2010 Recruiting: The Remaining Spots
Current Verbal Commitments
QB: 2
* Devin Gardner
* Conelius Jones
RB: 2
* Stephen Hopkins (EE)
* Austin White (EE)
WR: 5
* Ricardo Miller (EE)
* Jeremy Jackson (EE)
* Jerald Robinson
* Drew Dileo
* DJ Williamson
OL: 1
* Christian Pace (EE)
DT: 2
* Terry Talbott
* Richard Ash
DE: 3
* Ken Wilkins
* Jordan Paskorz
* Clarence Murphy (silent)
LB: 2
* Josh Furman
* Antonio Kinard
CB: 4
* Cullen Christian
* Courtney Avery
* Terrence Talbott
* Tony Grimes (silent)
S: 3
* Marvin Robinson
* Carvin Johnson
* Ray Vinopal
K/P: 1
* Will Hagerup
TOTAL: 25
Total EE: 5
PLAYERS CURRENTLY ON SCHOLARSHIP: 56ish
Early Enrollment allows backdating of scholarships which leaves Michigan with about 3-4 scholarships available to offer.
Remaining Targets
Torrian Wilson: OL
Jibreel Black: DT
Michael Taylor: LB
Rashad Knight: S
Sean Parker: S
All of these players are at positions of need and seem like legitimate possibilities.
I hope RR can channel his inner Mariano Rivera and close as many of the remaining recruits as NCAA possible.
January 7th, 2010 at 2:45 AM ^
Anyone else feel reluctant to throw Grimes/Murphy up there until they sign with M? I know confidence is key and all, but a lot can change between now and then. Are they really a foregone conclusion?
January 7th, 2010 at 8:38 AM ^
Afraid that I will get my hopes up and be crushed? Sure. But afraid that by treating it as a foregone conclusion I will somehow sow the seeds for them going elsewhere? No.
You could write a dissertation on the fact that so many sports fans are convinced their idiosyncrasies interact with an unrelated event's outcome and what that says about the importance our society places on the individual. /history major babbling
January 8th, 2010 at 12:02 AM ^
So Murphy picked the Terps, and Grimes is still up in the air....just sayin....
January 8th, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^
Did it ever cross your mind that there may be a cause for this other than you taking his commitment for granted?
January 7th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^
Positive mental attitude. No matter what the final number and who the coaches are after they are going to sign a solid class that will make significant contributions in the years ahead. Regarding the debate about the final number - has anyone on Michigan's football staff commented on how many they think they can/will sign?
January 7th, 2010 at 3:27 AM ^
let's see...
#1) it's sounding more and more like witty and drake will NOT be a part of this class. kinard is still up in the air as well.
#2) right now we have 25 commitments. if we lose witty and drake, we have 23. if we lose kinard, we have 22. i haven't heard much about kinard, so for now, i'm going to go on the assumption that we have 23 commitments!
#3) it sounds like the total number is going to be 29 this season. last season there were 21, so we can back date 4 to reach the maximum number of 25...and then we can take another 25 in this class...total, 29. If we have 23 commitments, that means we have six spots left.
Here are those six scholarships...
1-Grimes (silent commit)
2-Murphy (silent commit)...maybe Black instead if we can get him.
3-Parker. I'd be surprised if we didn't get him!
4-DT of some sort. If not Beachum, Thornton, or Chandler, we'll take that no-name from Florida (can't remember his name, lol?)
5-OL of some sort. Still in it for Torrian Wilson, and 'mystery' prospect.
6-Best ILB we can get. Steve Meher worst case. Michael Taylor best case. Several in between.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:42 AM ^
Pretty persistent, aren't you?
January 7th, 2010 at 9:03 AM ^
why does he keep changing screennames, and why is he obsessed with organizing? Internet-OCD?
January 7th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
this chart is better than his was.
January 7th, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^
We can only have 26 kids come in this August. If you want to assume 29, you're saying that 3 kids will "grey shirt" and not enroll until January.
That means that we only have 3 actual spots left without consideration to any kids decommitting or not qualifying.
If Rich Rod had his choice, I believe he would take them in this order:
Sean Parker
Jibreel Black
Michael Taylor
Skyler Schofner
Tony Grimes
Rashard Knight
Big Tex
Torrian Wilson
Clarence Murphy
I know they are very high on Parker and Black...and we really need a true LB in this class, and Taylor would certainly fit that bill. A 2nd OL in the class would be great and I think they have Schofner ahead of Wilson. Grimes and Knight are both great prospects, but with Christian, Avery, Talbott, Vinopal, Johnson, and M-Rob already in the fold, the DB need is not as great as it once appeared.
January 7th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^
I will start by saying I didn't give you that -1 but I do disagree with your claim that we can only take 26.
There have been two schools of thought that seemed to battle it out over the past few months as to how many we could take. One was that you could SIGN 28 but had to be down to 25 by the fall (through players not qualifying or whatever). There could be no backdating to the previous year whether scholarships were left unused or not. Therefore, that camp said you could sign 28.
The other argued that you could still backdate players to the previous years class if: There were schollies left unused from that class, the players were EE's and your total number of schollies didn't exceed the maximum of 85.
Your number doesn't even fit either one of these scenarios so i am curious where you got 26?
I can say that the MYTH that EE's couldn't count toward the previous years class was disspelled a while back. We CAN count our EE's toward last years class.
January 7th, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^
However, I have read that after giving schollies to walk ons we had 84 at the beginning of the year last year. Therefore, we can sign the normal max of 25 + 1 that is backdated to last year since we had one "open" last year. 26 is the number, I believe. I'd love to take about 32..ain't happening though.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
It was my understanding (which I stress is not fact) that the backdating was only dealing with the total number of schoarships players joining the team (21) and the 85 limit was only of consequence in the fall (after others graduate).
That is a terrible description so I will try again. I thought, when backdating, that you were only backdating against the previous years 25 schollie limit, so we could backdate 4.
The total of 85 is looked at when the next school year starts, so all the players who graduate this year would no longer factor into that number (I still don't think I have explained myself well....sorry).
Again, this is only my understanding but it is what I have seen mentioned on here by a multitude of other bloggers that are credible.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
so if we had signed 18 last year, we could, in theory, sign 32 this year, as long as we had 7 EE's that were eligible for backdating--right?
I don't believe that is the case. However, I would much prefer if you are right!
January 7th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
Yeah, you got what I meant inspite of the horrible description.
I think there is a max number we can have sign an LOI regardless of whether they are EE's or not though. Someone said the B10 has a 28 limit so even though we have 4 available spots from last year and the 85 schollie limit for next year would not be surpassed, it has been said that we could still only take 28.
Some people here have suggested that we could take 29, but I haven't heard the more credible posters echo that.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
but the rules are convoluted.
My understanding, is that in order to backdate you must have room:
1. Under the 25 man limit for the previous class
2. The 85 man limit for that academic year in which the player starts.
I am getting this from umhero's dissertation on the NCAA rules
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/ncaa-scholarship-limit-review
The relevant quote (bolding mine)
15.5.6.3.2 Recruited Student-Athlete Entering after Fall Term, Aided in First Year. [FBS/FCS] A student-athlete recruited by the awarding institution who enters after the first term of the academic year and immediately receives institutional financial aid (based in any degree on athletics ability) shall be an initial counter for either the current academic year (if the institution’s annual limit has not been reached) or the next academic year. The student-athlete shall be included in the institution’s total counter limit during the academic year in which the aid was first received.So then the question becomes how many players are on scholarship for the 2009-10 academic year. I know we've seen the number 70-73 floating around, but that is the number of recruited scholarship players and does not take into account walk-ons receiving aid. Scout is maintaining that the number of walk-ons receiving aid makes the total 84 kids on scholarship for the 2009-10 year. Thus UM is limited to only one count back. Scout could very well be wrong but this is their working theory right now.
January 7th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
That clears it up for me.
What about guys like Cissoko, Smith (if he tranfers, Feagan etc) that were likely part of that Scout number but will no longer be using their schollies? Would those become available? I think they would, but I'm not certain.
January 7th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
Not just the ones you mentioned but also someone like Warren.
Also, what if a 5th year or Senior graduates in December and is no longer on scholarship.
I am unclear how that plays in.
January 7th, 2010 at 9:07 AM ^
I sure wish we had some early enrollees on defense. We don't have any as of now unless Hopkins moves to linebacker.
January 7th, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^
Schofner isn't coming here, and Jibreel Black shouldn't be so high on your list. He's a 3-tech DT/DE prospect, of which we already have 2 in this class (Ash and Terry T.).
January 7th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
pretty low as well.. My list was only a guess at how UM had them rated. I believe they would take Schofner ahead of Wilson who is coming off a knee injury, and its harder to find tackles than guards.
Black is more a DE who can rush the passer, which we desperately need. Big Tex is a major project with big upside if it all comes together.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
from everything I have read, they were not aggressively pursuing him, while they were pursuing Wilson aggressively/
January 7th, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^
That's a class that will go a long way towards fixin' what ails ya. If you can couple that with a class next year that includes some marquee off. linemen and some impact linebackers, you're back to being a conference title contender.
QB? Two marquee guys and a swiss-army knife third option
RB and WR? All kinds of speed and athleticism.
OL? A couple of good pieces. Need more.
DL? Getting there.
LB? Need some help
DBs? You've got two excellent safety prospects and some potentially good corners.
It's a great effort right now if all you do is sign the guys that are committed. Add in Taylor, Wilson, Knight and Parker, and that's a great foundation.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
Wasn't there a post on the main board addressing all of this information? And, isn't there a 2010 Recruiting page on this website that holds all this info?
Why does a post like this keep showing up every 5-7 days or so? It's nice to see the OP wants to keep listing this all out, but it's really surplusage to the good work done by the people who run this site.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Jibreel Black. He's not the kind of DE that Rodriguez/Robinson have typically recruited, and I think he'll end up being too big/stiff to play DE in college. Regardless, with Wilkins and Paskorz in this class as well as Terry T. and Ash, I think he'd be lower on the priority list.
Also, tackles are harder to come by than guards, but the coaches backed off Schofner a while ago and they've still been going after Torrian Wilson pretty hard.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
there also remains a "mystery recruit" out of the Midwest, according to the premium boards, that is committed elsewhere but is likely going to take a visit. Speculation has centered on Donnal and Hurst.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
Its not Hurst
January 7th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
it's not Donnal either :)
January 7th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
Could they be looking at Wilson as a center?
You've got two really good tackle propsects from last year's class. You've got Q. Washington and C. Pace as interior linemen. But your second string center is a walk-on, isn't he?
January 7th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
Rocko Khoury is not a walk-on.
And Christian Pace will be his back up next year. Well, either Pace or said walk-on.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
C. Pace is going to be a center and the second string center is rocko khoury, a scholarship player. Wilson will be a guard most likely.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
PACE is the center prospect...gotcha. Thanks.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
We're fine at center. Molk will be here through 2011, Khoury through 2012, and Pace probably until 2014.
January 7th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
i disagree. i'd rather have khoury on the bench than either barnum or washington.
lt-lewan
lg-omameh
c-barnum
rg-washington
rt-schofield
January 7th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^
First of all, I don't care if you disagree, k06em01. You have proven not to be smart in the past, and I'm guessing you're not any smarter now.
Second, my proof that you aren't any smarter is that there's nothing in my previous post with which you can disagree - Molk, Khoury, and Pace will be here through 2011, 2012, and 2014, respectively, provided they all spend five years in college.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:08 PM ^
whatever faggot.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^
looks like you hit a nerve magnus lol
January 7th, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
We do not use that kind of language here. Correct yourself.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
Why don't you make a depth chart of all the gay people you know? Where do I fit in?
By the way, Fred Roh does not appreciate your language.
January 7th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^
how the hell should i know if you're gay!? you're just a faggot. and fuck you mod. he is a faggot. everyone knows it. don't give me shit for calling a spade a spade.
January 7th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
see you tomorrow kobemolJanuary 7th, 2010 at 6:44 PM ^
lolz
January 8th, 2010 at 1:16 AM ^
But when he's right, he's right.
January 7th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
I still believe that Rich Rod will put his wizard hat on and pull out a surprise on signing day like he has done the past two years. Rich Rod likes the spot light on him that day, so don't be surprised if he pulls a Henderson out of his hat. Now that would be some serious snake oil!
January 7th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
What is this snake oil comment? I've never seen it before on a thread containing recruiting news concerning Rich Rodriguez.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
reptilian oils, came into fashion throughout the Amazon River basin during searches for legendary city of El Dorado, first as a salve for psoriasis and later as an intoxicant that Conquistadors used to pacify indigenous people. Legend has it one Ricardo Rodriguez, a trusted lieutenant of Cortez, was particularly adept at slipping snake oil mickys to Aztecs in his conquest of Mexico, which he found as effective as small pox-infected men's wear (vests, jodhpurs, pork pie hats and the like) proffered as gifts to unsuspecting locals. Having sedated entire armies with his oils, Lt. Rodriguez would often steal off with the conquered's best warriors who'd, it should be noted, had already verballed loyalty to their local chieftains.
Flash forward a few hundred years, and can probably see the obvious historical parallels and why it is incumbent—and quite possibly patriotic—to commemorate "Snake Oil" every time "recruiting" and "Rich Rodriguez" are paired in print. History is important. Let us never forget it. Otherwise we'd have no history.
(slow lunch hour, obvs)
January 7th, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
I'd love getting either Parker or Knight, and both would be awesome. Michigan needs more heavy hittes, especially in the back 7.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
Is there anyway possible just to block Emo? If you can track his IP address why not just throw up the good ol' brick wall on his ass?
BOOM BLOCKED!