I had just spoken with a sophomore recruit, and he told me the first day he would be able to receive an offer was September 1st of this year. I reported that. Tim tweeted me, and told me the rule had changed, and that Junior prospects can not be offered until August 1st, of their senior year.
So, I looked into it.
The proposal is here, on page 11: 2009-47-B
Question: Prior to August 1 of the prospective student-athlete's senior year in high school, may the institution verbally indicate that it will offer a prospective student-athlete athletically related financial aid?
This rule was adopted by the NCAA in May, as you can see here. It was adopted, with a 60-day override period (not 100% on what that means).
Another rule that was proposed, was 2009-45 on page 10. This rule would have allowed Juniors, who had completed their academic year, would be allowed to take official visits starting in June. The maximum number would have stayed at five. Unfortunately, this rule was defeated, as you can see here.
2009-45 – Recruiting – Official visit – First opportunity to visit – June immediately prior to senior year – Football. Status: Defeated.
I'm not sure how the rule that was adopted will help, since it seems like it will get more confusing for a recruit to keep track of "verbal" offers, than written ones. A verbal offer, from this standpoint, will be pretty much the exact same thing as an early written offer is now. I would have liked to see them defeat that proposal, and adopt the early official visit proposal. That to me would have made more sense.
I totally fell asleep on last week's rankings, failing to add the newest conference member, Nebraska. They're included in this edition, and will be for all rankings in the foreseeable future. Though Notre Dame (still) isn't in the Big Ten, I'll continue including them since they're a yearly Michigan opponent, and keeping tabs on their talent is still of interest for Michigan fans.
Action since last rankings:
6-14-10 Northwestern gains commitments from Shane Mertz and Mark Szott. Purdue gains commitment from Brandon Cottom.
6-16-10 Illinois gains commitment from Chris O'Connor. Indiana gains commitment from Nick Stoner.
6-17-10 Indiana gains commitments from Kenny Mullen, Mark Murphy, and CJ Robbins. Ohio State gains commitment from Devin Smith. Purdue gains commitments from Randy Gregory and Michael Rouse. Nebraska gains commitment from Daniel Davie.
6-18-10 Northwestern gains commitment from Max Chapman. Notre Dame gains commitment from Clay Burton.
6-19-10 Indiana gains commitment from Raymon Taylor. Nebraska gains commitment from Bubba Starling.
|Big Ten+ Recruiting Class Rankings|
|Rank||School||# Commits||Rivals Avg||Scout Avg||ESPN Avg|
Rivals and Scout are on the 5-star scale, ESPN is on their numerical rankings. In next week's update, I may convert Rivals to their "RR" rating. Please bear with me (and let me know) if you see any errors in the charts, as adding Nebraska may have screwed with some stuff that I didn't notice.
|#1 Ohio State - 15 Commits|
Devin Smith picks up a Buckeye offer and commits almost immediately. No surprise there.
|#2 Nebraska - 11 Commits|
The Huskers grab top QB Bubba Starling. They debut at #2 in the rankings.
|#3 Notre Dame - 10 Commits|
Irish pick up Clay Burton for their first commitment in quite some time. They have a couple top guys, but their class is underwhelming so far, per the rankings.
|#4 Michigan - 5 Commits|
No commits for Michigan coming out of their Elite Camp, but a new offer or two could net them a new pledge soon. Michigan and Michigan State are right on Notre Dame's tail, despite the Irish having many more commits.
|#5 Michigan State - 5 Commits|
The Spartans are right on Michigan's tail, and the next commitment could push them over the top - if the Wolverines don't beat them to the punch.
|#6 Indiana - 16 Commits|
Huge week for Indiana, as they add to their already-large class. I will eat my hat if Raymon Taylor's ranking stays that lofty through signing day.
|#7 Iowa - 3 Commits|
The Hawkeyes are staying quiet for now, but a strong camp season could see more commits.
|#8 Purdue - 5 Commits|
Purdue adds a couple pieces. If those guys were ranked by all services, the Boilers would probably be ranked ahead of Iowa.
|#9 Northwestern - 5 Commits|
A couple pickups for Northwestern help them pass Wisconsin. They will benefit when their last couple guys get full rankings.
|#10 Wisconsin - 4 Commits|
Nothing new for the Badgers.
|#10 Minnesota - 4 Commits|
ESPN has finally recognized James Farrow's decommitment. The Gophers have nothing new.
|#11 Illinois - 4 Commits|
Chris O'Connor pledges to Ron Zook.
|#12 Penn State - 1 Commit|
This began as a reply to the Board Post below, but screw it, Dad deserves better.
I didn't stand a chance of being anything other than a Michigan fan. Dad, Mom, Grandparents, countless aunts and uncles, Sister, Brother, several cousins... most are alums and diehard Wolverines. Growing up was centered around family every Fall Saturday, with huge parties for the OSU, MSU, and Rose Bowl games. Wins on any given Saturday were followed immediately by a dash to the phone to call Grandma and scream "Yay! Yay! Yay!"
My Dad did host most of those parties, always setting up a great time by all even if Michigan lost (read: most Rose Bowls). I can remember joyous yells of "Touchdown Michigan!" filling the house after yet another brilliant play by Bo's Wolverines. I recall the elation of watching Jamie Morris scamper for a TD, and the horror of watching Tony Boles have his career cut short. Watching a game on TV still always takes me back to that little TV room in Saginaw.
He also took each of us kids to Ann Arbor for a day on our 7th birthdays. My day started with the long car ride, early in the morning before the sun came up. We got to Ann Arbor just after first light and then began with a walk up to and around Central Campus. I especially remember the feeling of running up and down the stone walls that lined some side streets. Then it was off to the Big House, a frigid scamper on the Astroturf field (gotta love Ann Arbor in December), and a climb to the top of the bowl. Finally there was a trip to Blimpie Burger, and then into the car for the ride back north. That trip made me realize that Ann Arbor was sacred ground, without Dad ever having to say it outright.
When Saturday Afternoons were compromised by duck hunting, the radio was always right there in the blind. Dad took his hunting very seriously and he would stay very still and quiet with me charge of listening to the headphones and giving updates. I always hated getting up early, in horrendous weather, to hunt the ducks, but I have some of my most enduring memories of my father from those times in the marshes of Shiawassee, Crow Island, and Saginaw Bay.
Notre Dame games are a blur of memories, almost all taken in at a bar in Lovells. The
town village crossroads is right next to the land where we would one day have a cabin. We seemed to always be there on the weekend of the Notre Dame game and the bar/restaurant would be packed nearly standing room only, with all eyes glued to the tiny TV in the corner of the room. When Michigan scored, things would get rowdy in there. I think Dad even dislocated Grandma's thumb with a high-five once.
Of course introducing me to Michigan Fandom was really the least of what my Dad has done and continues to do for me. He is the most upright role model I know to this day. He instilled a sense of morals and dignity in all of his children, and protected and enriched us in countless ways. He gives of himself always to the benefit of all that know him, and many who do not. If I can end up half the man my Dad is, I will consider myself a success and net benefit to the world.
Thanks Dad, for everything.
The Beginning of an Era
As many of you know by now this year is supposed to be the turn around year for the Michigan Wolverine football program. Rich Rodriguez has had two years to bring his players into the system and get his offense/defense style into effect. The past two years have been dismal but showed improvement from year one to year two. Quarterback Tate Forcier is erratic but shows signs of greatness. We have a strong D-line and an amazing receiving core. All improvements aside, this is the Hot Seat year for Rich Rodriguez. Most of the players in Ann Arbor are his players so this year we will see how good his system is working.
Last years recruits for Rodriguez had many good players come into the system. Tate Forcier no doubt the most helpful as he showed he can lead this team and with effort, could become the Michigan Savior we all want. Although he was very erratic he threw for over 2,000 yards with 13 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. With a 58% completion rate, maybe he will be able to get that TD-INT ratio a little bit better.
Denard Robinson was another good recruit Rich brought into the system last year. He was not a very good QB. He had only 2 touchdowns with 4 interceptions but did not get anywhere near the playing time Forcier did. While Robinson may not be much of a starting QB, he definitely poses a threat whenever Michigan decides to run the Wildcat formation (even if it is only a couple plays all year long), Gardner has exceptional speed and is very agile.
Vincent Smith promises to be a good running back. He was second on the team with 5.8 yards per carry behind senior Carlos Brown with 5.9.
This years recruits are not amazing (with the turndown of Demar Dorsey) but some are attracting a lot of hype, such as Devin Gardner. The ESPNU top 150 recruit and Under Armour All American is predicted 3rd string but many think if Tate and Robinson falter, he could be moved up in the depth chart.
Rich Rodriguez will need to improve Michigan's defense if he wants to have a better year than last years 5-7 season. Michigan ranked 91st in rushing defense last year, 67th in passing defense, 77th in scoring defense and 82nd overall. This will have to be improved if Rich wants to get to a bowl game this year.
Although we lost Brandon Graham, who had more sacks than the rest of the line last year, this year our D-line is looking to be a strong one (although not as strong as last years) with the rest of the D-line returning.
With Donovan Warren and Boubacar Cissoko gone, J.T. Floyd and Troy Woolfolk will need to step it up this year to make our secondary not as horrendous as last years.
Rich Rodriguez will need to win at least 7 games this year if not more if he wants to coach the Wolverines much longer. While i doubt Michigan will fire him if he goes 5-7 again it will definitely be discussed at the end of the season if Rodriguez cannot turn things around in Ann Arbor. Michigan has a very easy non-conference schedule with the exception of Notre Dame this year. Starting the season off with Connecticut, Notre Dame, Massachusetts, and Bowling Green respectively. The Maize and Blue faithful will be expecting 3-1 at the VERY, and i stress very, least. After that we begin the always tough conference schedule with Indiana, although not strong they did compete with us last year. Then we have Michigan State at home, Iowa, and Penn State in Happy Valley. We than have easier games, although not definite wins with Illinois and Purdue. We then finish off the season with Wisconsin and a trip to the Horseshoe to battle Ohio State. Rodriguez will need to beat Ohio State if he wants total job security at the end of the year.
This is going to be a crucial year for Rodriguez. He will need to impress the fans more this year than ever. He will have very little excuses this year unless we have injury trouble.
This is looking to be an exciting year for the Wolverines. We have many good prospects coming in to go along with old ones still trying to prove they have what it takes. I personally think the Wolverines will go 8-4 this year, challenging Ohio State to the last minute, earning a bid to the Alamo Bowl or the Champs Sports Bowl and winning it. Anything less and i will be very shocked. I think Tate will develop into a better than average QB this year with very few erratic moments. I also think our secondary along with our D-line will step up to make our defense in the top 50. This will be a very important year for Rich Rodriguez and Michigan Football.
Apparently the Big Ten Network's website is running a poll to determine which Big Ten team has the "best home-field advantage". Popularity contests do not good data sets make, so I figured I'd apply a lot of counting and a little math and see what I came up with.
- For each Big Ten team, I tallied up their total wins over the last 11* years, and seperately tallied how many of those wins came at home.
- I ignored nonconference games. Those will naturally boost home winning percentages as you invite the baby seals to get clubbed at your house, and play home-and-homes against teams that might actually beat you.
- I wanted to compare how well a team did at home compared to how well it did on average, rather than just totalling home wins and saying "golly, Ohio State must have the best home field advantage because they won at home a lot". Well, unfortunately, they won on the road a lot too, so it doesn't tell you much.
- Of course, the inverse of saying a team has a "Strong home field advantage" would be to say that same team "Sucks on the road". I'm looking at you, Indiana.
*I had planned to look at the last 10 years, but made my spreadsheet a big too large and went on my merry way entering in data. I was all done by the time I realised my mistake and I saw no reason to discard the 1999 season just because it was one more than I had planned to look at.
First, and just for the record, here's your overall Big Ten winning percentages for the last 11 years:
|Rank||TEAM||WINNING %||Home Wins||Home Wins Rank|
Yeah, I know. I don't like it any more than you. Anyhow, as you can see, there's not a lot of difference between a team's overall rank and its rank in terms of raw number of home wins. A bad team is a bad team at home or on the road, and ditto for a good team.
Surely there must be something to the fearsome reputations to such locations as Beaver Stadium and the Horseshoe though, right?
At first, I tried expressing home field advantage as the percentage increase of home winning percentage over total winning percentage. However, I found that this simply weighted the home success of bad teams much higher. Instead, I totaled the number of wins each team had at home, subtracted the number of wins each team had on the road, and averaged over 11 years to yield a number I'm calling the Expected Increase in Wins at Home (EIWH). In other words, every year each team plays 4 Big Ten home games and 4 Big Ten road games. How many more wins, on average, does a given team expect to claim at home than it will on the road? The results are as follows:
The results have some suprises. Iowa, a slightly-above-average team overall, earns an average of one more win at home than it does on the road, as does celler-dwelling Indiana. Indiana has only won five Big Ten road games in the past 11 years. Iowa has a reputation as a tough place to play, especially at night, but the Indiana results are inexplicable.
On the other end of the spectrum, Illinois has only earned 16 of its 30 victories at home, which makes for an interesting contrast with Indiana in spite of the two school's proximity at the bottom of the overall standings. Strangest of all, the feared Horseshoe in Columbus grants a very modest advantage to the hated Buckeyes. They have less of a home field advantage than such teams as Northwestern (a school which, from my personal experience, barely fills half its stadium with home fans) and Minnesota (who played in the sterile Metrodome for all of the period of this study).
What's the message here? It seems that the level of hype attached to particular stadiums has little relation to the advantage those stadiums grant to the team playing there.
I was thinking a bit about the Reggie Bush stuff at USC, and whether we should compensate football/basketball players beyond their scholarships. Many people hold to the traditional ideal of the student-athlete: these guys are just students who just happen to have freakish amounts of talent; they participate in our school's athletic teams, and in return are given a scholarship to pay for their education. Others advocate for a more pro-style approach: the players entertain millions of tv viewers and make a lot of money for the athletic department, so they should be paid.
I used to fall firmly in the first camp. While at Michigan I was on an academic scholarship, and I had certain requirements to uphold - maintain a certain GPA, etc. As long as I did that, my tuition, room and board were paid for. The only difference between me and the guys on athletic scholarship is that their requirements had to do with the field, and mind had to do with the classroom - right? However, I was being compensated in the same field in which I excelled: I was a good student, so my schooling was paid for. Athletes are different, though. Their potential lies on the field, but we compensate them by paying for their education. They have much more work than I did - to earn their scholarship, they have to not only do their coursework and maintain a minimum GPA, but ALSO put in the ridiculous amount of work to be involved in collegiate athletics. It would be like my scholarship requiring me to hold down an unpaid part-time job in addition to my coursework. In that sense, the traditional notion of the student-athlete is a bit ridiculous.
Aside from that, I think we have to consider where all the money goes in the current system - money that is made based on the exploits of these players. Coach salaries are escalating every year. Schools are investing tons of money into facilities - some investments are necessary (*cough cough* Crisler renovation), but others are just an arms race to impress recruits (e.g. Oregon's locker room, which reportedly has personal xboxes in each locker). Compared to those extravagancies, tuition + room and board for the athletes seems like a fairly small amount.
I think there's a way to compromise without overhauling the entire system, though. Had I wanted to make extra money aside from my scholarship, Michigan offered opportunities for students to get paid while working for the school: work-study. Why not offer student-athletes work-study money for the time they invest in sports? Most work-study jobs benefit the school (research assistantships, landscaping, etc.) and athletes arguably benefit the school as much as anyone. They entertain students and alumni, raise huge amounts of money for the athletic department, and act as ambassadors for the school. Athletes do a lot for the University - why not compensate them while working within the existing system?
I see a couple problems, but I think they could be worked around. First, there are a lot of athletes at the university who aren't on scholarship - should they be paid too? I would say probably no; make this work-study opportunity available only to athletes who are on scholarship. I know it doesn't seem fair, but the work study money would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a full scholarship. This really wouldn't be much of a change from the status quo from a financial standpoint.
The other issue is how much to pay student athletes. I think that's actually pretty easy. I believe there's a fixed hourly rate for work-study jobs (correct me if I'm wrong), and Michigan fans are all intimately familiar with the countable hour - seems like this would be a fair way to do things.