdue #81
The funniest thing on here is seeing iowa with the 10th best group of inc. freshman for '09, only better than Purdue. This is how pathetic Iowa's class is:
Total Commitments - 12
4 star commitments - 2
3 star commitments - 2
2 star commitments - 8
Rivals top 250 commits - 1 (4 Star WR Keenan Davis, #157)
a list of a few schools that you wouldn't guess would be able to out-recruit Iowa:
Washington State (#68)
Duke (#41)
Univ. Alabama-Birmingham (#58)

i remember a few weeks ago hawks posting something along the lines of "iowa will be favored in the big 10 next year... get used to it"

This means nothing really. What stars was Brad Banks, Bob Sanders, Dallas Clark, Chad Greenway, Mitch King, and many more. A couple of these mentioned were walk-ons. I think it is funny how Michigan fans think it is great to be in the top 10 every year, but than teams like Iowa have better years. Heck, the kid who hit the winning field goal against Penn State isn't even on Scholarship yet. It just shows what a good coach can do.

I like a story Kirk once said, a player had commit to Iowa and his stars was a three, then he uncommitted and pledge to Michigan. He was now a four star recruit because he was going to go to Michigan.

Would I want the #1 recruiting class, heck ya. But Kirk knows what he is doing and creates great college and pro football players out of one stars and walk-ons. Look at this way, you had a top 10 class probably the last 5 years, but we will still beat you next year.

joeismyname

12-14-2008, 03:43 PM

This means nothing really. What stars was Brad Banks, Bob Sanders, Dallas Clark, Chad Greenway, Mitch King, and many more. A couple of these mentioned were walk-ons. I think it is funny how Michigan fans think it is great to be in the top 10 every year, but than teams like Iowa have better years. Heck, the kid who hit the winning field goal against Penn State isn't even on Scholarship yet. It just shows what a good coach can do.

I like a story Kirk once said, a player had commit to Iowa and his stars was a three, then he uncommitted and pledge to Michigan. He was now a four star recruit because he was going to go to Michigan.

Would I want the #1 recruiting class, heck ya. But Kirk knows what he is doing and creates great college and pro football players out of one stars and walk-ons. Look at this way, you had a top 10 class probably the last 5 years, but we will still beat you next year.

Look what you did Stevie...now you got the little girl crying...was it really necessary.

rickyleach

12-14-2008, 04:00 PM

hawks, i like this story, if you commit to IOWA, THEN YOU NEED TO BE COMMITTED,

Hawks

12-14-2008, 04:37 PM

hawks, i like this story, if you commit to IOWA, THEN YOU NEED TO BE COMMITTED,

Hey, say what you want, but are wins will equal your loses.
We are going to the Outback Bowl and will over power the Gamecocks. Why your top ten classes sit at home.

BlueSpread

12-14-2008, 05:10 PM

Are you certain that the Hawkeyes would've beaten Michigan this year? I'm not and nor should you. I'll take a sig bet on Michigan and Iowa in '09.

The Michigan Man

12-14-2008, 05:29 PM

Hey, say what you want, but are wins will equal your loses.
We are going to the Outback Bowl and will over power the Gamecocks. Why your top ten classes sit at home.

Congrats, it is better to be a Hawkeye exactly 1 year out of the past 100 + years.

TNTWolverine

12-14-2008, 05:34 PM

Hey, say what you want, but are wins will equal your loses.
We are going to the Outback Bowl and will over power the Gamecocks. Why your top ten classes sit at home.

When you typed that response, did it make sense to you?
I normally don't call out simple mistakes but I had to bring in a Sparty to translate that one.

GoGreen23

12-14-2008, 06:11 PM

When you typed that response, did it make sense to you?
I normally don't call out simple mistakes but I had to bring in a Sparty to translate that one.

You could have asked me! Haha, recruting ranksings really don't mean a whole lot in the big scheme of things. How many has OSU or Notre Dame had in the last couple years? And look where they got them...

StevieBrownforHeisman

12-14-2008, 07:52 PM

You could have asked me! Haha, recruting ranksings really don't mean a whole lot in the big scheme of things. How many has OSU or Notre Dame had in the last couple years? And look where they got them...

recruiting rankings do mean something, actually... they aren't concrete but they are definitely a good indicator of how your program is looking for the future. i'm sure if you did a bit of research, you would find a co-relation between recruiting success and on the field success.
heres a bit for you:
Florida's last 4 recruiting classes were ranked 15, 2, 1, and 3 from 2005 to 2008. 3 top 3 recruiting classes = NC game
Oklahoma's last 4 recruing classes were ranked 3, 9, 14, and 6.
Texas's were 20, 5, 5, and 14
Ohio State, who has been in the last 2 NC's need i remind you, has had their last 5 classes ranked 9, 12, 12, 15, and 4,

michigans by the way were 6, 12, 13, and 10; not a top 5 class in the lot. we should have been better yes, but you consider ALOT of those prospects left U-M before Rodriguez even got here, including 2 5 stars in Mallet and Boren, as well as a slew of other players.

so hawks, it's not about whether or not your coach can go 9-3 with the 69th best group of freshman, it's about whether or not your coach can get to the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP with a 69th ranked class. you can keep your outback bowl bid. i'll take this 1 bad year so we can be a national powerhouse in the future.

bigboyBlue

12-14-2008, 07:58 PM

Hawks is getting a bit carried away by all the supposed parity in CFB these days....look at the BCS bowl participants, all traditional powers. Yes, upsets are more common, and DO affect the NC picture, but ultimately the same teams, that also recruit well, prevail.

GoGreen23

12-14-2008, 11:56 PM

recruiting rankings do mean something, actually... they aren't concrete but they are definitely a good indicator of how your program is looking for the future. i'm sure if you did a bit of research, you would find a co-relation between recruiting success and on the field success.
heres a bit for you:
Florida's last 4 recruiting classes were ranked 15, 2, 1, and 3 from 2005 to 2008. 3 top 3 recruiting classes = NC game
Oklahoma's last 4 recruing classes were ranked 3, 9, 14, and 6.
Texas's were 20, 5, 5, and 14
Ohio State, who has been in the last 2 NC's need i remind you, has had their last 5 classes ranked 9, 12, 12, 15, and 4,

michigans by the way were 6, 12, 13, and 10; not a top 5 class in the lot. we should have been better yes, but you consider ALOT of those prospects left U-M before Rodriguez even got here, including 2 5 stars in Mallet and Boren, as well as a slew of other players.

I guess I should have chosen my words more carefully. What I meant was that recruiting classes and rankings aren't everything. Yes it is true that if you have a highly regarded class that typically means good things are in store for the future of your program and future successes. But it doesn't mean everything, your coach has to develop that talent and use it to it's full potential. That's what teams like Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas do.

Good points StevieBrown, I need to try and do a better job of typing what I mean the first time!

tpilews

12-15-2008, 12:38 AM

Here's something another user wrote on mgoblog that relates position ranking and team success. It's actually quite a good read.

Ok, out on a limb here, but a quick eyeball perusal of the various metrics used in recruiting rankings seemed to reveal that the best predictor of success at the college level was position ranking. I was curious if anyone has done a more serious analysis to see if that correlation holds up.

The database I looked at was narrow (M recruits, 2002-2007, Rivals position rank data), but I was taken immediately that, overall, recruits ranked in the top 10-15 at their positions became strong contributors in their college careers at a high percentage, that there was an inflection point below 15, and another for everyone except O-line at about 30 -- ranked nationally below 30 for anything but O-line said that a player wasn't going to be a contributor, but more like a depth guy.

The O-line thing makes sense because there are more of them on the field, and they are probably more interchangeable than any other position.

The other thing that stood out to me was the number of top 10-15 position rank players committed so far this year to Michigan. With (likely) a couple more Top-Tenners to come, this class would be superior to any in the 2002-2008 period.

UFR, the correlation makes sense to me, since the forced rankings are the product of multiple observers of multiple players' relative impact on the games they play. More than the numerical ratings, which can be influenced more subjectively, the forced ranking at least differentiates the dominant from the good from the meh.

This also seems to support a correlation I've used since coaching kids in soccer, baseball and football starting in the mid-80's -- your success on the field is determined by your top 2-3 on the field and your bottom 2-3 on the field. If that set of 4-6 is better than your opponents', you rock. If not, you get rocked. The middle 3-5 in baseball, 5-7 in soccer and 16-18 in football are going to be a push. That may seem obvious, but it really shows how much happens at the margins, and how much match-ups matter. My monster on your meh: my advantage.

Michigan seems to be setting itself up these last couple of classes for some pretty good match-up situations. I'm especially intrigued by the slot-dots and hybrid safety-LBs.

A further musing is on how the spread is a great equalizer for quarterbacks -- it seems to take merely adequate to be good, and the good can become great due to the reduced demands on pre-snap read and ability to deliver spot-on throws over miles of field with correct trajectory, speed and timing. Data: HS position rankings for a selection of this year's QB performers -- McCoy (15), Bradford (12), Daniel (6), Herrell (7) -- oh yeah, and some guy named Tebow (1) to provide an outlier.

Anyway, Sunday morning coffee musings, FWIW. I'd really be interested if anyone has done any broader stats work on position rank as predictor.

tpilews

12-15-2008, 01:30 AM

Here's the list he is talking about:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/tpilews/2002-2009RecruitingRankings.jpg

tpilews

12-15-2008, 01:38 AM

Totals Top 15 + Top 30 (O-line):

2002: 7
2003: 14
2004: 14
2005: 13
2006: 11
2007: 8
2008: 10
2009: 9 (Obviously not completed) More than likely there will be a few more top 15 commits in this class

1OSUNUT

12-15-2008, 08:49 AM

You could have asked me! Haha, recruting ranksings really don't mean a whole lot in the big scheme of things. How many has OSU or Notre Dame had in the last couple years? And look where they got them...

How can you include Ohio State in that statement ? They may not have won the last two NC games - but they were in them. They also have won the Big Ten several years in a row and have been to as many or more BCS bowls then any other program. That is not failure. Sure there have been let downs but to say the recruits have not got them anywhere - it's just untrue. MSU would kill to be as unsucessful as Ohio State.

Hawks

12-15-2008, 11:04 AM

How can you include Ohio State in that statement ? They may not have won the last two NC games - but they were in them. They also have won the Big Ten several years in a row and have been to as many or more BCS bowls then any other program. That is not failure. Sure there have been let downs but to say the recruits have not got them anywhere - it's just untrue. MSU would kill to be as unsucessful as Ohio State.

Nut, if I were you, I would tell these Aholes that we did not win the National Championship the last two years. So did over 100 other different schools including Michigan. You would think people who lost to you the last five years would stop knocking your school.

bluefan

12-15-2008, 12:41 PM

Nut, if I were you, I would tell these Aholes that we did not win the National Championship the last two years. So did over 100 other different schools including Michigan. You would think people who lost to you the last five years would stop knocking your school.

Pot, meet kettle.

Todd

12-15-2008, 12:48 PM

i remember a few weeks ago hawks posting something along the lines of "iowa will be favored in the big 10 next year... get used to it"

He MUST have been talking about wrestling!

GoGreen23

12-15-2008, 12:52 PM

How can you include Ohio State in that statement ? They may not have won the last two NC games - but they were in them. They also have won the Big Ten several years in a row and have been to as many or more BCS bowls then any other program. That is not failure. Sure there have been let downs but to say the recruits have not got them anywhere - it's just untrue. MSU would kill to be as unsucessful as Ohio State.

Haha, I did it because I knew that it would get a response from someone!Everyone knows OSU is good, but we are on a Michigan site after all. I figured I'd throw some fuel onto the OSU/Michigan battle on here. It's pretty entertaining to watch as a third party.

1OSUNUT

12-15-2008, 12:55 PM

And MSU will always be a third party when talking about the elite teams of the Big Ten - Ohio State and Michigan.

GoGreen23

12-15-2008, 01:56 PM

That is until basketball or hockey season rolls around, and oh, it's that time of the year! Haha, hockey hasn't been that impressive as of late though. Its a young team but good things are in store for the future. Sounds like another heavily debated topic on here...

And for the record, I don't care if MSU will always be a third party team when it comes to UM or OSU. They're my team, and I'm gonna stick with them through thick and thin!

I didn't think you were that sensitive Nut, I was just looking to stir it up!

Hawks

12-15-2008, 02:53 PM

StevieBrownforHeisman

12-16-2008, 09:39 AM

Hawks

12-16-2008, 10:04 AM

maybe i should have included this, a list of Ferentz's last few recruiting classes. (now that we have established, imo, that recruiting rankings are at least an indicator)
2004 - 20 commits - 1 4 Star - #38 ranked class
2005 - 23 commits - 7 4 Stars - #11 ranked class
2006 - 20 commits - 2 4 Stars - #40 ranked class
2007 - 22 commits - 5 4 Stars - #28 ranked class
2008 - 24 commits - 0 4 Stars - #53 ranked class

the point is that if you get many more 50-70th ranked recruiting classes, you're going to be the bottom-dweller of the conference within a few years.

Not to worried, 16 return starters coming back next year, 17 if Shonn Greene doesn't go pro. You should find the recruiting rankings the previous four years before 2002. Besides, I think we are one four star recruit from being in the 40's this year and there is plenty of time left. I also heard we have less scholarships to give out this year than in the past. We played a lot of freshman this year and it looks like 2008 class was a winner for the most part.
There are a lot of redshirt seniors coming back next year that were in the 2005 class. I think by the time it is all over we will be in the 40's. As long as were in the top 50 I really don't care to much because I know Ferenz will find gems others over looked that fit his system.

W0lv3r1n3

12-16-2008, 10:21 AM

That is until basketball or hockey season rolls around

Michigan Hockey > Michigan State Hockey

Michigan Basketball > Michigan State Basketball so far this year, and has been historically better. We're owning the all time record in basketball 91-71. (I think)

GoBlue21

12-16-2008, 10:23 AM

Not to worried, 16 return starters coming back next year, 17 if Shonn Greene doesn't go pro.

You better hope he doesn't go pro, running backs like Greene don't come around every year. He accounted for 38% of Iowa's total yards and 28% of their scoring. Iowa will be a totally different offense without him!

1OSUNUT

12-16-2008, 11:45 AM

Bossgobbler23

12-16-2008, 12:39 PM

Greene wil be running for the GREEN next year. There is no way he duplicates the performance he had this year on that crappy team. He knows Iowa won't be good two years in a row. Enjoy the time you had with him - now get back in line where you belong. Which is in the bottom third of the Big Ten.

LMAORH! I must admit. There are times you make me laugh hard. I think you would be fun to have around at a hunting camp when the guys start shooting the smack. You can get on the nerves here sometimes but in a hunting camp you would be fun.

michAGAIN

12-16-2008, 12:54 PM

LMAORH! I must admit. There are times you make me laugh hard. I think you would be fun to have around at a hunting camp when the guys start shooting the smack. You can get on the nerves here sometimes but in a hunting camp you would be fun.

1OSUNUT at hunting camp:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/elmer-fudd.gif

elno lewis

12-16-2008, 01:15 PM

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q299/nowiis/jokerclapping.gif

rickyleach

12-16-2008, 02:12 PM

all of those 2 star kids going to iowa will have a blast in that program , didnt they invent the game CORNHOLE IN IOWA, that must be some site to see with a bunch of toothless guys standing around tailgating with their pants down, ill bet 1osunut would love that action...

1OSUNUT

12-16-2008, 02:30 PM

They play a different CORNHOLE game in Iowa then the one many of you are used to at cookouts and tailgates. :eek:

BBA1994

12-16-2008, 02:33 PM

They play a different CORNHOLE game in Iowa then the one many of you are used to at cookouts and tailgates. :eek:

Is that similar to the game of "lick the tressicle" you play daily?

Bossgobbler23

12-16-2008, 02:35 PM

1OSUNUT at hunting camp:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/elmer-fudd.gif

LOL, are you implying that NUT is afraid to "Kill Da Wabbit"?

bluefan

12-16-2008, 02:45 PM

Is that similar to the game of "lick the tressicle" you play daily?

I hesitate to question the master but wouldn't it sound better as "tressticle"?

BBA1994

12-16-2008, 02:56 PM

I hesitate to question the master but wouldn't it sound better as "tressticle"?

That is certainly a viable option. However, since it is now deep into the winter months, my thought with the term "tressicle" is to project the image of nut to be enjoying a nice chilled popsicle-like tressy phalange.

1OSUNUT

12-16-2008, 03:05 PM

I hesitate to question the master but wouldn't it sound better as "tressticle"?

True he is the master. He seems to have alot of knowledge about the male groin area. I'm guessing from experience.

bluefan

12-16-2008, 03:06 PM

That is certainly a viable option. However, since it is now deep into the winter months, my thought with the term "tressicle" is to project the image of nut to be enjoying a nice chilled popsicle-like tressy phalange.

Understood!

GoGreen23

12-16-2008, 06:36 PM

Michigan Hockey > Michigan State Hockey

Michigan Basketball > Michigan State Basketball so far this year, and has been historically better. We're owning the all time record in basketball 91-71. (I think)

I was actually directing that at OSU, but I can see how it might have been taken the wrong way.

The all-time record sounds about right, but I don't like all-time records for a few reasons. 1. Games played 50 years ago don't matter anymore and 2. All time records are misleading if taken at face-value. I'm willing to bet that a lot of those wins that skewed the series came in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. At that time Michigan was both an athletic and an academic school while Michigan State wasn't even Michigan State yet. It was an agricultural school with IM level teams that competed in the NCAA.

I don't really mean anything by it, but its something to think about. I am looking forward to the MSU UM basketball game this year, it's shaping up to be a good one, now that we all know UM can beat, not just compete with, good teams!

Hawks

12-17-2008, 10:01 AM

Greene wil be running for the GREEN next year. There is no way he duplicates the performance he had this year on that crappy team. He knows Iowa won't be good two years in a row. Enjoy the time you had with him - now get back in line where you belong. Which is in the bottom third of the Big Ten.

We have a Freshman who rushed over 5 yards a carry this year. We will be fine at running back. We will be better next year with or without Greene. I would say at least 9-3 without Greene and at least 10-2 with Greene.

Todd

12-17-2008, 11:21 AM

I was actually directing that at OSU, but I can see how it might have been taken the wrong way.

The all-time record sounds about right, but I don't like all-time records for a few reasons. 1. Games played 50 years ago don't matter anymore and 2. All time records are misleading if taken at face-value. I'm willing to bet that a lot of those wins that skewed the series came in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. At that time Michigan was both an athletic and an academic school while Michigan State wasn't even Michigan State yet. It was an agricultural school with IM level teams that competed in the NCAA.

Being a Michigan fan, I'm used to this debate because of Michigan's storied history. Usually, I'll gauge it based on my lifetime. According to my count, Michigan leads the series 38-32 during that time.

Everyone always thinks it's just about the 30's and 40's with Michigan.

GoGreen23

12-17-2008, 12:40 PM

Being a Michigan fan, I'm used to this debate because of Michigan's storied history. Usually, I'll gauge it based on my lifetime. According to my count, Michigan leads the series 38-32 during that time.

Everyone always thinks it's just about the 30's and 40's with Michigan.

See now there's something I can relate to. All those games were relevent to you because you were alive for them! Not that I'm trying to discount Michigan's or any programs storied past, I just don't think it should be a big weighing factor on what's happening now. Good reply though.

The Michigan Man

12-17-2008, 01:39 PM

See now there's something I can relate to. All those games were relevent to you because you were alive for them! Not that I'm trying to discount Michigan's or any programs storied past, I just don't think it should be a big weighing factor on what's happening now. Good reply though.

If we want to ignore the distant past in sports, than MSU football's 6 NC's are irrelevant and the program is a disaster, as all of the NCs are from 40+ years ago. Count them all and be proud, even if they were filmed in black and white, or not at all...

GoGreen23

12-17-2008, 01:53 PM

If we want to ignore the distant past in sports, than MSU football's 6 NC's are irrelevant and the program is a disaster, as all of the NCs are from 40+ years ago. Count them all and be proud, even if they were filmed in black and white, or not at all...

This is probably not the answer that many of you would expect to hear from me but yes, I do think all 6 of them are irrelevent now. They have no impact on anything that it happening today.

I can be proud of them and celebrate my team's history but you'll never hear me bring them up when I'm trying to discuss something happening in the present. Why would I talk about something that happened 50 years ago? It's a new age in football and we need to stop clinging to the past if we want to have success now and in the future.