On the Recruiting Board, would you prefer that I move guys to the positions that I expect they will end up playing in college (DeWayne Peace to DB, Thomas Gordon to S, etc.), or just leave them where they are for now (either where I started them off or where Scout and Rivals rank them).
Also, Paul and I have started to put together the 2010 board. The format will be mostly similar, but if there are any new features or content you would like, or any idea to make it better let us know. Starting early in the game as opposed to half way through allows more time for development and tweaking, so dream big.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Posted under Recruiting
Tags: boring offseason, Recruiting
7 Comments so far
More Blog Post
Next Post: 2008 Michigan Preview: Linebackers
Previous Post: 2008 Michigan Preview: Defensive Line
Linking location of recruits to a google map would be kinda nifty.
With that, you could look at each school and see other recruits on that team.
expected position
Nate,
Paul had been talking about doing that in our top secret production meeting (read: it took place online instead of in your presence), but he was having trouble getting google maps to do exactly what he wanted.
Even if we were to implement something like that, it would be in addition to the board, not a feature of the board (probably).
put them by where you think they will be where they are in high school is irrelevant and scout put beaver at wr which was done.
List by expected position in college. As far as improvements/additions – adding a probability ranking would be great. i.e. Jamal Berry is listed and has an offer, however, all indications are Michigan has 0% chance.
I am sorta indifferent. I just click on your website to see the boobies! :P
I’d like their projected position. It’s very tough when it comes to DB/WR/RB since that’s mostly determined once practice begins. Guys with better hands and a better grasp of a playbook usually get their first crack on offense.
It also is determined by depth, obviously