This is what Josh Helmbolt the head guy has to say about each of the Michigan MAC classes on Rivals Michigan Preps in the huddle forum:

By the way Josh follows Michigan prep football very closely:

EMU:
Now THIS is an instate haul. McMahon, Palsrok, Fox, Davis-Budanauro - those are guys who could have played in the Big Ten.

WMU:
nice instate pull Bronco fans....... sheesh

CMU:
No comment, I think that was just an oversight by Josh. Previous comments by him stated CMU did very well in Michigan.

Again, this is one person's subjective opinon.

rocketfootball Wrote:Bowling Green was quite a bit lower in this ranking, but they had very few players with BCS offers and to be honest they had a lot less players that had offers from any I-A school period.

How do you know who offered these kids and who didn't? Specifically, (of course) BGSU's?

El Grande Flippero Wrote:

rocketfootball Wrote:Bowling Green was quite a bit lower in this ranking, but they had very few players with BCS offers and to be honest they had a lot less players that had offers from any I-A school period.

How do you know who offered these kids and who didn't? Specifically, (of course) BGSU's?

I only went by Rivals.com and Scout.com for each recruit for BG and Akron. For Toledo and Miami I was able to use some newspaper articles based on the better recruiting information available for those schools............NickSkin does an excellent job of keeping up on the recruiting happening for Miami at MiamiHawkTalk.com. If there are newspaper articles that say they had other offers not listed by Rivals or Scout then they can be used and it would probably adjust the BG ranking higher.

Ok... thanks....It's tough to delineate some of that info accurately. The line between interest and offer gets pretty blurry, but I can't really think of any other way to do that if you're set on using BCS interest or offers as a yardstick.

Not to seem like I'm busting your balls, but I like to play devil's advocate.
Aren't you falling into the same Mark May/Trev Alberts douchebag trap? How can we rail against the BCS bias if we assume that an offer from a Big 10 mid liner is any more valid than an offer from a CUSA team like Memphis or another MAC school.

Why should an offer from WMU count less thanan offer from Indiana?

BTW... http://www.cstv.com/allaccess/player/06-...chool=bgu&
will take you to the 2007 BGSU class highlight video.

I think Dodge, Geter, Ransom, Wooldridge, Stanley, Hodges and Brown are the guys from this class, but there are some qualities to like in the rest of the guys too.

huroncowboy Wrote:This is what Josh Helmbolt the head guy has to say about each of the Michigan MAC classes on Rivals Michigan Preps in the huddle forum:

EMU:
Now THIS is an instate haul. McMahon, Palsrok, Fox, Davis-Budanauro - those are guys who could have played in the Big Ten.

WMU:
nice instate pull Bronco fans....... sheesh

I'm still trying to find that scientific football theorem that states that if you don't focus your recruiting class within a 100-mile radius of your campus, you're doomed.

I love the fact that because we didn't pile our roster with Grand Rapids and Downriver Detroit guys this year, people believe we must be desperate and in for some bad times. Yep, that's the ticket. :shhh:

Fact is...
* Many of our key playmakers of 2006 (Biggers, West, Ledbetter, Wilson, Delmas) are from the same areas we recruited this year.
* None of those guys got disenchanted, homesick and left.
* Cubit has strong recruiting pipeline ties to the FL areas since the mid-1980s, where he began coaching. It's only common sense that you exploit your connections.
* And EMU always has a huge "instate haul" as compared to WMU. It's been happening for as long as I can remember.

Actually Motown I was more interested in Josh's comments about the quality of EMU's Michigan recruits rather than where they are from.

On the recruiting Michigan high school coaches know which schools recruit year in and year out and which don't. Recruiting in my opinion is the relationships a college coach builds with high school coaches. Cubit has his in Florida and its taken Genyk three years of rebuilding those relationships and expanding them in Michigan. EMU used to be about recruiting Detroit and downriver, but its more than that now its statewide.

El Grande Flippero Wrote:Ok... thanks....It's tough to delineate some of that info accurately. The line between interest and offer gets pretty blurry, but I can't really think of any other way to do that if you're set on using BCS interest or offers as a yardstick.

Not to seem like I'm busting your balls, but I like to play devil's advocate.
Aren't you falling into the same Mark May/Trev Alberts douchebag trap? How can we rail against the BCS bias if we assume that an offer from a Big 10 mid liner is any more valid than an offer from a CUSA team like Memphis or another MAC school.

Why should an offer from WMU count less thanan offer from Indiana?

BTW... http://www.cstv.com/allaccess/player/06-...chool=bgu&
will take you to the 2007 BGSU class highlight video.

I think Dodge, Geter, Ransom, Wooldridge, Stanley, Hodges and Brown are the guys from this class, but there are some qualities to like in the rest of the guys too.

Those are all very valid comments, but unfortunately the BCS conferences are perceived as better (every BCS school) in our society. There really isn't an exact science to judging recruiting classes for many reasons, but one of the best ways to judge them is by offers. Unfortunately a lot of kids won't mention all of the offers they have from so called "mid-major" schools, just the ones he is really interested in. But he will mention every BCS offer he has because that makes him look good in our society. Of course you never know if a recruit is telling the truth about the offers he has/had, but you just have to take his and his coaches word for it.

I really thought about including all offers in the equation instead of just BCS offers, but I found that a very large percentage of the recruits that did not have any BCS offers had very, very few other offers so it wouldn't really impact the rating.

I thought about not using the stars at all, but then I thought about it for a minute and I can't think of a three star player that signed with Toledo and stayed in school and wasn't very good. Sure, we've had three star recruits with grade issues, or leave because they were homesick, or even one had a serious injury and has never recovered.......but you have that with two star recruits too. I think it does mean something a little more to be a three star recruit, because those that stick around are very good players. And yes, I understand that some two star players turn out to be some of the best players in the MAC, but the percentage is much lower compared to the three star players.

I know some don't like to go by star rankings because they see two star players turn out good too and there is this belief that three star recruits drop to two stars after committing to a MAC school. However, Toledo has had kids commit as two stars and some time after get upgraded to three stars. QB DJ Lenehan on Rivals, DE Marlin Parker on Rivals, and DE Claude Davis on Rivals are three from this year. Unfortunately Davis ended up de-committing and going back to USF, but he was a UT commit when he got upgraded to three stars. Also, judging recruiting classes right after they are signed is just going by what they did in high school and the potential they have. No one can predict the future and know what will happen. So, going by what they did in high school and the potential they have.....I think that the star system isn't all that bad. Couple it with number of BCS offers a kid gets and I think you have a pretty fair analysis of what a kid did in high school, what he looks like on film of a whole game (not just highlights), and the potential he has.

epasnoopy Wrote:

connerito Wrote:If we had this wr corp last year we could've conceivably been the Boise State of the Mac w/no losses.

Ryan Cubit wasn't exactly Jared Zabransky. Maybe Tim Hiller can be, i thought that kid played great last year.

Cubit is as good as Zabransky but didn't have the skills around him. W/this recruiting class last year he does it all.

I understand what you're saying RF...I guess I'm a tad concerned that the data you use is inherently flawed because much of it relies on a spotty source (Rivals) or self disclousure by parties with something of a motive to inflate their own standing (the kids and their coaches).

If you're bent on doing a comparative study, you're doing as good a job as possible. Over the past couple of years I've begun to be more concerned with the overall philosphy the team I follow (BGSU) is taking towards building a program and the kids they're plugging into it.

In 2006, we signed a bunch of high impact skill players with speed. Rivals had us with one *** guy, but we also signed 4 guys rated 5.4 and 3 rated 5.3. Scout had us with IIRC, two *** guys and one **** guy.

This year we signed two *** guys on rivals and a couple more were close. On Scout we got a *** guy.

I don't really care that much about either year's rankings on those services though. I'm more concerned with what the coaches think we need and who they signed to fill that need.

This year, we looked slow on defense and especially special teams. We needed a game breaking "Garrett Wolfe" styled RB and we needed some depth on the OL and some size at NG. We addressed those needs and continued to build on the foundation of speed and athleticism we started to really build last year when we signed 25 guys instead of this year's 20.

Last year nobody tracked WR Zach Charles, but at the recruiting reception, Gregg Brandon specifically mentioned him to me as a guy who is going to be great here. Brandon coached Magner, Sharon, and Sanders.....so, I think I trust his judgement.

So...in a nutshell, I really don't put much stock in comparative ratings year by year. I tend to put more faith in looking at trends over a 2-3 year period and what kind of athletes are coming in. Is there a consistent approach? Are we getting guys that fit our philosphy? are we signing kids that stick? I think we're doing that now at BGSU. I think the last two years have seen Brandon take a bit of a step away from recruiting character and smarts primarily over athleticism and it will show on the field. We didn't get as many head turning athletes as we did last year, but we solidified some areas and we'll be a better football team athletically in 2007 and beyond.

I will add this though...last year we seemed to get the guys we really wanted, especially in Ohio (Brown, Mahone, Smith and Pronty). This year we didn't get too many Ohio kids, even the one's we were on early like Tomaz Hilton and Clay Belton. You lose on some every year, but we lost on just about all of them in Ohio this year. That's a concern, but I think it was caused by the coaching changes more than anything else.

This year, looking at it strictly from the POV of impact guys...I think Toledo did really well and I think Miami did really well. I was kind of suprised that Ohio didn't get some headline kids from NE Ohio.
WMU did what we did, they plugged in some FL kids to upgrade the athleticism in the program. Everyone else??? I do not know....

El Grande Flippero Wrote:I understand what you're saying RF...I guess I'm a tad concerned that the data you use is inherently flawed because much of it relies on a spotty source (Rivals) or self disclousure by parties with something of a motive to inflate their own standing (the kids and their coaches).

I agree with you that we are relying too much on information that may not be right, but it is also the same thing for the other MAC schools. We all have the same issues here. We are relying on Rivals and Scout for all MAC schools. They are not going to treat one MAC school better than another.........if anything they are going to provide the same spotty service to us all, so it balances out a bit.


One thing that is alarming to me is that BG ended up signing so many guys that the recruiting services didn't even have in their databases. Did Brandon find some diamonds in the rough? I've always felt that Brandon can recruit very well. Coaching is another story, but he can recruit.

Steve Hare, the guy who runs KentSportsReport.com , our Rivals site, along with an ND site, IrishIllustrated.com and OhioVarsity.com , does an outstanding job of compiling our recruiting information. He even made ME interested in football recruiting. We're really fortunate to have him in the Flash camp.

axeme Wrote:Steve Hare, the guy who runs KentSportsReport.com , our Rivals site, along with an ND site, IrishIllustrated.com and OhioVarsity.com , does an outstanding job of compiling our recruiting information. He even made ME interested in football recruiting. We're really fortunate to have him in the Flash camp.

Steve and Mike Parris have done a great job with OhioVarsity.com and this has led to more visibility for the Ohio MAC schools this recruiting year.

[quote="rocketfootball
One thing that is alarming to me is that BG ended up signing so many guys that the recruiting services didn't even have in their databases. Did Brandon find some diamonds in the rough? I've always felt that Brandon can recruit very well. Coaching is another story, but he can recruit.[/quote]

Maybe yes..maybe no. You look at the services and DOdge and Young show no other offers. IIRC, their local papers had Doge getting an offer from USF and one or two others and Young picking us over Kentucky, Mississippi and Buffalo..does that mean he had an offer? Who knows, but they were both second team all state in their classification (3a). Gary Wright doesn't show up anywhere..but he was the MVP in the Broward county all star game. Adrian Hidges doesn't get much mention..but a blurb in USA Today called him the Southern Sleeper of the week or something like that when he committed in the fall.

I think this is where Urban Meyer comes in...Brandon talked about that pipeline last week . If Florida spots a good prospect that they don't want, they'll give our guys a call. We may be getting soe guys that the out of state programs just don't see.

The kid that mystifies me locally is Twinsburg's Darren Branch. 6-1, 235 with 4.6ish speed that looked legit on film (he closes the gap on backside pursuit very quickly) and he benches 300+. How is it that a kid like that gets an offer from us and interest from Ohio and maybe some other MAC schools? He may be too short for DE and perhaps not quick enough laterally for LB, but I'll take a guy like that and edge rush him on 3rd down and use him on punt and kick off coverage all year.

I agree that recruiting is probably Brandon's strong suit. He makes some decisions that I don't always get...like not going for two in OT against you guys in 2005 or not getting the ball to the "solid" turf on the left hash against Miami last year...but he does seem to find the under the radar guys with some regularity.

El Grande Flippero Wrote:[quote="rocketfootball
One thing that is alarming to me is that BG ended up signing so many guys that the recruiting services didn't even have in their databases. Did Brandon find some diamonds in the rough? I've always felt that Brandon can recruit very well. Coaching is another story, but he can recruit.

Maybe yes..maybe no. You look at the services and DOdge and Young show no other offers. IIRC, their local papers had Doge getting an offer from USF and one or two others and Young picking us over Kentucky, Mississippi and Buffalo..[/quote]

As I said, if people can give me information from news sources stating offers then I can update the ratings. It's that simple.

nahh...I guess I'm just trying to unpack the rating process and it's viewed. I don't think there's any question that UT and Miami got the "wow" players, but I think others like WMU and BGSU did a good job of building depth and athleticism. Kent got some quality kids to build on and Akron continues to do well.

On balance, I think Tom Lemming was onto something when he suggested that MAC recruting is getting to be on par with the Big 10 (after Michigan, Penn State and OSU, of course)