Hah. Someone moderated your post as Flamebait. I see what they did there. Hah
This week in football coaches make obvious statements about how recruiting rankings are not guarantees:
Michigan State's Mark Dantonio wary of star rating systems used to classify recruits
"If you come in as a four‑star recruit, really doesn't serve any purpose," Dantonio said.
Last year in football coach talking about a guy in his recruiting class:
"For the third straight year, Michigan State gets the top player, perceived top player by the media in the state of Michigan."
(This was Aaron Burbridge, who turned out to be MSU's only receiver not toting bricks around for hands. The previous two were Lawrence Thomas, last seen playing FB/TE/DL/horrible mutated fly-man, and the wildly overrated but still long-term starter and NFL draft pick Will Gholston.)
I mean you guys at some point we're going to get all the football coaches in a room and carefully explain to them that we don't think the rankings are iron-clad guarantees, either, and that if they could just take that as a given we could all talk about something else for once. In any case, Dantonio won't have to walk a fine line between being a hipster about rankings and trumpeting his acquisition of the top player in the state this year.
Hah. Someone moderated your post as Flamebait. I see what they did there. Hah
take it. :)
UM and MSU have the exact same academic standards when it comes to admitting scholarship football players. Anybody who passes the NCAA clearinghouse gets into school.
If we stopped recruiting Burbridge because folks thought he wouldn't qualify, that would be a major screw-up since he did qualify and was immediately eligible to play.
I disagree that it's a major screw up. It was still possible at signing day that he wouldn't qualify, and we were in a position where we could replace him in our class with a comparable talent who we knew was qualified. MSU decided to roll the dice and they won. Hoke doesn't like to do that, and I don't blame him.
You could say the same thing about star ratings. A lesser rated recruit is less likely to be a productive college player, but taking random 4-star guy over Jake Ryan or Greg Jones (to use examples from both schools) is usually a miscalculation, screw-up, or whatever you want to call it.
To say we got comparable talent at this point when our freshmen WR didn't catch a single pass and Burbridge had the year he did is pretty disingenuous as well. If Burbridge is at State and not at Michigan because someone thought he wouldn't qualify and he did in fact end up qualifying, then that person made a mistake. Obviously it isn't some massive, irreparable error, but the results are what they are.
I disagree completely. Sometimes a good decision doesn't work out, and sometimes a bad one does. If Derrick Green ends up breaking his leg tomorrow, does that mean the coaches screwed up by recruiting him?
I also disagree with your assertion that because our frosh receivers had fewer stats than Burbridge, his spot didn't go to equal talent. We already had Chesson and Darboh in the fold, so his spot was used by someone else, maybe one who will have a better career than Burbridge.
You're criticizing about results-based analysis? You mean like how you're saying because Burbridge ended up qualifying, it was a screw up to pass on him? Is that not a result as well?
An academic risk is not going to be taken by Hoke. Results be damned.
As I understood it, Michigan cooled on him because they thought he MIGHT not qualify, and they didn't want to dedicate a spot to a guy who may not ever make it to campus. When you take a calculated risk (or choose not to take one), you can't later declare that it was a mistake simply based on the results. You make the best choice based on the current facts, and you move on. Sometimes it turns out well, and sometimes it doesn't, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you did something wrong.
Edit: Man, was I slow in my response. In essence, "what WolvinLA said".
You both are being a little defensive. If Aaron Burbridge, a productive receiver as a true freshman, is at another school because someone decided, for whatever reason, to take two guys who at this point have a combined zero catches, then that was a mistake. I'm not saying it isn't understandable or the thinking behind it isn't reasonable, but it is still a mistake based on the available evidence at present. Just like the one that occurred when a bunch of coaches didn't offer 2-star Leveon Bell. We can all understand why programs like M, OSU, etc. didn't offer such a low rated HS player, but not offering him is still a negative in the grand scheme of things.
Can we say it was a negative outcome for Michigan? Yes, most likely, although a little early to call definitively. Was it a mistake? No. When you look at the facts and decide not to take a risk, it is not a mistake simply because you later find out the risk would have paid off. Nobody messed up. They made a choice to take the safer path. They've made that choice on a number of occasions. One negative outcome does not mean that the path is the wrong one in general. If they consistently stick to the safer path, and sometimes it works out for the better and sometimes for the worse, you can't point to the case when it went negative as a mistake. It is part of an overall strategy that this staff is clearly sticking to, and that I fully support.
You're being defensive and acting as if I've cast aspersions on the coaching staff. I didn't. I understand why they made the decision they did and, as I mentioned, it may have been a totally rational one. You're just refusing to call any reasonable, well thought out decision a mistake, even if it works out poorly. I'm simply not doing that. We're arguing about semantics because you feel for some reason that you have to stick up for the coaching staff. Obviously they can make mistakes. So can any staff in America. Saying that at this point, based on available evidence, this particular instance looks like a mistake (assuming they stopped recruiting Burbridge for fear he wouldn't qualify when in fact he did) is not some major criticism or something that can really be argued against. A policy to never take 2-star recruits is equally reasonable, but not offering Le'Veon Bell is still a screw-up, and one that countless D-1 coaches made.
If I bang Kate Upton and she gives me crabs, it is still a mistake, even if everybody would have done it, my policy of always accepting the sexual advances of supermodels is sound, and I am blameless at the end of the day.
why I think you're wrong. You just said that their decision may have been a rational one, but in your original post you wrote: "If we stopped recruiting Burbridge because folks thought he wouldn't qualify, that would be a major screw-up." As you've replied to our messages, you've tempered your language from "major screw-up" to rational but a mistake. You are missing the point. An individual decision that is in line with an overall policy is not a mistake. It is intentional. The decision is not a screw-up. The results may not go in your favor, but that doesn't make the decision, or the policy, wrong. I'm not being defensive, I'm being quite offensive. I'm pointing out that you incorrectly labeled the coaches' decision a "major screw-up." I'm not blindly following the coaches, I'm saying that you can't use hindsight on a single occurrence to cast judgement on decisions and policies that are being followed with great intention and for good reason.
I was going to let this argument lie, but I felt it necessary to respond for one reason: You are doing more than arguing your point. Statements like "you are being defensive," and "you feel for some reason that you have to stick up for the coaching staff," are both wholly irrelevant and inaccurate statements related to my psychological being.
I am most impressed by your having so much success with supermodels that you've needed to develop personal policies regarding their treatment. Also an interesting discussion regarding what constitutes a "mistake". If it's true that we cooled on Burbridge when he wanted to commit to us, was it a mistake? We can't know because we don't know what went into the decision beyond the potential (we think) academic risk. Such factors may or may not include behavioral issues, other available wide receiver options, discussions with his teammates who were already committed, and/or just sticking by a policy because it's a good policy. I suspect the last is the answer. I'm not implying in any way that Aaron Burbridge is a bad kid....I have no idea. I do, however, love the idea that we are implementing policies that prevent Terrell Pryors (extreme example) from becoming a part of M football.
Of course this whole conversation is predicated on assuming that the coaches actually cooled on Burbridge for reasons other than him cooling on them (it is quite possible he just felt more comfortable at MSU) and that we would have landed him if not for this cooling.
That being said, if we make those assumptions, and a talented player ends up having a productive season for a rival school because the coaches decided against offering/pursuing him even though there was room at the inn (we had spaces saved for guys like Diamond and Kozan who ended up elsewhere), then something went wrong. That could be a failure of policy (which one of the above posters appears always willing to forgive, even though a non-qualifying Burbridge is no worse than the ghosts of Diamond and Kozan being in the class) or a failure in executing that policy (it is quite possible someone at UM drastically overestimated the chance that Burbridge wouldn't qualify). Either way, at this point in time you can't argue that Michigan is better off without Burbridge (and with him at State) than we would be with him. If both Darboh and Chesson blow up, or if Burbridge does something extremely boneheaded, then the calculation changes, but there is no reason aside from strong homerism to assume those options are more likely than what looks to be the current course (Burbridge being a very good player and certainly a better option than at least one of the two guys we brought in).
There really isn't any reason for this to be so controversial. If another school tried to justify not taking a guy like Denard (not a traditional QB), Jake Ryan (not as highly rated as HS teammate), or Frank Clark (has had some behavioral issues that actually cost him game time), we would think they were being silly.
You're basing your theory on the presumption that Michigan cooled on him because they were afraid he wouldn't be academically eligible. We know that Michigan cooled on him; we just don't know the exact or whole reason. Quite frankly, the NCAA academic standards are extremely low. If a guy has to struggle to meet that benchmark, there's a good chance he will struggle with college level coursework. There are several possible scenarios different from your presumption as to the reason Michigan backed away from Burbridge. You seem awfully sure it was a mistake on Michigan's part without really knowing all the reasons Michigan backed away from him in the first place.
Right. Like when Pittman and Schutt wanted to commit but we wouldnt take them due to the homework we did on them and their baggage.
"If Aaron Burbridge, a productive receiver as a true freshman, is at another school because someone decided, for whatever reason, to take two guys who at this point have a combined zero catches, then that was a mistake."
This statement is true if, but only if, the sole criteria for "mistake" is lack of contribution as a true freshman. I highly doubt that this is the actual criteria for determining whether a school made a "mistake" in recruiting.
You have to pick who you trust here.
I haven't heard Sam Webb talk about it since - and I don't listen every day so he very well may have revised the story with updated facts, if he found them -, but he talked about this before last year's July BBQ. Burbridge wanted to commit and attend as a Michigan commit. If you remember, he was scheduled to come to the BBQ with Funchess and Ojemudia. Several days before the event, Burbridge abrubtly cancelled and committed to Sparty. The assumption is he did that because he was told he'd have to wait to commit to Michigan until the grades were in order. And as I remember it, there was quite a space of time before it was confirmed that he qualified.
TomVH hinted at the same. See link for usertags on mgoblog http://mgoblog.com/category/user-tags/aaron-burbridge
But others have disputed it and said he was Sparty all along.
I think he's a great player, Michigan kid, I'd love to see him do well for himself and have his team lose every game they play.
Getting back to what started this, I was simply saying I doubted the story that we refused Burbridge because of academics and added the part about that being a bad move if true on the back of that. The kid committed to State in July before his senior year and didn't visit any other school on an official, despite listed offers from places like OSU and ND. Acting like he was forced there because he didn't have a "commitable offer" from Michigan is a notion we tend to snicker at when others make similar claims.
In my head I read that as "hashtag 40" at first and couldn't figure out what it meant.
Need to get off the internet more often.
i fully support a website that just harasses sparty
I suggest checking out RCMB. It's a pretty surreal and elaborate on-going parody of a sports fanbase.
where do you think i go to find pictures of bikini models now that magnus has calmed down (a bit)?
RCMB is sort of like the opposite of a life instruction manual
This feels slightly unnecessary. Coaches say contradictory things: news at 11.
Calm down everyone, football season is rapidly approaching and there will be content that everyone cares to read about.
Well, if I were him, I'd probably feel the same way. He's taken middling three stars that power schools passed on, and turned them into, at least on the defensive side of the ball, formidable players with NFL potential. If I could only have recruiting mastery or player development mastery, I'd pick development any day. I mean, look at what Chris Petersen has accomplished. He takes two-star nobodies and builds damn good teams that can knock off top-level talent, or at the very least, can compete with it.
Of course, I'd rather be like Saban, a guy who can reel in top talent and develop the hell out of it to the point where you don't have a single position group without a future first-rounder on it.
I don't see what one (good coaching) has to do with the other (hypocrite on recruiting).
You can ridicule someone for talking out of both sides of their mouth, regardless of their performance in other areas. The hipster pic is just entertainment.
He is 1-2 against non-RichRod coached Michigan teams and he almost had a losing record last year while losing to Iowa. If beating shitty Michigan teams was all it took, then no one on here should be able to make fun of Danny Hope's Mustache. I am pretty sure I can make fun of Dantonio if I like.
Wonder if this would have prevented the George Campbell fiasco.
I can't believe I used to donate to support this level of content. LOL. No, seriously, LOL this is worse than Reddit.
Honestly, I read this quote and see a coach who is suddenly becoming uncomfortable with his future and is circling the wagons a bit. His team is coming off a disappointing 7-6 season where they were a preseason favorite to win a conference title, he prematurely lost his 3 best players to the draft, and Paul Bunyan is back in Ann Arbor.
Meanwhile, MIchigan and Ohio are crushing it at recruiting, he's parlayed his 2 straight 11-2 seasons into zero headway on that front, and by next year all three teams will be playing in the same division. I think it's impossible for him to not be seeing a bit of the handwriting on the wall and trying to spin the narrative in a manner that sets realistic expectations. Regardless, the Dantonio of the Summer of 2013 is a far cry from the smug Dantonio of the Summer of 2012 who was asking the media, "Where's the threat?"
Could be that the seat in East Lansing when from icy cool to just a bit warm?