The Wolverine: Covering University of Michigan Football and Sports
Issue link: https://comanpub.uberflip.com/i/1535358
4 THE WOLVERINE ❱ JUNE/JULY 2025 WHAT RECRUITING RANKING CONSTITUTES 'ELITE'? EJ and Ethan (and I guess everyone else for that matter): What recruiting ranking makes a recruit "elite"? There are national rankings and positional rank- ings so I tend to look at both. If I'm looking at the On300, other site lists, or composites, my cutoff for elite is 150. I personally think of it in blocks of 50 with a sliding scale of +/-25. If a recruit is in the top 50, the top 25 players generally stay in the top 50, though they may slide back to that 25-50 ranking. Those ranked 25-50 may move up to the top 25, or slide back to the 75 mark. So on and so forth. More evaluations can lead to a dramatic change, but when you look at it, very few players seem to move by more than 25 spots. So, why do I think the top 150 players should be deemed elite? Generally, this group are the differ- ence makers. There are a lot of really solid college starters as you work your way back on the lists, but more times than not, your top 150 are your star players, the elites. That's just the sense I get from following recruiting over the years. I also pay attention to positional rankings simply because the national lists are skewed towards the most valued positions, like QB, OT, WR, EDGE, CB, LB. Your IOL, DL, S, TE and even at times RB are lesser valued. I didn't go back and look at the data, but I think I'm pretty close. However, the value split doesn't matter for this discussion. Let's use TE as an example. You simply don't see a lot of TEs in the top 150. Same with IOL and other positions. So, if a TE is ranked around 250, but they are the No. 5 TE in the positional ranks, are they not elite? I think if a recruit is in the top 15 at their position, they are elite. We all know that rankings aren't perfect and at times can be really skewed, but in general, when you look at the masses, they fit the law of aver- ages. We've seen the star ranking comparisons. Players that are four and five stars generally have more productive careers. I just see the word "elite" a lot when it comes to recruits, so I want to calibrate my measuring stick, where top 150 nationally or top 15 positionally are elite. What's everyone's thought? Wildey20 I only consider Top 75 or so elite in the current cycle, but I think you can argue for a bigger group for underclassmen since they are a little harder to project. EJ Holland I usually cut off elite at the Top 75-100. For un- derclassmen who don't have a ranking, I'll use "elite" to convey that I believe that prospect will be a Top 100 recruit at some point. Ethan McDowell I like the Jay Harbaugh observation: Every year there might be a couple of guys (I think he was referring to each position) that ev- eryone wants. After that, it's flavors of ice cream. So, my thinking is that, most years, there are maybe two dozen guys that are really elite. Martyk FLAG PLANTING NOT CONSIDERED 'JOYFUL POSTGAME EXUBERANCE' Dear Mr. Panus, I agree generally with the thoughts addressed by Mr. Chamberlin's letter in the May 2025 Wolverine. I believe that planting a U of M flag in the oppo- nent's field is more than "joyful postgame exuber- ance" and is not the class that I would expect from the University. We certainly would consider the opponent doing the same at the U of M stadium insulting and not just "joyful exuberance." I can understand that standing on the MSU logo may have been innocent with not knowing the MSU tradition. But to suggest that it is where players "always stand during free throws" is not where I see players always stand during most of the basketball games that I watch. In short, while you are certainly entitled to dis- agree and express your views, I thought that your published reply was less than respectful of the views of the author of the letter and of other alums that I have spoken with particularly about the flag planting. Wilfred Steiner, LLB '61, JD '64 Mr. Steiner, There was no disrespect whatsoever intended in my reply to Mr. Chamberlin's letter in our May is- sue. We are happy to print your point of view, and we appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts on the matter. We won't try to relitigate the matter here. Let's just simply agree to disagree, and agree that we're both cheering for the same program wearing maize and blue. Thanks for reaching out. Mark Panus, Editor & Publisher ❱ Be Heard! Send your letters to: Wolverine Letters P.O. Box 2331 Durham, NC 27702 Or email: mark.panus@on3.com Letters may be edited for clarity or length. Letters/From Our Website: TheWolverine.com JOIN THE CONVERSATION! $1 For Your First Week ($9.99/month, billed annually) June/July 2025 • Vol. 36, No. 12 ISSN 1048-9940 TheWolverine.com Senior Editor Chris Balas Senior Writer John Borton Staff Writers Clayton Sayfie Anthony Broome EJ Holland Ethan McDowell Drew Hallett Contributing Editors Stu Coman Matt Herb Cathy Jones Chris Riffer Steve Downey Layout And Design Jeanette Blankenship Chris Miller Contributing Photographers Lon Horwedel Per Kjeldsen Cover Photos Nike Hoop Summit Jr. All-Star Girls Basketball Editor & Publisher Mark Panus Business Analyst Sarah Boone Circulation Coordinator Beverly Taylor Advertising Sales Maria Taustine (502) 552-4390 Customer Service Lauren Gordon, Shelby Cragg, Cathy Jones (800) 421-7751 The Wolverine is published monthly. A one-year (12 issues) subscription is $74.99. The Wolverine is printed at The Papers in Milford, Ind. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Wolverine, P.O. Box 2331, Durham, NC 27702. Periodical postage paid at Durham, NC 27702 and additional offices. For advertising or subscription information, call 1-800-421-7751 or write The Wolverine, P.O. Box 2331, Durham, NC 27702. The Wolverine is a publication of Coman Publishing Co., a division of On3 Media, Inc., located at 905 W. Main St., Suite 24F, Durham, NC 27701. E-Mail Address: thewolverine@comanpub.com Subscription questions: lauren.gordon@on3.com Website: www.thewolverineondemand.com