Thursday - February 07, 2008

 Signing Day 2008: A Revisitation of Efficiency

The class is in t's thick through the middle, filled with lots of well regarded but not top 100 players ... the "mid to low 4*" players, in recruiting website parlance. So let's dive into how it stacks up.

I've lectured boringly before about my "recruiting efficiency" algorithm. In short, it's an algorithm for taking recruiting ratings (from Rivals, in this case) and team needs (my own assessment) and measuring how well a team did not only in securing talent but in securing the talent it needed. 

The idea:
1. To measure how well a program addressed team needs
2. To establish diminishing returns on class size, so that 30 member "oversigned" classes with tons of non-qualifiers don't get overrated every year.
3. To establish diminishing returns on an individual position, because the 3rd RB you bring in doesn't improve the roster as much as the first DT.

The drawbacks:
1. Someone has to assess team needs, and I'm only qualified (barely) to assess Michigan.
2. Team needs change. You may sign 2 QBs this year and think the 2nd is a luxury, but when 2 upperclassmen transfer ...
3. It is hard to quantify the need to add a single elite player at a position. You may have a depth chart full of good #2 corners, but desperately need that #1. It is hard to put a number to that.

But here's the process in short:

Identify class size, split it into 5 categories from highest priority (5) to lowest (1), with some buffer built in (for example, a 25 member class may have 6 in each spot instead of 5), slot the players in with their Rivals rating (in this case, the finer "RR" number, which splits 4*s into high/medium/low, for example) and do the math. The rating shown below is the ("RR rating" - 5.1), with a minimum of 0.1.

Here's the mathematical answer

It adds up to a total of 50.4 points out of a max of 74 (74 = if we'd used 24 scholarships but met all our priorities with all 5* players). That's 68.1%. 

To put that in perspective, a class which perfectly addresses needs, and does so entirely with mid 4* players (RR rating of 5.9) would get a rating of 80%. A class that perfectly meets needs, and does so entirely with low 4* players (RR rating of 5.8) would get 70%. All high 3*s would be 60%, etc. The 68.1% indicates we met our needs mostly with mid to high 4*s (start in the low 70s) but missed a few needs (deduct a few points there and drop to the high 60s). 

How Did We Get There? 

Top Priority (5* needs) 
QB: Justin Feagin - 5.7 (3*). Adequate, but not a home run. 
OT: Dann O'Neill - 6.0 (4*). A perfect bookend to Steve Schilling in 2 years, I hope. 
WR: Daryl Stonum - 6.0 (4*). Another of the prototypical Michigan WRs. Nice. 
LB: J.B. Fitzgerald - 5.9 (4*). An excellent and much needed pickup. 
S: Brandon Smith - 5.9 (4*). Another excellent and much needed pickup. 
Overall ... a very, very good job. Not great, because there were no 5* players at the big need positions (or anywhere) and because we didn't pick up a "can't miss" prospect at QB to fill that most glaring of needs. 

High priority (4* needs)
RB: Michael Shaw - 5.9 (4*). Listed at RB, but hard to pin down. 
TE: Kevin Koger - 5.9 (4*). A good TE well suited to the Rodriguez offense. 
OL: Elliot Mealer - 5.8 (4*). Guard or Tackle, either way, we need both. 
DL: Mike Martin - 5.8 (4*). 4-3 Tackle. 1 is enough for this class, but at least 1 was critical. 
CB: Boubacar Cissoko - 6.0 (4*). With numbers (including a 5* last year), we needed 1 blue chip CB and he is it. Overall .. excellent. You don't expect to land 5* kids everywhere, so filling *all* of these with 4* kids is fantastic. No holes yet in the recruiting. 

Moderate priority (3* needs) 
QB: (no one). We could really use a 2nd QB, not just because of the changing system but due to depth. 
WR: Terrance Robinson - 5.8 (4*). A perfect slot fit for Rodriguez, filling a position that didn't really exist in Carr's offense (the dedicated slot WR). 
DL: (no one). Could have really used a DE in this class, after only Van Bergen (who could be a DT) in last year's. Losing Perry hurt. 
LB: Marcus Witherspoon - 5.8 (4*). We needed numbers at LB, and filled them. 
DB: JT Floyd - 5.5 (3*). One of the lowest rated recruits in the class, but as the #2 CB in the class. Overall ... this is where the problem lies. We didn't get the #2 QB, we didn't get a single DE and we left those needs unfilled. That's what's going to become the biggest need in next year's class. And that's why landing Perry and/or Pryor would have made this class not just a damn good one but one of the best I've seen at Michigan. 

Lower priority (2* needs) 
RB: Sam Mcguffie - 5.8 (4*). It's hard to say Sam McGuffie is a low priority. One of my favorite recruits in this class, on potential. 
TE: Brandon Moore - 5.8 (4*). Listed TE twice in case Rodriguez moves Webb to WR. 
OL: Barnum - 5.8 (4*). Always need numbers at OL 
OL: Kurt Wermers - 5.6 (3*). Always need numbers at OL. 
LB: Taylor Hill - 5.8 (4*). Had a real depth issue at LB and needed at least 3. 
Overall ... excellent. To fill the #16 - #20 needs with primarily 4* players is a great job of building quality depth and making sure that even when the inevitable happens and a few players don't pan out, that the depth is there to fill in. 

Luxuries (1* needs) 
RB: Mike Cox - 5.7 (3*). 
OL: Patrick Omameh - 5.1 (2*). 
OL: Rocko Khoury - 5.7 (3*) 
LS: George Morales - 5.2 (2*) 
WR: Roy Roundtree - 5.8 (4*) 
LB: Kenny Demens - 5.8 (4*) 
Overall ... It's nice to get 2 4* players and 2 3* players to fill in "luxury" spots in your recruiting class, but it's not what makes or breaks you. 

Grand total: As mentioned earlier, 68.1% ... that's pretty damn good, but not outstanding. 
It's as high as it is because Rodriguez filled almost all those need positions with 4* players (RB, WR, OL, LB). 
It's not higher because we didn't get the 2 QBs or the DE and because there were no 5* players in the class. 

I realize that to everyone here, that number is meaningless, so here's some comparison. 
2004 Michigan (Henne, Dutch, Arrington, Martin ...): 68.4% 
2005 Michigan (Slocum, Germany, Grady, Bass ...): 65.3% - because the top talent was not distributed to all positions of need. 
2006 Michigan (Graham, Schilling, Brown, Mouton, Boren ...): 69.5%. Outstanding class that had 2 5* recruits at two of the biggest needs. 
2007 Michigan (Mallett, Warren ...): 62.7%. The worst class in recent Michigan history, buoyed by two critical 5* gets (although that Mallett get didn't last long, did it?) 

And to put that in perspective with another school, admitting that by ability to diagnose another school's needs is in question 
2006 Notre Dame (Young, Aldridge, Frazer, Jones ...): 65.9% - because of failures to address DT and LB 
2007 Notre Dame (Clausen, Kamara, Romine ...): 67.4% - really hit hard by failure to address DT again. 
2008 Notre Dame (Crist, Floyd, Rudolph ...): 76.1%. A truly outstanding class with top 100 players recruited at positions of great need. 
That, in the 76% territory, is where the Michigan class would have landed if we had gotten Perry and Pryor. Pryor alone would push us to 72.3%. 

That's the mathematical answer. And here's the subjective answer 

QB: We did okay. I doubt we get Pryor, who seems to be a battle between OSU (Pryor's choice) and PSU (his father's choice). In getting Feagin, what we did was push back the need for a QB by a year. There is potential, there is at the very least a player in the system that can run Rodriguez's system, if not to perfection (though, of course, he will get his chance to prove he can do even that). It's almost a draw. 

RB: Home run. Sam McGuffie is exactly the back this system needs. He is a threat to go 75 yards on any play, and that is what makes this offense deadly. He is the perfect spread option back. Mike Cox ... I will admit, I know little about Mike Cox. 

WR/TE: Another home run. We were stocked with flankers and ends (Mathews, Savoy, Hemingway, Clemons and the possibility of Babb or Rogers moving), and Carr locked up another great prospect (Stonum), so Rodriguez set about to fill the one WR position that his offense calls for and Carr's did not - the shifty slot WR who beats bracket coverage and can't be handled by a LB. It is, almost, somewhere between an RB and a WR. And we got two ... Terrance Robinson and Michael Shaw. Both should work in that position. I do not know much about Roundtree, who emerged very late in the process. Add in two very promising pass-catching TEs, and we couldn't have done better.

OL: This is getting repetitive, but a couple of late moves made this a big class. Tackles and guards and centers and long snappers, blue chippers and late bloomers ... there is variety in this class, and enough high end prospects to make it a promising one. 

DL: Perhaps one of the few troubling spots. Mike Martin is a great pickup, the mauling, wrestling defensive tackle Carr locked up fairly early. But the defection of much anticipated Omar Hunter (DT) to Notre Dame and then Florida and the loss of blue chip DE Nick Perry to USC hurt the DL class tremendously, and left us with DE as possibly the second biggest recruiting need for 2009 (behind QB). DT will survive, with the class we brought in last year. 

LB: Wow. 4 4* LBs. No top 100 blue chippers, but 4 very promising LBs, and a couple who can probably go anywhere from Will to Mack. Fans go back and forth on whether Fitzgerald or Witherspoon is the top man in, but it doesn't matter ... between those two and Hill and Demens, the LB corps is the strength of the defensive class. In time, don't be surprised if one of these LBs winds up as a DE, or at least as a situational DE 

DB: Only three, but with a decent number of DBs in last year's class the big need was 1 top CB and 1 top S and we got that (in Cissoko and Smith). It was not a home run, but it was adequate to very good. 

Summary: Very good. Not perfect, not the best I've ever seen at Michigan, but outstanding considering the situation we were in. Normally, the transition year is a tough one for recruiting, and it's the first full year where the coach gets a "bump". If this is what Rodriguez can do with a tough situation, then watch out for his bump.