Instate recruiting; what's the big deal?
I don't really get why a lot of people are obsessed with recruiting the state of Michigan. Maybe, because I am not from Michigan I don't really understand it, but who cares if MSU gets the majority of instate kids? As long as we get the one or two or five that WE want I could really care less where the others go.
You think USC fans are upset that their starting WR's are from Arkansas and Michigan or that their RB is from Louisiana?
You think Florida fans were pissed everytime Percey Harvin touched the ball because he was from Virginia?
Hell, we won a National Championship with a QB from Miami and our best player was from Ohio.
Yes, its great to recruit your state and its important to keep those relationships with the HS coaches closest to you. But this is Michigan we are talking about. I for one still think we are a Top 10 program and shouldn't be throwing around scholarships to kids simply because they have a Michigan address. Let's go after the best kids available...I could care less if our entire team was from Alaska as long as we were playing for a title every five years.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
Posts like this. If no one mentions it, it will go away. But people keep bringing it up. I call for a ban on all posts on instate recruiting for rest of the year. I'm tired of hearing the complaining and bitching and moaning.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
It's an inside joke, we are mocking the press' various articles praising Dantonio for "out recruiting" Michigan because they are getting more in-state prospects, ignoring the fact that we are getting better ones elsewhere.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:02 AM ^
in saying that we should take the best players we can find, no matter where they're from.
My biggest reason for wanting to dominate in-state recruiting is that it calms the shit storm of bad press. If we're getting every recruit we want in Michigan, it takes some of the wind out of Spartan apologists.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
I think the importance of in-state recruiting will slowly go the way of the dodo bird. With the increasing number of television channels showing football, the internet, and just general globalization, recruiting in-state will become less and less important.
Local people want to see local kids play at local schools. But as the term "local" becomes more and more meaningless due to internet and television, it won't matter as much.
At the same time, if Ronald Johnson were playing CB for us instead of Donovan Warren, don't you think you would care just a little bit more about Johnson and the team's success? If Joseph Barsdale were playing OG for us instead of Stephen Schilling, wouldn't that make a little bit of a difference? Nick Perry instead of Anthony Lalota? Etc.
We're from Michigan (many of us, anyway). We want to see kids that we know or that we grew up with or that we used to see on Friday nights, we want to see them excel and stay on "our side."
August 13th, 2009 at 11:21 AM ^
...that's probably the only reason anyone had any sense of pathos when hearing the news that Helmuth was leaving the program.
I agree with the rest, and don't see that many schools which are national powers continuing with the in-state emphasis. Notable exceptions: Texas, Alabama, Florida, LSU, and a few other select schools. Others have to look nationally for success.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
I get what you are saying, but like I said, I am not from Michigan so it doesn't really matter to me but I do see your point. Your RoJo and Barksdale examples are the type of players I am down with. I definitely think we should go after and get those types of players but after the Top 5 or so are gone, I really don't care where are players come from.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:50 AM ^
Sure, of course we don't want to miss out on the local 5 star players that you mentioned. Who wants to miss out on a local 5 star player?
However, this point seems to be moot as the topic is MSU vs UofM in state recruiting. MSU gets mostly 3 star players in state with a few 4 star players recently.
Sure I was thrilled to see Terrence Taylor get a sack, knowing that he played in the same conference as my high school growing up.
But to expand on your theme would you have more enjoyment of UofM football if we took:
-4 star Michigander Justin Hoskins (we did not offer) over 3 star New Yorker Mike Hart
-Would we be willing to give up Desmond Howard to get the best WR in the state of Michigan in 1989?
I think you just trust the coaches to go for the best players nationally that fit your system.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:03 PM ^
I think you're missing my point. Maybe I should be clearer.
I think most Michigan fans would prefer a U of M player who gains 1,500 yards and is from Michigan over a U of M player who gains 1,500 yards and is from Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, or Illinois.
If Mike Martin were from Pahokee instead of Catholic Central, would we care as much about him? If Will Campbell were from Spartanburg, SC, instead of Cass Tech, would we be so enamored with him?
August 13th, 2009 at 12:19 PM ^
I see a difference.
True, once on the team, I like it when we have players from my region in Michigan that perform well on the field.
However, when recruiting, I really don't care where they are from as long as I feel that we are getting the best prospects that we can nationally.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:20 PM ^
I'm just as enamored with out of state kids. Tate Forcier was my favorite recruit last year (over Campbell) and he's from Florida. I was also quite enamored with Taylor Lewan and he's from Arizona. I got giddy about the Jake Long 2.0 comparisons (I know, I know, it's too early..a fan can dream tho!)
August 13th, 2009 at 12:24 PM ^
Where are you from?
I think the excitement about Forcier would have been quelled a little bit if we had a Pat White or Terrell Pryor already in place. I think Forcier is a very good prospect, but let's be honest - part of the excitement is actually relief at finally having a QB who fits Rodriguez's system.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^
Denard Robinson is from Fl.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:27 PM ^
and have no idea why I wrote Florida. I think I actually had Anthony Carter on my mind when I wrote that.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
Agreed. Maybe it makes a difference if you grew up in Michigan, but as someone who did not, I don't really care where our stars come from as long as they're stars. I like Mike Martin because he had a good freshman season and his play is pivotal to our success on defense this season, not because he is a Michigan guy.
August 13th, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^
because they play for my favorite team and really care nothing about where they are from (I am not from Mich. FWIW). I think seeing a local kid is cool and if, as Magnus said, all things are equal than sure, take the local kid. The thing is all things aren't equal and most of the kids we are getting from out of state are superior to the ones we are passing on from Mich.
Bottom line to me is, it doesn't matter which sport you are discussing, I want the best players regardless of geography. My favorite hockey team has a bunch of Russians on it but they win games so who give a flying f#*k.
August 13th, 2009 at 2:41 PM ^
Though I no longer live in state, I spent the greater part of 25 years there. It never mattered to me where players came from. As soon as they suited up in a Michigan uniform, I loved them all (even ginormous white receiver freaks like Paul Jockish).
I can't imagine I would have been any fonder of Desmond Howard, Charles Woodson, Jim Harbaugh, Mike Hart or Tim Biakabatuka had they played HS ball in Michigan. (And oddly enough, in Woodson and Howard's case—and any other player from that state down south—I've always had a particular fondness for them because they're from Ohio). It's no secret the majority of the more memorable Michigan players haven't come from Michigan, at least not over the last couple of decades. I've never cared. To me, there's no difference between Rick Leach, Lamar Woodley, Braylon, David Harris, Jake Long, etc. and guys like Chad Henne, John Kolesar, Tony McGee, or Shawn Crable. Sure I felt some sense pride regarding the local products, but I've never rooted for them harder because they hailed from Michigan.
August 13th, 2009 at 2:44 PM ^
Personally, I'm a lifelong Michigander and I couldn't care less what state our players are from. It means nothing to me. I can't believe it's a big deal to many people. Maybe it is to some "casual fans" who don't really follow college sports (and thus need a local connection to stay interested), but I doubt it matters to diehard fans.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:25 PM ^
I could root for Mike Martin if he had gone to Divine Child instead of Catholic Central. Booooooooo.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:18 AM ^
I don't care where they are from! MSU can have every recruit from Michigan as long as we are killing them in the field! RR will take the best for his system and leave the rest for little brother.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:20 AM ^
I do not disagree with the sentiment that we should recruit the best players regardless of what state or area of the United States they are from. However, recruiting is a tricky science in that you are required not only to get the best players, but also get ENOUGH players. It is all about probability. If you expend all of your resources recruiting kids from all corners of the country because they are the most highly rated prospects, you could lose of them because the probability of signing out of state blue-chip prospects is significantly lower than signing in-state talent. As they say: If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both.
Kids from a certain geographic location will be naturally inclined to go to school around there (having grown up there, having friends there, family there, etc.). So if you spend all your resources trying to pull in those low-probability recruits, you are neglecting the need to field a competent and deep football team. Good prospects from Michigan will be pre-disposed to liking in-state schools, like Michigan. They therefore have a higher probability of going there, thus the importance of paying attention to in-state prospects.
Also, I believe there is a morale factor involved. People that go to Michigan are often from Michigan, and thus there is a desire from boosters and fans alike to see one of their own suit up for Michigan rather than some kid from Oklahoma or something.
August 13th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^
From my experience, boosters and fans alike care more about winning than anything else.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:24 AM ^
...for the crap that Michigan has taken the past couple of years for "recruiting poorly" in Michigan, the Wolverines have more Michigan kids on their roster than Michigan State. I realize it's due to walk-ons, but it's worth mentioning, because kids wouldn't go there if they didn't feel welcome or that it was worth doing.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
It's only as big a deal as you make of it.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:00 PM ^
I agree with the major sentiment of this thread in that it's not so much where you recruit the player as who it is. MSU is not as one would say an established national recruiter, at least not on the scale as UM and other schools are, so it's natural it would want to be more conservative in its approach and stick to guys closer to home who have that added sentimental incentive to go to the hometown program. Knowing the school from which you get your player, though, seems like a valuable and important factor in correctly evaluating how good the player is and how good of a fit your school will be, to some extent. The resources necessary to scour southeast Michigan's schools would be tiny in comparison to the money needed to scout the FL/TX/CA hotbeds of the country. But Michigan has been reaching all over the place and picking up talent in other states for years now, so they're bound to be familiar with those areas, plus they have the clout and the money to pull it off. For Michigan, there is no such thing as a player they can't at least get to listen to them; for other schools, this is not the case, and they're in over their heads. RR and his staff knows what they're doing.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:14 PM ^
if your state is FL, TX, or CA; you can build a National Champion in any of those states solely through instate recruiting. Also, to a lesser extent, it's important in PA, OH, GA and LA. Otherwise, it's counterproductive to concentrate on it if it detracts from national recruiting.
MSU and their supporters constantly search for any edge in recruiting and a place to "hang their hat" concerning the instate rivalry. They have found both in "instate recruiting." That should get them a nice spot in the upper division of the little eight for as long as they want, but they won't even sniff the Rose Bowl or the NC game.
Meanwhile, UM will continue to expand its national scope and presence in states where the best athletes play, and we will, as usual, get the last laugh.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:19 PM ^
Like I've said every single time this has been brought up, Michigan has gotten higher ranked classes than MSU has had under Dantonio and that is all that matters to me.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^
Dantonio clearly has a strategy to boost MSU's stature, and make no mistake - he is the one pushing this meme to the media who have annointed him the the classy noblese foil to the dark lord Rodriguez and will lap up any meme he pushes until M is dominating MSU again.
Of course, if having the greatest number of players from Michigan is the standard, as others have noted we still have more players from Michigan on our roster than MSU, and some of the directional schools probably have us both beat.
The key - and this is the key - is whether we are getting the kids from Michigan that we want, and in that department, we are doing ok, but losing a few more battles to MSU than we would like.
Genuinely sarcastic (see link in Mgoblog side bar) did a great analysis of this "Sparty owns instate" meme earlier this week and you should check it out.
August 13th, 2009 at 2:26 PM ^
While I won't say in-state recruiting matters as much as people say it does, it's useful to have the perception as a school that likes in-state players so the best ones have an extra incentive to stay. You don't want to be another good national program; you want to be the elite in-state program for Michigan players.
None of this really justifies snatching up inferior Michigan recruits over superior recruits from out of state, which is also the college's approach to regular students. But, the negative coverage of Michigan hurts us when the school is pursuing highly touted in-state recruits.
tl;dr version: It matters only because of perception, but that perception is useful for keeping good in-state recruits.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:03 PM ^
Im from Michigan and honestly to me I dont really care if the best player is from the conference (OK Red) I went to HS in. Yes I would like the best players from Michigan, its only natural. But to get bent out of shape because a few mid level recruits from Michigan chose MSU over UM, I'm fine with it as long as Michigan recruits better plays. They can be from MI, OH, PA, FL, CA, TX, wherever...doesnt matter much to me.
I think the only main thing about winning in-state is just to keep the brand of Michigan alive over people growing up wanting to be MSU fans. However I think people will be fans of the team that wins more, not has more instate recruits. If that were the case the local DII schools would dominate the Michigan fanbase.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:40 PM ^
I think this whole discussion misses the point completely.
Instate recruiting matters because you're much more likely to have to play against the kids that slip away. If you miss out on a Florida kid, he probably went to Florida or Miami or Alabama or whatever. In the Rivals rankings for Michigan in 2009, the top 17 went to a Big Ten school. The top 13 went to Michigan, MSU, or OSU. The entire top 35 went to a Big Ten school, a school in Michigan, or a border-state school.
You have to be spot-on about the players you evaluate instate, because if you let a good one slide he'll almost certainly bite you in the ass at some point. For the same reason, it's vital that you do get the ones you target. Every time we get a player that MSU wanted and offered, it's a double whammy, and vice versa.
August 13th, 2009 at 4:28 PM ^
But this doesn't just apply to in-state kids. There's a good chance that any kid from the Midwest will go to a Big Ten school or Notre Dame.