Lynch lands another

The Indiana football team nabbed its 14th commitment for the class of 2009 earlier today, when Michigan lineman Charlie Chapman called the coaching staff to announce that he’d like to play for the Hoosiers.

He fits the profile for what IU coaches want from their offensive linemen, standing 6-6, 295 pounds. Scout.com considers him the 94th-best offensive tackle in the country.

We’ll have more on this (and on Columbus QB Dustin Kiel, who committed Thursday night) later today.

13 comments

  1. Scout rates him a 3 star and 87th best OL in US.
    Rivals rates him a 3 star and 63rd best OL in US.

    Great job.
    We are rolling relative to past years
    (assumming everyone signs which is always an unknown in football).

    Any news on Koehne? Scout has him as the 37th best OL in the US. That would be a good pair.

  2. Looks like Chapman is a quality pick up. Scout.com has him at 6-6 275 instead of 295 and his position rank 87.

    This is now IU’s 10th 3 star pick up?

    F.Y.I. – Dusty Kiel is a below the radar QB (outside of Indiana) with a strong arm and the ability to run an offense. I have seen him over at Columbus East, smart player, he comes from a long lineage of QB’s, plays in the same conference as Edward Wright-Baker and they (Columbus East) consistently beat the tar out of Jeffersonville, were a final 4 team last year (lost 61-60 to the 4A state Champs). Quality kid.

  3. DC Dave – Stick with Scout.com and their ratings. Rivals as a rule wouldn’t know football player if he showed up in pads.

    Case in point Morgan Newton, 5 star, #7 ranked QB in the country on Scouts.com, ESPN Top 150, offers from Clemson, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Purdue & South Carolina, yet Rivals ranks him as a 3 star player and #17 by position.

    Rivals is a joke.

  4. Mike P,

    Is there really that big a difference between the #7 and the #17 ranked high school quarterbacks in the entire country? Not really. All those schools would as likely be after the #17 QB as the #7.

    According to Scout, six of our commits are three stars, four are two stars, and the rest are only rated as one star. This is crazy, because many of our recruits (even those listed as one stars) were being recruited by some big-time schools (Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, etc.). What this tells you is that Scout is out of date on their ratings for all but the very elite prospects. Example: Scout rates TE commit Ted Bolser as a one star. This kid was being recruited by Alabama, Iowa, Ohio State, and Louisville. A one star? Seriously?

    Don’t claim you can discount entirely discount Rivals based on one player and don’t claim Scout is better just because it fits your beliefs about what the ratings of a couple of kids should be.

    One additional comment: Scout JUST updated its listings this past week… until that happened almost ALL our commits were rated as one stars. What happened when they updated? Their ratings looked a whole lot more like Rivals already did. They became almost identical in many instances.

    Even before I saw your comment, I was going to suggest to Chris Korman that he start using Rivals for rankings. Much more accurate and up to date. I stand by my viewpoint.

  5. When was Ted Bolser recruited by Alabama, Iowa, Ohio State, and Louisville? Having interest from a school and being recruited are not the same thing. I have stated Bolser is a better player than he is rank or most people realize, but none of the 4 you mentioned ever stepped up with an offer to Bolser. When he signed with IU he was a 1 star player on both boards, has now been updated by Rivals to a 2 star.

    You need to do better than that.

    Oh, and Scouts.com did not JUST update their rankings this week. When Nick Zachery commited to IU, Rivals had him as a 1 star player, Scout had him 2 stars, Scout is still 2, but Nick jumped to a 3 on Rivals? He is better than either team have him ranked.

    Try again, see what other stuff I can debunk for you. Bottom line is this, Scout is where most look for accurate football recruiting information.

    If you want basketball news, Rivals has them all beat hands down.

  6. I believe the class of 2009 has to be one of the best ever. Say what you want about Lynch but he is doing a good job of recruiting. Now I know the nay sayers are going to say where are the 4 and 5 star recruits? If, IU can continue to win and get to bowl games they will come. You have to walk before you can run. In the past 1 or 2 three star players would have been a good recruiting year and getting 14 kids to commit to IU this early is a huge improvement over any year I can remember. Also, he is getting some big kids.The Indy Star says IU got a commitment from a 295 lb linebacker from Ft.Wayne but I think he will have one of his hands on the ground when he plays. GO BIG RED!!

  7. Mike P,

    This is a pointless argument. Scout is good, I’m not debating that. I’m just arguing that Rivals is not, as you say, “a joke.” And I believe it to be better than Scout in football recruiting.

    As for your comments — Scout DID just update their rankings this week. Last week, Jeremy Gainer was a one star, now he’s a three (and ranked the #22 WLB in the class — he’s #21 on Rivals and has been for months). I know the same is true for some other recent commits.

    As for Ted Bolser, just because he wasn’t offered by those schools doesn’t mean he wasn’t recruited by them. That’s ridiculous to say. That’s like saying just because we haven’t offered Roger Franklin or Christian Watford in basketball (we haven’t offered either yet according to your dream site Scout.com) that we aren’t recruiting them. Same for Stephan Van Treese.

    You said we now have ten three-stars in your post, right? Well the only recruiting website that lists ten three-star players for IU in Rivals. So you must be counting them for something (at least when it makes us look good), because Scout only lists IU as having six three-stars.

  8. Not a good argument at all. It is all opinion based anyway. Bottom line is that Lynch is recruiting well. I did not want him but he is surprising me. I have studied this stuff for years and Rivals knows bball better and scout seems to be more football based. Just my take amyway. Take care guys!

  9. When you say Scout, do you mean Hoosier Nation at Scout or Scout.com? If you watch the rankings, Hoosier Nation always seems to be behind just the standard Scout.com site, and might be where there is differences you and I are seeing.

    I did not say we had 10 3 star recruits. There is a question mark following that statement, and was basing that off previous statements made by others here. I was asking if that was right. I don’t sit and count how many 3 star players we have.

  10. Mike P,

    According to Rivals, we have ten three star recruits. And when I say Scout, I mean Hoosier Nation. I have always assumed they were the same thing, since when you go to http://www.scout.com and click on Indiana, it goes to Hoosier Nation.

    Anyway, I guess we can just compromise: I’m right and Rivals is better.

  11. Michael,

    This is my last post on this. There is a saying that goes like this.

    “Never argue with an idiot, he will bring you down to his level, and beat you with experience.”

    Since I have no desire to drop to that level, nor the experience needed to continue this discussion with you, I will move on.

    Oh yeah, I’ll make sure to watch for those Rivals rankings on ESPN, Fox Sports, and the BTN when they are discussing recruiting, oh thats right, they use Scout.com analysts.

    Never Mind

Comments are closed.