The Rivals 100 generates some buzz but, really, I'm happy with our current recruits and the excellent job Coach Hoke/Mattison etc. are doing. Really, would anyone here rationally want Biegel (at 95), for example over our current commits? The 100 controversy sells I imagine...but with so many services out there we're bound to have these debates only increase from here.
Q. What ever happened to takkle/SI?
I would definitely take Biegel over one or two of our LB commits. He's a very good player. If he were a little bit thicker, I'd say he's college ready right now. That kid knows how to play football.
I figure you to say Ringer although I am quite impressed with his closing ability and fill...who is the other guy then? Biggs? Bolden...god help you, RJS?
Yeah, Biegel's better than Ringer and Bolden, IMO.
If Hoke ends up dismissing Stonum permanently, what options do we have for that scholarship this year?
1. Will they still allow him to finish up school on a scholarship? It would be a shame for him not to get a UM diploma, but he did screw up, again! The medicine sucks sometimes.
2. Would he give that scholarship to a walk-on? or Are there any JUCO's out there that may be ready to jump over?
3. Or do we save it for next year since it would be available at that time anyway?
I'm hoping he gets his act together, but he's had the opportunity to rectify his first DUI. I don't think he should be kept on the team, unfortunately, because he is a good receiver.
Sorry about all the questions, I know how much you love questions here.
GO BLUE
I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen. I think that it will largely depend on Stonum's attitude and how he approaches this. I don't think that we see him on the field next year. At all. And, if he doesn't take this as seriously as he should, we may never see him in a jersey again.
But, I could see a situation where he and Hoke have a sit down, at which Stonum makes a heartfelt plee, professing to have finally gotten it and saying that he is willing to do anything that he has to do to earn his way back on. Since Stonum has never red-shirted, I could see Hoke telling Stonum that if he wants to come back, he can sit for the year and during that year, he has to achieve certain high goals, both academically and socially, be a model citizen, and [fill in the equivalent of Lloyd's famous 6:00 a.m. Big House steps punishment]. If Stonum is willing to do all of this, he could earn his way back for a senior year in 2012, and maybe a emerge a better man for it.
I am hoping that this is what happens. It allows some flexibility for young men to make mistakes, but does not simply issue a MSU-style slap on the wrist.
I think this would be absolutely ideal. Kicking a kid off the team doesn't help him at all. Give him something to work for. Some people will say two strikes you're out, but having him sit out a year and use that time to improve himself as a person could be beneficial all around. Note: this is not the East Lansing catch and release program, as much as some people may think this sounds like.
Well michgoblue, we finally agree on an entire post of yours.
Where have you been the last while anyway? I feel like you haven't been on the last few weeks.
Rivals, compared to the other recruiting sites, always rates our recruits lower. Always.
Here are the rivals #100 recruits UM got in past years:
2008
41 Stonum
44 Cissoko
49 O'neill
2009
26 BWC
35 J Turner
2010
99 CC
Color me unconcerned that we don't have more guys on there.
That list doesn't inspire a lot if confidence.
I think that he was making the point that being on the rivals top 100 doesn't exactly translate into guaranteed success on the football field.
I know, but considering our lack of depth over the past few years, maybe we can point to the fact that when our 5-star recruit doesn't pan out, we don't have another highly rated recruit to take their place. There's a reason why TX, OK, OSU, etc have had sustained success over the years. Because they have that kind of depth.
<br>That being said, coaching and building up your 3 and lower 4 stars to be successful players will always be more important for every program. Clemson, notre dame, etc, has shown us that elite talent does not always equal winning. But a lack of elite depth is always a concern for any program that aspires to national sustained prominence.
Rivals does NOT have a midwest analyst. They have MULTIPLE souther analysts. They are extremely biased and their rankings are subjectively horrible since they do not have anyone actaully going to games and watching these guys, or soley dedicated to watching the midwest guys film.
The rankings are a horrible joke, and i now see why all the OSU fans left the garbage that is called Rivals. I am personally glad i left after 9 years, as i feel without one, or multiple midwest guys, how can they fairly accurately analyze these kids. They are extremely homerish towards the south. Some of the kids that are obviously absolute studs from the midwest that are not on this list is simply a joke.
Not only that, but Michigan a down year? WOW! And then Farrell spending 18 paragraphs on how they/fans wanted, or pulled for a darknorse #1, but they could not stoop to do it because the WR was just too good blah, blah, blah....
Amatuers.
Noah Spence, Gunner Kiel, Stefon Diggs, and Zach Banner are the guys I want.
They rate to sell subscriptions and the SEC schools and ND fan bases buyl the most subscriptions, so their players get more favorable ratings.
FL- 18
CA- 17
TX-15
OH, GA-7
NC, AL- 4
NJ, PA, IL, VA,- 3
MO, MD, AZ, LA, WA- 2
DC, IN, SC, NY,KY, TN, WI, MI- 2
What southern bias? /s
I am not surprised at all by the top 5 are you?
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Sio8EaxbJ88" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Wow. Lots of hard work there. The blurb on half those players:
"Has accepted invitation to play in army all-american game."
Lots of hard work went into this piece, obvously.