In item #1 here, is Gholston politely saying that his coaches steered him away from Michigan, or is it something else?
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
In item #1 here, is Gholston politely saying that his coaches steered him away from Michigan, or is it something else?
But the four out of the top ten who not only chose UM but graduated from HS and enrolled early are model student-athletes and the "cream of the crop." Gholston has been fed so much crap by his "coach" that he would probably percieve neutral behavior or even some positive feedback from the UM staff as a "slight" or an "insult."
Whatever the mechanics were or the "last straw" excuse, it was his coaches who drove him away from UM. Since Gholston wasn't intelligent enough to see through it, I will assume that he wouldn't have handled the academics at UM anyway.
you have to wonder how that weakness will translate on the field -- Big Ten competition is not only bigger, faster, and stronger than high school, it's also smarter.
It's hard to guess what he might be referring to. Anyhow, if "the coaches know" what "things happened" then I'd imagine the U-M coaches may feel like they dodged a bullet with Gholston. In my experience, breakdowns like this usually go both ways.
I'd also look to the family. I know he's just a cousin, but for most of his recruiting, the OSU/Jets Gholston (Vernon) still had some lustre. The family probably thought young William should be treated like NFL royalty. But now Vernon's likely to be released by the Jets after two years, one of the bigger draft busts in recent memory. Most top-ten NFL picks, even if they don't become stars, end up with decent careers. Not this guy.
Does the NFL have better steroid testing than CFB? Because, V. Gholston was OBVIOUSLY juiced when he was at OSU. Maybe, he had his metaphorical hair cut off by the pros?
Judgmental much? This kid is 17 years old. Are you trying to tell us that your mentors during your teenage years weren't highly influential over your decision-making?
this comment is just embarrassing. it's like a jilted lover reflecting on all the reasons she didn't want to be in the relationship anyways after being dumped.
he didn't want to go to UM. he went to MSU. deal.
in fact, he showed more maturity by not going into details than you did with your comment.
Why MSU keeps on getting these Southeastern and Rennaisance kids. There's no secret there.
Rennaisance's coach basically came out and said it, and Southeastern's staff is in bed with MSU (no exaggeration there.)
Big deal. Two high schools in the state of Michigan cannot make or break a recruiting class. One state cannot make or break a recruiting class.
Gholston's a loss for us, yes. He would've fit in very well here. Kudos to MSU for getting him, but let's not get carried away.
There are thousands upon thousands of high schools out there that won't let their kids go to MSU - why is this, you ask? Because they're not prominent enough.
Michigan and Michigan State walk in to High School X anywhere in the country, you can probably bet your $$$$ that 9 times out of ten the kid's coaching staff is going to steet them to Michigan.
Let 'em have Rennaisance and Southeaster. At lease it makes the rivalry a little bit better.
I'm not sure we want/need a pipeline from Pershing.
Pershing hasn't put out much talent in the past few years and I don't know of any in the 2011 class. Southeastern, Renaissance, and Cass Tech have been the major producers of talent recently.
last off-season? I'm not sure -- it was one or two of the Michigan LBs/DEs in the NFL... It's hard to keep them straight -- there are so many!
tried to pay barwis for the workouts and barwis said no... foote was at the spring game last year...
He eats gravel for sustenance, drinks the tears of freshman athletes, and lives in the House that Bo built.
Foote works out with Barwis in the offseason (or has in the past), so the relationship is there.
Ewwww..... I'm having nasty Dantonio visions right now. And I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
I don't know what Gholston is talking about exactly. But you can see the sh*t that his Aggie coach is feeding him through Hankins's response to why not UM? He sounds like a kid that got totally brainwashed. If those quotes don't sound agenda driven, I dont know what would.
My favorite tho is Nick Hill. He's the kid that lived, breathed, and dreamed about Michigan. He never got an offer, felt slighted (and who wouldn't) and went to state. Why not UM, Nick?
"I feel more comfortable at Michigan State. It's a better fit. I stuck with my gut. I did think about U-M. Just overall, Michigan State was better."
I think he meant to say, "Just overall, Michigan State OFFERED."
comments bother me the most from the entire article... if there is anything that the MSM in this state can run with it those comments... and again we all know its BS from what we have read of this site in past couple of months...
I wouldn't worry too much about any of the comments in this article. Players which either weren't recruited by Michigan or were offered late because they were too out of shape to be taken seriously earlier in the year are using this as a platform to get back at those who they feel slighted them. Who cares what they think. I only care about the players who will be playing for the Wolverines.
About high school kids. They're going where they're going.
I wish them the best of luck in the classroom, on campus and on the practice field.
I hope the stink it up on gamedays though.....and not just against Michigan.
lets not assault Gholston's intelligence. Naivety is a fairer assumption.
Then again, I figure recruits that we offered are in three (or more buckets) when considering a Michigan offer these days:
1) The stud who figures he'll make the NFL, and wants to take the apparent lower risk approach and go somewhere proven (recently) like Fla, Bama, USC, Texas, (ugh) OSU (though they're not getting them this year), etc. (I'm thinking Gholston figured [or was influenced to think] State was the lower risk in state option. I'm hoping he'll be proven to be mistaken during his time at MSU.)
2) The guys just behind the studs, who need playing time, and opportunity to prove themselves in college, and are willing to take a risk to get there. National exposure at a Michigan in transition is an opportunity for them.
3) The guys that want to play pro-set, or (in Mathis' case) in a more pass happy conference.
Given how our seasons have gone since (at least) the loss to USC in the Rose Bowl - I can understand how the guys in group 1 are really hard to land. So I have faith that Rich and crew are working really hard to land the best guys in group 2 (and those in 3 that want to play in his offense) that they can.
You know what - assuming we get past the "house divided" lack of confidence in the coach thing. (Big assumption, and it does effect our players - seemed like they stopped believing - which had impact on the second half of our season ...)
Well anyway, I'd rather have a group of guys (in their 2nd, 3rd and 4th years in system) who want to prove themselves, than a group of guys who want to make it through to the NFL without risk.
So to the 3 and 4 star guys who are coming to Michigan: Go Blue and welcome. To the 4 and 5 star guys who are passing us over: we'll see you on the playing field in a few years.
I think a lot of these guys are misrepresenting the truth in their comments.
Hill said he chose MSU for some flowery reasons, but the reason he didn't choose UM is because he couldn't.....he was never offered.
Mathis makes it seem like he chose Oregon over UM, but from everything I had heard for the past 9 months, UM had seriously cooled on the offer they extended to him.
It is easy for the people on this blog to dismiss these comments because we know about the circumstances surrounding these recruits. I doubt that many casual college football fans will be able to discern which recruits are blowing hot air and which are telling the truth.
For many (with the exception of people who frequent blogs all the time) articles like this prtray UM in a negative light, and it isn't helping us one bit.
Didn't help that all of our guys we unavailable for comment. PR miss ....
Tony Jones sounds confused...
"Why not MSU ? Growing up in Michigan, that's where everyone wants to go..."
EDIT: Also love how all Michigan's recruits are already enrolled. I'm ok with an article that comes across as a little negative if the players that are with us are getting a head start.
You beat me to it, I was thinking the same thing when I read his comment. Maybe where he went to school everyone wants to go to MSU but UM has the bigger presence in state and nationally.
I too loved how every player enrolled at UM is already there and were unavailable.
Some people around here insisted that Michigan's late offer to Hankins wasn't a big deal to him. I always thought otherwise, and here we have it straight from Hankins's mouth. He said that he felt like he was last on their agenda.
Anyway, this article doesn't really reflect that well on Michigan, IMO. Nobody said anything negative about MSU, really, but there were a few kids (Hankins, Mathis, Olaniyan) who reflected less than positively on UM.
Of course, none of UM's commits were available for comment, so that's probably part of it.
I was shocked by all the negative comments about UM, especially the one that said everyone who grows up in Michigan wants to play for MSU.
I wonder why the EE were not available for comment. If it was something the coaches decided on, I would bet they are second guessing that choice now that this article is out. It really paints UM in a negative light IME.
I believe Rodriguez put a rule in place that freshmen aren't allowed to talk to the media.
"Why not MSU ? Growing up in Michigan, that's where everyone wants to go."
WTF!? EVERYONE in Michigan wants to go to MSU!?
It seemed like every kid in this article wanted to go to MSU over UM. Of course, all the kids that actually picked UM were not heard from....how, convenient.
Edit: Damn! I did not read all the responses and basically copied another poster's idea. My bad...
WR Tony Jones: "Why not MSU ? Growing up in Michigan, that's where everyone wants to go."
I had no idea Tony Jones grew up on a farm?
he grew up in an irish bar. makes the MSU correlation way more understandable.
What would you rather have, a national recruiting base or an instate recruiting base? I'll take the national.Yes, we did miss on Gholston, but I would rather be a force in ohio, Florida and Texas, if we can crack Mack Brown's force field around the state. We'll be fine without those who just wasn't going to fit in here.
I hope every single one of these kids works hard and has all their dreams come true. I hope if they didn't come to UM, when and if we play them, we defeat them soundly. That's the worst ill I wish on them.
First of all, who gives a shit about this article?
I don't think it reflects poorly on Michigan at all. There are positives with respect to MSU, but that's mostly because not one Michigan recruit was interviewed.
The Freep and Detnews are essentially soundbite media outlets - there's no journalism involved at all.
This manifested itself to me when an article about Emilien's improptu Q & A session made it's way on to the Freep minutes after it happened....
Seriously, what the fuck? They write about That? Emilien essentially tweeted two word answers to questions that included "Sammie Sweetheart or JWoww", and the Freep writes an article about it.
"Who gives a shit about this article?"
Apparently you do, since you've posted about it thrice.
That's his signature move.
"I'm above this article about recruiting and incoming freshmen...but here's what I think about it anyways:"
The News is a lot better than the Freep. Not perfect, but better. They didn't interview any U-M commits, because all of the in-state U-M commits were already enrolled (ALL OF THEM, how awesome is that), and the university did not make them available. Actually, the News followed very good journalistic integrity there. Once enrolled, a student becomes a representative of the university, and so it is important to make interview arrangements THROUGH the university.
It's a bit unfortunate from a PR standpoint that the Michigan commits can't give glowing praise about their recruitment, but at least the Detroit News clearly stated the reasons behind the lack of information.
I can only imagine how the Freep would have spun this situation?
"Michigan recruits refuse to answer!"
"What secrets are Michigan recruits hiding?"
"Rodriguez muzzles new recruits!"
First of all, this is a very legitimate article, complete with quotes from all players that were allowed to speak. Vlad's article on the Freep or what happened there previously is completely irrelevant to this. Quotes from players to simple questions are news. Secondly, to someone that doesn't follow this closely it does in fact look at minimum strange, that three different top state recruits implicitly criticize our approach to recruiting them. Now, that doesn't mean that we did do anything wrong or make a mistake with them, and these are 17-18 year old kids, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt, but to dismiss it out of hand is pretty short-sighted IMO.
Michigan got bashed pretty hard in this article. For the reader who doesn't follow things closely it would lead them to believe that Michigan and their coaches are a pile of trash.
when we win. Equal or better talent can be found elsewhere for those who don't fit or want the wings.
landed just about every guy in this article that they REALLY wanted AND who they had any REALISTIC shot with.
Gholston and Bullough were Sparties from the get go because of family influences.
Hankins and Mathis were offered but never vigorously pursued.
Bolden, Boisture, Hill, et.al. were not even offered, IIRC.
The only guy on the list that I think UM "missed" was C.J. Olaniyan.
You're looking at the situation from a very Michigan-centric viewpoint.
Hankins WAS pursued vigorously. Michigan really wanted him...but they offered too late. They put on the full-court press once they offered.
Mathis WAS pursued vigorously early in the process. The coaches wanted him, but he delayed and his spot(s) were taken.
Bolden was offered by UM, but the others were not.
It's really too bad the Michigan players were not available for this story. Of course the players who didn't pick Michigan are more likely to have somewhat negative things to say about Michigan, otherwise they might have picked them. It would have been nice to have people say the good reasons why Michigan so we didn't end up looking like a piece of crap
"I don't own a ski mask."
The thing I kind of took from Mathis and Olaniyan's comments was that they weren't comfortable with the atmosphere or environment at UM. I think that's legit and a personal preference, but it's not something that should be ignored. It seems like our coaches are tough and yellers and, god forbid, happen to swear from time to time.
People respond differently to different types of instruction / criticism. There are people out there who do well in a high pressure, high intensity environment, and people who respond more to a calmer, more logical approach. I don't think one is necessarily right or wrong, but we have to realize that maybe this staff's style just isn't for everyone. If you're a guy who likes a calmer environment, I don't see why you'd sign up for four or five years of yelling and craziness. Just like those guys probably wouldn't ever sign up to play basketball for Bob Knight or Tom Izzo.
Yeah, the news outlets suck. In today's journalistic climate the best you can strive for is to be OK. Inaccurate, but OK.
puts you in good company.
Did we even read the same article? Geez guys, I read these comments and then read the article and have to wonder what everyone else on here read. You all read everything with such a bias to see bias that, guess what - you see bias. There is nothing any more negative in that article about Michigan than about any other program. Gholston's comment is that Michigan's coaches know why he didn't pick Michigan - that is it. He is being level headed and not saying any more. Tony Jones? He clearly prefers MSU to UM. Perhaps he grew up around MSU fans. He is giving us "the world according to Tony". Nothing else. Then he clearly states that UM wanted him to play safety, not WR (we have plenty of WR depth in the class). Big surprise he didnt favor UM. And Kater says that his worst recruiting experience was to MSU.
Get a fucking grip guys. Step outside of your own biased interpretative frameworks once in a while. You are creating something out of nothing. The only thing related to this article that paints UM in a bad light is this thread.
I don't care about Gholston or Tony Jones.
The things that look bad are Olaniyan (he didn't like the way the coaches ran things), Mathis (he didn't like the atmosphere), and Hankins (although not as bad as the others, he said he seemed last on Michigan's agenda).
It's not a horrible article. Nobody here is calling for people's heads. But when nobody in the entire article says a positive thing about Michigan (for reasons already discussed), it's not a great thing, either.
Hankins clearly admits it was Michigan's choice. I know you are a coach and all, but I trust RR's actions over the whole process over your opinion of Hankins. UM didnt like Hankins that much at first, it impacted how the whole process played out. I trust RR's instincts over yours Magnus.
Positive: Bullough on UM: "It's a great program"
Nobody else, that chose one program, says this about another program.
That the EEs are not speaking speaks volumes. That they ARE EEs speaks volumes. Try to listen, others are.
The guys who did not pick UM say they were not comfortable or did not like the program or did not have a good visit - and you are troubled by this? You think everyone who visits or who the coaches are interested in should feel comfortable with the program? What planet are you living on? UM is great, but it will not be great for everyone. It is a question of fit.
Not liking how the coaches run things means nothing. Unless you read something into it - it could mean he doesn't like to work so hard, or that he, guess what, just doesn't like the way coaches run things. It is a question of fit - both sides (the program and the player).
And that you read that article. All that you see is other peoples commits with no one talking about Michigan. You have no idea why no one is speaking great things about Michigan and have no idea that all of Michigans commits cannot speak in the paper.
To us and everyone who pays attention to the program this is not a big deal, but to the casual fan it is just more fuel onto the Fire RR fire.
Again, I think you are seeing bias where there is none. You are looking for "fuel onto the Fire RR fire" and there see some where there is none. I think that the article is neutral enough, that the UM recruits are not speaking communicates enough, that even the most ignorant or naive fan will not see any "fuel."
about recruiting and doesn't know that the UM players are enrolled early.
To fans that follow recruiting (like all of us on MGoBlog) this article is a non-article, it means nothing, it is nothing. To others who are just casual fans who show up to the first game going "Who is that black QB.. Wow he's fast! Wait was his Shoelaces even tied!" This article looks bad.
I agree whole-heartedly with Magnus all of us on MGB couldn't give two shits about this article but to ignoramuses it looks bad.
that you are clearly ignoring the import of their own words. I won't address Hankins or CJ but I will Gholston: "The coaches know. I was favoring Michigan. It was like Michigan and Michigan State was neck and neck. Then things happened and they fell off. U-M was in my top five but not at the end."
If you think that those words do not mean that he didn't find his experience with us positive, and is saying so in a nice way, then I'd like to see what reading comprehension scores you got in school. To go from top two to out of the top five means that something happened that he did not take positively. Now, does this mean anything is wrong with our recruiting? No. Is this a terrible thing for the program? No again. Should we be all worried? Nope. But his words are not a neutral statement.
"Let's pretend that you know nothing about football and recruitin"
If that's the case, then why would your opinion after reading that article matter at all?
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
And this bird you cannot change
And this bird you cannot change
Lord knows, I can't change
Lord help me, I can't change
Lord I can't change
Won't you fly high, free bird, yeah?
why the hell is the proposed anonymous reader reading an article about football recruiting if they know nothing about football and recruiting?
I'm not sure why you are placing so much weight on these kids' comments - most of them were either not offered at all, didn't have a committable offer, or simply WEREN'T a priority for the coaches (until perhaps as a backup option). If any of these things happened to me, I'd be upset too. But that's life - you can't always get your first choice in everything and sometimes you fall a bit short.
I have to agree that his comments are fairly neutral. But they are not completely so -- they do firmly place the blame for those "things" that "happened" on U-M. I know teenagers are ego-centric, and I don't expect him to see the world like an adult, but I wouldn't call those comments "level-headed" -- there is some innuendo there.
Sounds like the Michigan coaches didn't want to meet his demands($$$$) to play at Michigan?
Yeah, every time a kid doesn't want to come to UM, it's because he demanded money and Rodriguez wouldn't give it to him.
Also, those kids later hint at their monetary demands in the newspaper.
Makes perfect sense.
It would be nice to hear the thoughts of the Michigan EEs, especially someone like Austin White, who all but seemed destined for MSU early on. With him seemingly "in the bag" because of his brothers being at State, I wonder if the MSU coaches *gasp* took him for granted?
Maybe Austin White saw all of the problems that his brothers were having at MSU and realized that might not be the greatest environment for him.
You are being -1ed for your insensitive flaunting of the English language.
Did you, perhaps, mean "flouting?" Or did I miss a ninja grammar-sarcasm combo move?
I personally like how none of our recruits were "made available" for the story. I think that's RR giving the media around here the big middle finger.
particularly Angelique, is our friend.
Remember the affirmative effort to bust the RR-to-UT rumor a few weeks ago.
The other paper, I shun.
I see nothing objectionable in this article from a partisan viewpoint. Once the research/interviews were started, and once it turned out that UM enrolees are unavailable for comment, the article was fairly well a wagon rolling down a hill. The methodology is transparent and there is no visible hint of editorial manipulation, or of conspiratorial intent (unless you suspect DetNews was planning on the silence of UM enrollees to provide a pro-MSU slant). The various "Why not UM" responses were all different enough that no real narrative emerges from them. More than one came out and said they weren't recruited here. I think the outcome here is sufficiently neutral, particularly with the lack of participation from UM recruits, which isn't the paper's fault. Within the context of DetNews' comparatively more nuanced coverage, I don't think this comes off as a hit at all.
15. WR Tony Jones.
Why not MSU ? Growing up in Michigan, that's where everyone wants to go.
haha where does this guy get his information??
I think they might have accidentally mixed up the "Why not MSU?" and "Why not UM?" labels. It's a possibility.
I think this personal story might relate to "MSU: that's where everyone wants to go":
My sister is a senior in HS. She didn't think she could get into UM with her grades, so didn't even want to apply, she didn't care about going to UM at all.
She applied to 14 (!) other colleges. So far she has gotten into all of them, has started picking her favorites, and hasn't said a word about going to UM.
Then my dad made her apply to UM, you know, just in case. She just received her admittance letter and guess who the new #1 is...Michigan!
In other words, if you don't think it's attainable, you might not "want" to go there. But once it is, then it's the only place you want to go (at least for some).
"_______ has enrolled at Michigan and the university has not made him available to participate as part of this story."
After reading this line multiple times, I stopped taking the piece credibly. It's only one side of the story. You don't have any of UM's guys responding to "Why not MSU?". So it's a non-event in my eyes. Also, it made a clear statement that the access has been tightened up considerably in Ann Arbor after the Freep Jhiad following Media Day last summer, which I am glad to see.
The News should have waited to run this article after NSD. There are still 48 hours and any one of these kids could POSSIBLY change their commitment. Not probable, but possible.
what happens when seasoned reporters are allowed to talk to freshmen kids, so it is best to have this shield in place.
I always wanted to go to MSU. But when I was valedictorian of my high school graduating class and finished high school without a criminal record, MSU was off the table; I had to settle for UM.
You mean when you graduated AT ALL and actually bothered with your SAT's, MSU was off the table.
I hope it comes out, though I don't see any real reason for RR or Dantonio to go there publically. I would like to hear what exactly happened. As with Grimes, I think there is a lot of negative recruiting (by HS coaches and college coaches) not to mention the myriad of other influences on these guys.
The bottom line is relationships need to be preserved to keep opportunities open. RR understands that I think. Michigan can ill afford losing athletes who have no other reason than "things" happening. It's a better school in most all cases, a better football program overall than most all others and a big step toward a better life for these kids.
Hankins was not a priority early for supposed good reason. It looks like he turned that around. Good luck to him. Winning is going to favor this wait and see tactic. Bring on the wins.
That is all.
First of all, when did I say that my instincts are better than Rodriguez's? And what do instincts even have to do with the conversation? I said that Hankins felt like he was low on Michigan's priority list. That has nothing to do with my "coaching" instincts; it has to do with factual knowledge that a) Hankins' offer came late in the process and b) he was quoted in the newspaper saying that had an effect on his college choice.
You're right about Bullough - I forgot about that comment.
"Try to listen, others are." What does this even mean?
Not everyone who reads the Detroit News is as well versed in recruiting as many of us on this board are. If Hankins says what he says and uninformed people read it, they might think that we're treating Detroit kids poorly. If people who are already anti-Rodriguez or on the fence read Olaniyan's comment about "I didn't like the way the coaches run things," then that could have a negative impact on the perception of Michigan/Rodriguez.
I'm not troubled by anything in this article. I'm going to sleep fine tonight. I'm not throwing a fit. I'm not saying Rodriguez needs to be fired. I'm not saying people at the Detroit News need to be fired.
I'm simply saying that some of these comments do not reflect Michigan in the best light.
You stole my point in your third paragraph. Give credit where credit is due. Snark over
People less versed in recruiting will not like this article. And people that already hate RR.. This will just stoke the flames.
'"Try to listen, others are.' What does this even mean?"
It means something we are both trying to argue, but in different directions. It means try to hear (see?) what others might hear, not just how you assume others will hear. You think those in the fire RR will camp see UM negatively, and you are right, some will. But I dont think they all will, and I dont think those who are neutral will see UM negatively. I do think that in trying to interpret what those in the fire RR camp will interpret, many here, including yourself, are overshooting, are being too extreme - are not listening to other aspects of the article or to the article in other ways that it might be heard.
EDIT - as for the rest of our disagreemets - we simply see things differently. Which is the point of it all anyway.
Mathis was offered early and pursued heavily. The interest from the coaches dissipated when he insisted on extending his recruitment and/or his position started filling up.
They cooled on him months ago. I guess I didn't elaborate as to why (the fact that they filled his position), but that doesn't change the validity of my post.
His comment made it seem like he chose not to attend UM, when in reality UM had stopped pursuing him. That was the main point of my post.
I'm just glad The Detroit News isn't the Freep. The Freep is dead to me after all of the shit they've pulled.
Here's +1 from me. I mean, really.
Dude, I don't know what it is about my comment, but it's toxic. I'm sorry (or at least as sorry as one can be over mgopoints) that you got caught in the crossfire. You are a true warrior for your dedication and sacrifice.
Long live bjk!
I guess my point is that he could have chosen UM. He was given the opportunity, and he chose to pass that up. Whether the coaches cooled on him or not is kind of irrelevant, because he thought there might be better options out there. Whatever the reasons, it's a kid who said "No, thanks" to a Michigan offer.
from the comments of hankins and hill is that both of them feel like that they were entilted to a michigan offer no matter what... we all know the story about hankins as its been told many times... as for hill IIRC he under performed at michigans camp and jumped on state as soon as they offered. and when tim saw him play against pioneer he said that his back up was better...
I think the most interesting comment in that article is the one at the very end by Tony Jones about State:
"Growing up in Michigan, that's where everyone wants to go."
Very unfortunate that UM didn't allow their early enrollees to speak to the paper. I understand the reasoning I guess, because of the way the Freep shitheads took Stokes and Hawthorne's quotes and turned them into an NCAA investigation...but the DetNews article just looks horribly slanted without any UM commits chiming in. Just me, but I would've let the players talk.
As for what some of the other kids said (Gholston, Hankins, Mathis, Hill, etc)...well, lol. That's all I can really say at this point. Lo-freaking-l.
My problem with Gholston's answer is the lack of truth in it. We all know the real reason he didn't come to Michigan is that RichRod doesn't recruit 5 stars. (sarcasm)
11. QB Cody Kater
"Why not U-M ? I was never a Michigan fan. Michigan really didn't make my list of six or seven schools."
Dude, were you even offered by six or seven schools? MSU didn't even offer you.
15. WR Tony Jones
"Why not MSU ? Growing up in Michigan, that's where everyone wants to go."
To be fair, Flint and Sagnasty are major Sparty towns. The majority of people I know in the Flint area that are Michigan fans primary migrated from a pro Michigan city.
That's all that caught my eye. To each their own. If Michigan wasn't a right fit for you, then so be it. Michigan isn't for everyone. Just don't make some BS excuse (I'm looking at you Cody Kater) on why you aren't going to Michigan.