2010 Recruiting: The Remaining Spots
According to recruiting expert and MGoBlog fan favorite TomVH Michigan will only have 25 total scholarships available for the 2010 Recruiting Class. There were a lot of visits announced recently so I wanted to see where we stand with the last spots available in our class.
Total Committed Players: 22 (21 Verbal Commits + Adrian Whitty)
Heavy Michigan Leans / Possible Silent Commits: 3
Tony Grimes CB Rivals 3* Scout 4*
Clarence Murphy DE Rivals 3* Scout 3*
Josh Furman LB Rivals 3* Scout 4*
If all of those guys Go Blue that is 25 total recruits...we'll see what happens.
Upcoming Official Visits
Jonathan Hankins DT Rivals 3* Scout 3*
Torrian Wilson OL Rivals 4* Scout 3*
Rashad Knight CB Rivals 4* Scout 3*
Who knows if any of these guys commit.
D.J. Williamson Rivals 3* Scout 2*
Tony Drake Rivals 3* Scout 3*
Drew Dileo Rivals 3* Scout 3*
Obviously there are a lot of rumors and speculation behind this information. Anything can happen between now and the first Wednesday in February.
Total Committed Players: 22 (21 Verbal Commits + Adrian Whitty)
Heavy Michigan Leans / Possible Silent Commits: 3
Tony Grimes CB Rivals 3* Scout 4*
Clarence Murphy DE Rivals 3* Scout 3*
Josh Furman LB Rivals 3* Scout 4*
If all of those guys Go Blue that is 25 total recruits...we'll see what happens.
Upcoming Official Visits
Jonathan Hankins DT Rivals 3* Scout 3*
Torrian Wilson OL Rivals 4* Scout 3*
Rashad Knight CB Rivals 4* Scout 3*
Who knows if any of these guys commit.
- Jonathan Hankins was rumored to heavily favor Michigan and finally got the offer. Definitely a position of need.
- Torrian Wilson is still committed to Stanford and you know Harbaugh is telling him Michgan doesn't stack up academically.
- Rashad Knight missed his previously scheduled official visit. We have several DB verbal commits but the team could still use more.
D.J. Williamson Rivals 3* Scout 2*
Tony Drake Rivals 3* Scout 3*
Drew Dileo Rivals 3* Scout 3*
- Michigan identified Dileo early and seemed to really want him from the press that came out about his commitment.
- Drake comes from a team stacked with D-1 prospects and has played well this season.
- Don't know much about Williamson...might switch to Safety which is still a position of need.
Obviously there are a lot of rumors and speculation behind this information. Anything can happen between now and the first Wednesday in February.
GO BLUE!
December 1st, 2009 at 1:12 AM ^
Someone is not going to qualify, thus the last ditch effort to secure another commit.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:13 AM ^
"According to recruiting expert and MGoBlog fan favorite TomVH Michigan will only have 25 total scholarships available for the 2010 Recruiting Class."
Well thank God for Tom. By golly, I would have never known we had 25 scholarships available. Unless, of course, I looked at the NCAA rulebook.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:15 AM ^
There was a lot of debate on whether Early Enrolles could be counted in the previous class...TomVH checked with the compliance office
December 1st, 2009 at 7:53 AM ^
Yes, I think it is too early to say what number of spots we have left for certain.
Also, I think Denard is staying at QB. The coaches promised him he could play QB and we need the depth at that position. Everyone seems to have given up on him, but you shouldn't. He is young and when he learns the playbook, he will be dangerous.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:55 AM ^
Denard will stay at QB for at least one more year. If he can ever figure it out as a passer he would be the next Pat White. Great runner and good enough passer to keep them honest. Plus, keeping Denard at QB allows us to redshirt DG, which I think is in our and his best interest. But in years 3 or 4 I could see Denard moving if he doesn't learn how to be a better passer
December 1st, 2009 at 11:35 AM ^
I agree with everything you said, and we should keep in mind something else. Without Denard at QB, we are essentially 2 deep next year (Tate, DG). Not to bash Nick Sheridan or Nader Furrha (assuming Coner is gone as the buzz has been on this blog), but it is good to have some viable depth at the position.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^
Unfortunately, despite the sarcasm, the 25 scholarships is worth noting. It's not common knowledge, but only the Big Ten & Pac 10 handicap their schools by allowing a max of 25 per year, plus 2 contingent. Other conferences like the SEC are allowed to fill as many spots as they need to make up for attrition (thus Alabama's 32 a couple of years ago). Brian has covered the 'Bama side of it in depth, but one of the major challenges Rich Rod is facing is enduring the 14 dead scholarships that have come as a result of the transition. Were U of M not in the Big 10 he could make up for the lack of #'s and talent much more quickly. Just another reason the conference is now far back from the dominant forces in college football; we have to wait 4 years for everything to cycle back through, while the SEC can accomplish it in 1 year.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:29 PM ^
No conference has any inherent advantage over another at the end of the day in terms of numbers of scholarships to give, because they're all bound by same NCAA scholarship numbers. That is, if 'Bama had 14 dead scholarships, they couldn't make it up any more quickly than U of M can. Because ...
1) No school can have more than 85 scholarship players on its roster at one time. NCAA rule.
2) No school can have more than 25 recruits make it to campus (qualify and enroll) in any given year. NCAA rule.
Now signing LOIs is a different story. Conferences have adopted different rules on LOI signee numbers, but at the end of the day, even if you sign 32 LOIs, you have to get down to 25 eventually. Oversigning may give you a slight advantage in guaranteeing 25 get to campus, but that's about the only advantage. (It also makes you do some pretty cut throat things if those numbers don't come down naturally, which Brian has also detailed).
December 1st, 2009 at 11:17 PM ^
Alabama has taken the Cal Hockley* approach to whittling down the numbers. Basically, there's zero institutional support for 3-stars who don't pan out. When I did the Decimated Defense analysis, it was striking how much their attrition struck lower-rated players (attrition generally hits lower-rated players anyway because they are more likely to transfer for playing time, but at Bama, they had as many low-end transfers as we had recruits).
* Titanic reference: "Not the better half."
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 AM ^
Just pointing out to the poster above that 'Bama can't bring any more guys to campus in any given year than NCAA rules allow. It's a zero sum game: maximum yearly scholarship allotments = X number outgoing seniors + (25 - X) "casualties." And this is only if the balance of team's scholarships is 60 or fewer. If the balance is say 50 or 55, the school will still be short of the full 85 for at least another year. The only thing that will make up the deficit (that I can see) is having 2-3 consecutive classes stay mostly in tact no matter what conference you play in.
Misogopon, you've done a lot more analysis on this than I have, so I let me float this one: it seems while oversigning does have some advantages, they are mostly likely minor. Beyond hedging against some potential non-qualifiers and ensuring a full class, I can't think of many others. Certainly other top programs do fine without oversigning (USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.)
In 'Bama's case, the real advantage is not oversigning but the whittling down of current roster to make room for larger incoming classes. This is an effective, if morally bankrupt, way to hedge your talent evaluations with an incoming class and effectively give you a much larger talent pool over a 4-5 year period. Your analysis, I seem to recall, made this all too apparent.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:37 AM ^
Brian mentioned in a post earlier that Drake and Kinard are in danger of not qualifying. We'll see what happens with that, but it could free up two spots.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:16 AM ^
If we land grimes, Murphy, and furman I will pretty happy with this class. Add in any number of the other guys you discussed and I'm thrilled. I think that this class is addressing a lot of needs and will begin the create the kind of depth that RR is always talking about.
This is just another reason why I think that he needs 4-5 years to be truly evaluated as a coach. If all these defensive players and elite offensive weapons are not producing the desired results on the field in three years then it will be time to move on. Ditching him before then will set us back more than sticking with him IMHO.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:25 AM ^
Williamson wouldn't switch to safety. If he plays anything on defense, it would be corner. That being said, I think he's the most likely of the current commits to get the slow-play treatment.
As someone said above, Drake and Kinard are in danger of not qualifying.
Rashad Knight is a safety, and even though I like Tony Grimes, I would rather have Knight. Since Grimes and Murphy are a package deal, a Knight commitment could possibly squeeze out Grimes (and, therefore, Murphy).
That being said, I've heard Murphy and Grimes might be silent commitments.
Here's the order of those six players that I would prefer:
1. Knight
2. Wilson
3. Furman
4. Grimes
5. Hankins
6. Murphy
December 1st, 2009 at 9:04 AM ^
No offense to Williamson at all, but I agree that if anyone gets the "slow play" it would be him. That is mainly due to the fact that he is a relative unknown and there is a lot of talent in the list you just showed.
For discussion sake, say Kinard and Drake don't qualify, that drops us to 20. If Williamson decides his chances at a future in football look brighter at another institution and leaves that makes 19 leaving 6 spots open.....viola!Ink in the 6 on your list and I see this as the best recruiting class UM has had in a long time (i know it is doubtful all will play out like that, but still).
All that said, I also agree that it would be a shame to have one of our D commits not qualify because we need all we can get and Kinard looked pretty good to me (even if the experts didn't agree).
December 1st, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^
Based on individual evaluations, you might be right. But don't forget that Rodriguez might be loathe to jeopardize future relationships with the coaches at Harding. Think of it this way: is it worth alienating a potential Ohio pipeline for the sake of Knight, Hankins, etc.? I'm not sure myself, since I know how thin we are on defense, but it's certainly worth considering.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^
They must really see something in Williamson, has he gotten an offers since UM? He looks like a prime "preferred walk-on" tbh.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:54 PM ^
Williamson was almost offered by Ohio State right before he committed. So I think that whole "walk-on" thing is stretching it.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
That was Jerald Robinson.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 AM ^
Maybe it wasn't an offer then, but Williamson was getting interest from Ohio State as well. Peruse their forums and boards, and a lot of (intelligent) OSU fans will say he's a good player and some are even unhappy he got away.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:01 AM ^
you didn't mention Big Tex Beachum. I know what has been said recently about him, but I think the kid is a heavy Michigan lean. I think people will be pleasantly surprised when he commits to us.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:06 AM ^
but all the talk has been that he is staying with Arkansas.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:45 PM ^
All of the talk has not been anything but speculation by random people on this website. And all of that speculation has come from one post by some random guy on another blog where anyone can post anything they want. There has been nothing in any publication or recruiting website to suggest that Big Tex is going to stay with Arkansas. In fact, there has been reports to the contrary on recruiting websites.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:38 AM ^
I hope Kinard makes it. I envision him as a JB Fitzgerald type who could play inside backer. Seems like we have some outside LB's but still thin inside. I still hope Ezeh moves to DE and Leech, Fitzgerald, Demens and maybe Bell can play. I read where Cam Gordon might move from WR to LB as well but I don't know which spot he'd play.
Is Fred Jackson leaving? If so would Jeremy go somewhere else?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^
I believe Jackson is staying now, or at least, that's the last thing I read. And also, even if Fred leaves, Jeremy is sticking around.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:49 AM ^
I believe you guys are making to much out of recruitment. Especially for some kids who haven't even sign a letter of intent. Dj williamson is a great player & I trully hope he doesn't decommit. I think you guys are buying to much into how many "stars" a kid has, there is one thing that scouts can't determine is heart. & football is 90% mentality & 10 physicality.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 AM ^
I wish what you said about football being 90% heart was true, because I would probably have started on varsity. Instead, I was 3rd string QB on the sophomore team. I would have traded in my captaincy any day for twenty pounds and a third of a second off of my forty time in a heartbeat.
Obviously Drew Dileo and DJ Williamson are infinitely better athletes than I, but athleticism is everything in football. Even if somehow Delaware State spent the next year sleeplessly practicing, watching film, and lifting weights (with none of the obvious detriments on their health), they would lose to the talent of Alabama (and probably quite badly).
If you were to take a look at the Rivals star ratings of last years top 15 draft picks, I'm pretty sure all would be four and five stars (though I don't have the time to check this). But recruiting is why perrenially good programs are perrenially good. They recruit the best athletes.
Scouts do a relatively good job evaluating character and work ethic. Five star recruits rarely fail to qualify academically. And while you do see your Clarret-style flameouts, scouts tend to mark down especially thuggy recruits.
Basically, I wish you were right. But you aren't.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 AM ^
I wish what you said about football being 90% heart was true, because I would probably have started on varsity. Instead, I was 3rd string QB on the sophomore team. I would have traded in my captaincy any day for twenty pounds and a third of a second off of my forty time in a heartbeat.
Obviously Drew Dileo and DJ Williamson are infinitely better athletes than I, but athleticism is everything in football. Even if somehow Delaware State spent the next year sleeplessly practicing, watching film, and lifting weights (with none of the obvious detriments on their health), they would lose to the talent of Alabama (and probably quite badly).
If you were to take a look at the Rivals star ratings of last years top 15 draft picks, I'm pretty sure all would be four and five stars (though I don't have the time to check this). But recruiting is why perrenially good programs are perrenially good. They recruit the best athletes.
Scouts do a relatively good job evaluating character and work ethic. Five star recruits rarely fail to qualify academically. And while you do see your Clarret-style flameouts, scouts tend to mark down especially thuggy recruits.
Basically, I wish you were right. But you aren't.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 AM ^
You'd be wrong about all of last year's top 15 picks being 4 or 5 stars, but your overall sentiment is correct.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:58 AM ^
I'd be satisfied with Grimes, Murphy, and Furman. All are positions of need. However, next year becomes dire for Dline and Oline in my opinion. We will probably take 4-5 commitments on both sides. Would like to get another safety in this class, but it's going to be tough with these numbers. MRob starting out at safety has calmed my fears somewhat.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
i really want those guys too. but I would be really happy if we could squeeze in hankins, beachum, and torrian wilson. we need bigs.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:38 AM ^
You're new to this, aren't you? We're putting too much stock in "stars"...? Riiight...because they don't mean anything.
Also, how do you know Williamson is a great player? Were you convinced by all the time he missed due to injury this year, or were you convinced by the fact that his numbers when he did play were underwhelming, or were you convinced by the fact that his only offer is from Michigan?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
It has been well documented that stars are well correlated with collegiate success. “Correlated,” of course, does not mean perfectly correlated. There are five-star busts and two-star all-Americans.
But give me a dozen 5-stars vs. your dozen 2-stars, and there’s a very good chance that the 5-stars will have the more impressive collegiate careers.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
Magnus needs no education on this.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:24 PM ^
One would think that "Riiiggght ..." would be a sufficient indicator of sarcasm. Please don't make it so that everyone has to put /sarcasm at the bottom of their post.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:14 AM ^
I can almost promise that these guys won't get slow played. Drake is extremely explosive and Dileo is a solid punt returner. Drake is the offensive player behind Gardner that I am most excited about.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:55 PM ^
I don't know too much about the kid, but if he's really being recruited just because he's a "solid punt returner." then he's probably the first guy to get the slow play.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:18 PM ^
Have you seen our return game the last 2 years?
December 1st, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^
It's been bad, especially on punts. But the post I'm referring to described the recruit as "solid." I'm certain that Gallon or Stonum or someone could be "solid."
Our defense, on the other hand...
December 1st, 2009 at 7:29 PM ^
hes being recruited as a slot receiver as well. Has good hands, decently shifty, very versatile. Even if he had no part in the slot depth chart, as OP said, have you seen our punt returners the last few years?
I'm sure theres better true slot receivers out there, but Dileo has a knack for making big plays on special teams with the possibility of being a good slot reciever.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 AM ^
+1 on Drake. And he will be a RB, imo.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
Sean Parker, who will visit and probably has UM in his top 2 or 3.
Ray Vinopal, who is probably about even with Rashard Knight.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:52 PM ^
You are absolutely right on Sean Parker and he would be a huge get for a major position of need. Probably the best safety prospect we have a chance with.
But Vinopal is a 2 star to Knights 4 and we offered Knight more than 6 months before Vinopal. Vinopal is a backup plan. He might be great for us, but we have several backup plan safeties already on the roster and in the incoming class. (See Gordon and Johnson)
December 1st, 2009 at 11:31 AM ^
This morning on Scout, Johnathan Hankins stated that Florida is his leader and that after his visit last weekend, he wanted to commit but his coaches told him to visit Michigan and Ohio State first.
Hmmm....
December 1st, 2009 at 11:37 AM ^
The idea that Ray Vinopal is an equivalent prospect to Rashad Knight is ridiculous.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^
I know stars correlate to college success. I was being sarcastic with lazarre11 because he thinks we're too "caught up in stars" with Williamson.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^
but if I am Courtney Avery or Carvin Johnson, I would be considering other options as well, with all the top flight DB's taking visits and making commitments right now.
Grimes would make 6 DB's this class. Knight would make 7, but I doubt we will take more than six. I know nothing, I'm just sayin.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
If I'm Avery I'm thinkin Warren will be gone by the time I'm a redshirt freshmen and I can beat out Floyd and Jones so I can challenge for playing time or atleast be in the 2 deep in my redshirt freshmen or sophomore year. Especially in formations where they have 3 CB's on the field.
Johnson might have less of a battle than that depending on where guys end up.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
I'm willing to bet Avery and Johnson consider themselves top flight prospects who believe they will have no problem competing with the likes of Knight and Grimes.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:42 PM ^
I'm guessing Avery knew when he committed that Cullen Christian was going to come to Michigan. I mean, we were all 95% sure of that, so why wouldn't Avery know? He probably knows more people within the program than any of us do.
We don't have a ton of talent coming in at the safety position. We have Marvin Robinson and...well, that's about it. Meanwhile, we just finished starting a redshirt freshman walk-on and a redshirt sophomore underachiever.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:48 PM ^
But I'm surprised nobody is talking about our RB commits. We got a couple who aren't particularly exciting, and it's my opinion that RBs are easier to find that a DL like Big Tex, for example.
Comments