Hypo: If Michigan football systematically paid players, what's the recruiting impact?
Intro
I use 'systematically' in the title because I think football is about as close as you can get to clean, though I've heard some 3rd-hand things and wouldn't be surprised by 'improper benefits' going to some players through small-time boosters, fans, etc. What I don't think is going on is SEC-levels of bagmen networks actively concealing and funneling money to entice players to come to Michigan.
Hypothetical Impact?
So let's say Michigan's administration has had enough of the NCAA's garbage, and they decide to turn a blind eye and nudge the money cannon at recruits. What you're dealing with is not some good ole' boys network of car dealerships but Panama Papers-levels of ammunition. (Side note: this is why I'm pretty sure Michigan isn't doing the systematic cheating. The resources are such that Michigan would annihilate the competition for getting top players, except for maybe Texas.) Does Michigan go from annual top 10-15ish to consistent top 1-3? Does the program start dominating nationally, maybe even slipping recruits past the Mississippi event horizon?
Look at Georgia/Bama/Ole Miss and some Clemson over the last 2-6 years. Thats the impact
April 10th, 2018 at 10:26 AM ^
I think it's not the only ingredient--UTSA with Michigan resources can't pull it off--but I bet Michigan would be able to.
Quit drinking and go to bed.
Aren't you busy getting paid to close TRU and BRU?
but i would prefer neither. To hell with bagmen.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:18 AM ^
actually think that "systematically" is correct in this particular situation.
I mean, the post sucks and the OP should feel bad but I think he used the correct word.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:42 AM ^
April 10th, 2018 at 11:11 AM ^
Systemic would mean that everyone in the fanbase does it. That's not what I meant to convey. I mean that there is an organized effort to get the money to a particular person that probably includes administration, donors, etc.
of the fan base would probably be too much to handle.
We could still take pride in cheating better than everyone else.
They probably recruit at about the same level with some extra blue chips here and there. It wouldn't make a big difference. It's not like money is THE deciding factor for a lot of kids. Most high school kids want to stay closer to home and find a place where theyre comfortable. Money is just sweetener when it comes to recruiting the top talent
I see you are new to this discussion. It is estimated the majority (closer to 50 than 90) of the top 100 football recruits are influenced by illegal payments and the majority (closer to 25 than 15) of the top 25 basketball recruits are influenced by illegal money.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:19 AM ^
Influence is subjective. Of course it influences decisions, but it's not the one deciding factor that it's made out to be. Michigan opening up the pocket book doesn't propel them to a top 5 class every year just by itself. Do you think Otis Reese would've come to Michigan if he were being paid to (presuming Georgia was also paying)?
April 10th, 2018 at 10:24 AM ^
I got the feeling that money may have been a factor, but that was just a kid who really wanted to go to Georgia.
However, I do think the pocket book would've made a difference, for example, with Isaiah Wilson--a New York kid who was trending hard to Michigan and abruptly flips to Georgia under some smoke.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:41 AM ^
Isaiah Wilson is a good counter. I would agree that we would have a better chance with those type of situations but overall I don't think it changes our classes that dramatically.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:53 AM ^
Just looking back really quickly, Wilson was Georgia's top get that year. In addition, I wonder how our perspective is warped by recruiting battles that actually come to fruition. Like, of the 100+ offers Michigan puts out, how many more would turn out to be actual battles if Michigan could ante up?
April 10th, 2018 at 10:32 AM ^
Yes. Do you think LaQuon Treadwell, Larry Tunsil and Robert Nkemdiche would have gone to Ole Miss if they weren't getting paid?
April 10th, 2018 at 10:43 AM ^
The question is how frequently this makes a difference, and my view is: frequently enough to make a difference. There are enough dudes who are highly-ranked that this would actually influence their decision towards Michigan.
do you think shea patterson would have?
No, what's your point?
April 10th, 2018 at 12:54 PM ^
You could play the Otis Reese argument just as well the other way. Georgia kid, really wants to play close to home, but Michigan is offering $350K to sign and Georgia is only offering $150K to sign. Home town kid suddenly decides to play out of state.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:21 AM ^
I think this sounds about right, but your numbers are pretty specific. Was there some study done on this?
April 10th, 2018 at 10:18 AM ^
I mean, if that's the case, if where you live is that much of a factor, how is 'Bama feasting so hard on recruits, when they have only a couple of blue chip guys in-state? I think your response would have something to do with their success, which is fair. But I think the money would tip things in Michigan's favor far more than this.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:37 AM ^
I take 'local' to mean 'within the region'. Most of USCs recruits come from the west coast. LSU recruits extremely well but they mostly get kids from the south. It is difficult to convince a high school kid and his family that they will be comfortable far from home when the US has so many cultural differences between regions.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:42 AM ^
I might be pointing out some rare exceptions, but it's guys like Treadwell that really make me think money could be critical. A kid from Chicago who ends up in the Deep South out of the blue.
I agree this is not the road we want to go down. But after watching "All In" What is wrong with getting our players some better living quarters. I live in Kentucky and that basketball dorm in Lexington is designed for tall players. I remember during a pont in the show Coach Harbaugh asking one of the players if he could fit in the bed.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:00 AM ^
Temporary rooms in South Quad for ALL the players. When camp breaks upper classmen move into their off campus housing. Freshmen move into their permanent rooms and they do have extra long beds when needed. (I used to work dorm move-in week).
April 10th, 2018 at 10:06 AM ^
I'm pretty sure the impact would be considerable, especially depending on how you view the differences between getting a top 100 guy and a top 20 guy, on average.
don't, and we won't, so who cares.
I understand what you're going for, but Michigan is more likely to play an "ineligible" Shea than start cheating in that way. Some of the biggest limitations we have are the high academic requirements for admission (which I'm happy keeping that way), the fact other programs aren't clean and for some reason, weather. Paying players under the table would bring a few big names, but wouldn't give us classes like Bama.
I'm 100% fine giving the NCAA the finger, but not that way.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:09 AM ^
Paying players under the table, with Michigan's resources should be a massive advantage, right? Especially after a year or two, where you establish some reputation with players.
Also, I agree it wouldn't happen, though I have no moral problem with Michigan 'cheating' in this way except for the impact it has on non-cheaters (e.g., Wisconsin, probably). These kids are getting looted compared to their open-market value.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:27 AM ^
we are not Alabama. We have shared one national championship in the last 60 years. We have yet to play in a conference championship game. Everybody here (almost everybody) loves Michigan but we are not on the same level as Alabama as a football program and are not thought of in the same way that Bama (or even OSU) is nationally.
Yes, we have "resources" but none of the players coming up right now view Michigan as some kind of football power. Recruits right now were not even born in 1997. A lot of the top tier recruits that come to Michigan typically do so, in part, for academic considerations. If we "recruited" the way some other schools do we would some day probably get those mega-classes but it wouldn't happen right away until we established true relevance again on the field.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:39 AM ^
I'm not saying money is everything, but I think it has a greater impact than you're estimating here. A guy like Isaiah Wilson who goes to Michigan instead of Georgia makes a considerable difference to that class, for example. And he's a pretty good candidate for getting paid. Overall, yes, it would take a little time to get up to elite levels like 'Bama/Clemson.
April 10th, 2018 at 11:02 AM ^
April 10th, 2018 at 11:08 AM ^
I'm reminded of their involvement with Gary, which is probably why I mentioned them. But you're absolutely right.
What is the "open market value" of these kids, and, if it is so much better than what they are offered at Michigan, why don't they go play where the mrket compensates them better than Michigan does?
You do understand what a "market value" is, right? It's what someone will pay.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:13 AM ^
Every time I hear this argument and it is only half-true at best. UM will take a kid who barely passes NCAA clearinghouse minimums, which are WAY below any of UM's non-athlete non-major donor minimums.
The difference between us and Bama is that we might take ~10-25% of kids that low, whereas Bama will take as many as they need. Not all of Bama's kids are low qualifiers, though either.
April 10th, 2018 at 10:50 AM ^
April 10th, 2018 at 11:13 AM ^
April 10th, 2018 at 10:00 AM ^
April 10th, 2018 at 10:13 AM ^
April 10th, 2018 at 10:03 AM ^
April 10th, 2018 at 10:09 AM ^
on the asinine off season threads, yesterday candiy, today this. I only want to catch the up swing though something tells me it will be June-ish before we hit the bottom.