Class size may be creeping up per Sam Webb

Submitted by ypsituckyboy on

On the recruiting roundup this morning, Sam Webb said this class has been pegged at 28 but now may creep up a bit (I'd assume he means one or two above that). I know Steve Lorenz at 247 has pegged it at 27, but just thought it was interesting that it may get larger.

If we're at 23 now, with a few more expected decommits, that'd mean adding 7 or 8 more guys to the class. Best guesses?

MGoBoard
Football

Trebor

January 14th, 2016 at 8:43 AM ^

Now, I try to not follow recruiting too much because it's a creepy business and I don't trust anyone involved (coaches, media, or the kids themselves). But I do know the B1G has a limit of 28 signees (25 regular and 3 EEs allowed to back-count). How does this work? I know we're back-counting 3 of the EEs, and possibly 'greyshirting' a few, but if we greyshirt some kids, does that not affect what we can do for the 2017 class (which should be big given the number of seniors on the 2016 squad)?

For example, if we sign 30 this year, back-count 3, and greyshirt 2, that gives us 25 counting against the 2016 class. Any 2017 EEs can't back-count to 2016 because there would already be 25, and 2 spots would be hit by the greyshirts, so theoretically we would limit ourselves to 23+greyshirts in 2017. Am I wrong? Or do back-counted and greyshirt spots just disappear into the ether each year?

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 4573

SAMgO

January 14th, 2016 at 9:03 AM ^

"But I do know the B1G has a limit of 28 signees (25 regular and 3 EEs allowed to back-count)."

Wrong. You can back date every early enrollee. The three man oversigning limit is in regards to the overall 85 scholarship count. In essense, you can sign so that you'd have 88 scholarship players on signing day and assume some attrition will get you under.

Joined: 07/15/2013

MGoPoints: 18745

oingoboingo

January 14th, 2016 at 10:27 AM ^

We need to be honest about this. I've been going back, to try and corroborate, Ohio State going over the limit of 28, and the highest they've gone was last year's class of 27.

The funny business, in my opinion, isn't the number you bring in with your class. It's how you get to the 85 scholarship limit. If anyone is executing NFL style roster management, that is when it is dirty. 

Joined: 02/19/2015

MGoPoints: 126

oingoboingo

January 14th, 2016 at 12:27 PM ^

EE's can be counted against the previous year's class OR can be counted with the class they were recruited in. They don't HAVE to be counted towards a previous class.

Michigan's EE's won't really affect either class, since the 2015 class only had 14 enrollees. Looking at Ohio State's, they had a class of 27 last year, meaning, by B1G rules, only 1 of the 7 2016 EEs can be counted towards that class. Ohio State's class likely won't be larger than 23 this season, so it doesn't really matter. 

Joined: 02/19/2015

MGoPoints: 126

Everyone Murders

January 14th, 2016 at 8:43 AM ^

Maybe I'm rationalizing here (probably), but it seems there's a way to get "desired" decommits without doing anything untoward.  That is, let the kids who sign on early know that you'll honor their commitment, but also ask them to be honest with themselves if a premium recruit jumps aboard.  If I'm a born "plus" nickel back a few years ago and Peppers doesn't sign, I remain committed.

But if Peppers commits, I'm thinking seriously about looking elsewhere.  Playing time matters to nearly every athlete.  So if the staff is saying "look, we like you and you are welcome to commit - and we'll honor that commitment - but your chances of seeing the field go down if Player X comes aboard" I'm going to listen to them and think seriously about looking at my other options.

Did I just get squeezed out?  I suppose.  Is it SEC-filthy?  I don't think so.

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 65552

ifis

January 14th, 2016 at 9:24 AM ^

But the devil's in the details we aren't privy to.  If the coaches are up front with players and encourage them to pursue contingency plans early in the recruiting process, then that's fine.  But, if coaches don't do that and just cease contact with a recruit then I'm not ok with that, especially if it's just before signing day.  The key is that coaches should be up front with kids early in the process and they should stay cognizant of deadlines that recruits need to make decisions.  

My sense is that this didn't happen with some of our lower rated recruits we took early in the process, but now that is what is occurring.  Current recruiting decisions seem much more closely related to other recruits' decisions.  Player X is given deadline A or he loses his spot to Player Y, or Player X is told that he has to wait until Player Y decides in order to secure a commitable offer.  

Joined: 12/07/2011

MGoPoints: 1853

LKLIII

January 14th, 2016 at 10:02 AM ^

Ditto. The Devils in the details. I think a BIG mitigating factor is how candid the coaching staff is with a kid, and how quickly they share or update their status RE pecking order in the program. As long as the kid is given an accurate picture in enough time for them to make contingency plans, I'd be OK with much of this. If after the staff lays the cards on the table with enough time for the kid to adjust, and the kid STILL doesn't adjust and decides to roll the dice due to an unrealistic view of himself despite being told otherwise by the coaches, then that's on the kid.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/06/2013

MGoPoints: 8927

Everyone Murders

January 14th, 2016 at 9:44 AM ^

Saban's certainly not a good moral compass, but not everything he does is wrong.  If a better player commits at a position and a coach knows from the get-go that an existing commit at that position is (e.g.,) going to be relegated to the practice squad, then I'd rather the coach be honest about it. 

The student-athlete should always be given as much information as possible, including unpleasant information. 

(Now athletes that are in the program and are working hard to improve should not be squeezed out opportunistically.  That seems shady to me, and I've not caught a whiff of that going on at Michigan.  FWIW, I'm of the camp that fifth-year scholarships should not be viewed as a fait accompli.)

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 65552

MLaw06

January 14th, 2016 at 8:55 AM ^

It's easy to take 30 - 25 initial counters, 3 early enrollees that are backdated and 2 greyshirts who count starting next year. The 85 total limit only gets tested at the start of fall camp. As long as they are in compliance by fall camp, this is all fine and within the rules.

Joined: 02/29/2012

MGoPoints: 6223

pbmd

January 14th, 2016 at 8:55 AM ^

Roster needs to be optimized
If Michigan wants to compete at a high level hard choices will be made regarding scholarships.
This will apply to high school players who commit months or years before signing.
This will apply to non-productive players on scholarship.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 04/24/2010

MGoPoints: 1225

EastCoast Esq.

January 14th, 2016 at 9:32 AM ^

From a purely competitive standpoint, this would be a terrible move.

A large part of the Michigan pitch is that players get a great education for free. If you tell them that the situation will change if they aren't productive on the field, you are undermining that selling point.

Under your logic, kids would have to make the choice between a Michigan degree with the possibility of significant debt or a lesser degree that is guaranteed to be free. That is not an easy decision.

Joined: 07/16/2012

MGoPoints: 22979

Rabbit21

January 14th, 2016 at 9:48 AM ^

No, wrong, complete horseshit.  

If a guy is doing everything right, practicing hard, going to weight training sessions, keeping up in school then he is fulfilling his end of the bargain.  Pulling the rug out from under him just because he's not quite the player on the field you thought he was is wrong plain and simple.

I get perhaps trying to replace guys in a recruiting class as nothing is firmed up and the players have a chance to decommit and go to another school, but once they're on campus and doing what is asked of them the university has an end of the bargain to fulfill as well.

Joined: 11/12/2009

MGoPoints: 30372

LKLIII

January 14th, 2016 at 12:03 PM ^

Exactly. I think it's important to distinguish the difference between pre-enrollment vs post-enrollment. Aggressive treatment pre-enrollment (in conjunction with clear communication to the recruit so they can make informed adjustments/decisions prior to NSD) is fine by me. Once they're in though, they should get wide latitude to keep their 4 year scholarship provided they're keeping up with their end of the deal.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/06/2013

MGoPoints: 8927

Big_H

January 14th, 2016 at 9:59 AM ^

This is in response to Henry entering the draft. Gave Harbaugh another spot for a recruit. It was believed he was most likley going to stay, but with the way his season went, etc it was Henry's best option to head for the NFL (I don't blame him at all).

 

This will most likely give Harbaugh the option to accept a Quinn Nordin committment. It would have been hard to squeeze in a scholly for a kicker when we had so many other positions with big time players wanting to join. So now we have room.

 

Gary, Long, Jones, Hill, Allen, Nordin, Raulerson/Murphy/Dline or LB

Joined: 02/12/2012

MGoPoints: 2595

GoBlueNorth

January 14th, 2016 at 10:05 AM ^

If we do it.....it's not the same. Did you just get here? Saban forces players out of the door, gets them out on medicals, pulls lesser players schollies when they get in trouble. What we do is take on x number of commitments over the 85 schollie count knowing that x happens to be the number of players who will transfer, take medicals or get in trouble. It's different#

Joined: 06/03/2011

MGoPoints: 2314

Avon Barksdale

January 14th, 2016 at 9:49 AM ^

If we end at 30: Gary, Long, Hill, Allen, Jonathan Jones, Connor Murphy, Quinn Nordin. That would put us at 287 points on 247 -- good enough for probably a 3rd or 4th place finish on 247 and #1-2 on Scout, ESPN, and Rivals.

Ideally, if we end at 30: Gary, Long, Hill, Asiasi, Boss Tagaloa, Jonathan Jones, Dontavious Jackson, and Connor Murphy commit and we lose one current lower rated commit. That would put us around 298 points and in position for a 2nd place finish on 247 and #1 finish on the other sites.

I could also see us adding Donald Stewart; although, I am not really sure why we would take another receiver at this point.

Joined: 04/27/2013

MGoPoints: 12859

Avon Barksdale

January 14th, 2016 at 10:55 AM ^

I like Pie's game. I just don't see how (or why) we would add another receiver at this point unless Harbaugh knows or major attrition at the WR position is occuring. We do not lose a single receiver to graduation this year. We have four already (Mitchell, Hawkins, Crawford, Johnson) + Chris Evans + Kiante Enis is an ATH who might play RB, WR, or DB.

I think we would be better served adding a Khaleke Hudson over Pie Young at this point.

Joined: 04/27/2013

MGoPoints: 12859

LKLIII

January 14th, 2016 at 10:12 AM ^

If Stewart allows us to lock down Gary 100% (silent commit) prior to NSD then I'm OK with this. Stewart can contribute and is a smart kid--got into Stanford. And locking down Gary early would allow the staff to (without totally sleeping on Gary of course) spend a bit more time/energy focusing on some of their preferred recruits for the other slots.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/06/2013

MGoPoints: 8927

King Douche Ornery

January 14th, 2016 at 9:58 AM ^

I predicted we'd have 58 threads on class size, but I'm gonna up that to 940. Three weeks to go--so plenty of time to wash rinse repeat

Joined: 01/03/2011

MGoPoints: 106