Michigan will look at JUCO/graduate transfers at QB
April 10th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^
I'm mostly concerned with scholly space. Aren't we still missing one scholarship spot right now?
April 10th, 2013 at 12:19 PM ^
Yes. We currently have 86 guys who need to be on scholarship by the fall.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^
Is there any possibility of getting a JUCO or graduate transfer as a preferred walk-on?
But....but...this is Michigan...fer goshsakes.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^
Does that include any walk ons who received a scholarship last year but may not this year?
Nope. Here's the list I'm using:
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2013/03/2013-scholarship-count.html
April 10th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
Sypniewski's scholarship was a maybe so they're at 85 right now, needing to be at that same number by the end of fall. The question whether one guy won't be on the squad anymore come 8/31 isn't really a question.
However at this point you almost have to count Burzynski and Kerridge as scholarships since they've been first string all spring. And the two departures that were expected to be announced at the start of Spring were not (which is why we don't announce those things).
So there is a bit of a scholarship crunch if they add one more guy.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
I thought Sypniewski signed a LOI, which means Michigan is commited to giving him a scholarship?
Let me check my source. I was under the impression he didn't.
This makes it seem like he signed something: http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/signing-day-2013.html But maybe it was a conditional LOI? Do those exist?
Can they do half rides? I know that is common at smaller d1 and d2 schools.
Anyone on scholarship counts as a full scholarship used, it's not divisible like hockey or softball or baseball.
It's different though, like I mentioned in the comment above yours. Football gets 85 scholarships to give out, while a sport like baseball gets the cash value of twelve scholarships (not really, it goes by percent, but that's the easy way to think of it). If football gives a player a $100 scholarship, it still counts as 1/85.
Thanks JGB. My experience was with lacrosse and they must have a $ value to distribute just like baseball etc.
My experience with the percentage stuff (versus thinking dollars) was an accounting error that may have been made this summer which resulted in a refund check which hypothetically turned into food and drinks for a night. It was nice that a few tenths of a percent is an okay amount of dollars when dealing with big tuition numbers. (Hypothetically) good times.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
What would Nick do?
And laugh at the haters
April 10th, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^
This might not be necessary if the coaches had taken a QB in 2012.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:27 PM ^
April 10th, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^
That horse deserves to be thrashed. I love and trust these coaches.... but they aren't perfect and they really blew that one. It's even more frustrating when amateurs like us could see it so clearly. Nonetheless, I say again, lest I be misuderstood, I would not trade these coaches for anyone in the country... and they are human.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^
April 10th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^
It's not "common knowledge" if people are still arguing it further down in the thread...
whatever you do,dont go over to the GBMWolverine bkard and talk about this. Those guys go crazy! They know everything and you know nothing. They said that Michigan couldnt find a qb in that class worth taking. Yet they took Bellomy a year before??? you cant tell me they couldnt find a depth guy.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
The tail is still twitching.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^
Shavodrick Beaver I think he is available!
April 10th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
soon?
Not necessarily (too soon). In this case, I assume Cincy was referring to the fact that he has one year of eligibility remaining and is completing his academic senior year in the next few weeks.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:27 PM ^
Agree, but I cut them some slack considering we needed so much of pretty much everything at that time. I think taking more linemen and passing up on the QB wasn't a terrible idea considering it pays get the linemen on campus and start developing them as quick as possible. Maybe they thought that if a QB got injured, they could then re-visit the JUCOs or grad transfers at a later date. Or perhaps they thought Morris would be more college ready than he is. Either way, I don't think there were many great senarios either way with the 2012 class considering the lack of depth everywhere.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^
they should have known Bellomy was going to tear his ACL, right?
April 10th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
April 10th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^
was a Roadhouse reference... you win!
Your goddamn right it is
April 10th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
No one expects the spanish inquisition!
April 10th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
Nope...but they should have known it was a possibility. This is what happens when you don't build depth. We have a zillion inside linebackers (Morgan, Ross, Jenkins-Stone, Jones, Gedeon, Ringer, Poole, Bolden) and go 4-deep at BOTH inside linebacker spots, yet we go only 3-deep at the most important position on the field. Should they have known Poole and Ringer were going to get hurt? No. But it didn't matter because they had other guys to insert and compete.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:45 PM ^
with that totally, however I'd say in their defense, having a pro-style QB like Bellomy- the chance for injury seems to be much less than a dual-threat QB such as Denard.
April 10th, 2013 at 12:53 PM ^
There's plenty of evidence that this isn't really true. You only need to look at Maryland's season last year to see the importance of QB depth.
Maryland would imply that we need 6+ QBs on scholarship, since everyone on that team who threw the ball got injured.
Only if you don't believe in statistical outliers.
you're referencing one team and that's fine. But don't tell me that a pro-style QB is just as injury prone as a dual threat. Look at Vick, look at Denard. The more hits you take from guys 30-100lbs more than you, the higher the chance is that you're gonna get rocked. C'mon man, let's use some common sense here. You're obviously just trying to play devil's advocate for the sake of playing devils advocate. Now, if you would have said 'Chuckie my man! A dual-threat is more elusive and can avoid sacks better so he may get hit abou the same as a big tree sittin back there..' you might've had something.
April 10th, 2013 at 11:00 PM ^
You know how I know you haven't been around very long? You still think that running quarterbacks are more likely to get injured than a pocket passer.
Someone (Mathlete?) did a study on it about 4 years ago and compared the average number of games missed due to injury based on 3 categories: pocket passers, mobile quarterbacks, and running quarterbacks. Basically, there was no correlation between mobility and injury rate. The thought was that maybe running quarterbacks get injured more often, but since they are likely to be able to dodge hits, their injuries don't keep them out as long, whereas a pocket passer is either healthy or out for the season due to some major injury from being blindsided. IIRC, the mobile quarterbacks fared slightly better, although it was not statistically significant. I believe the thought behind that was that mobile quarterbacks take fewer hits because they aren't running around, but they can also dodge big hits.
Anyway, there is no evidence other than your anecdotal "evidence" that running quarterbacks are injured more often than passing quarterbacks.
I really hope not having a viable backup doesn't force Borges into abandoning the pistol, zone read, QB draw, inverted veer, etc
April 10th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
Magnus--
I agree that we needed to take a QB in '12. You are one of the most outspoken about this. But it's over now, it can't be changed. I get it, and like I said, I agree with you.
I would rather have an outstandingly succesful defense and a painful-to-watch offense than vice versa. It sucks watching a crappy offense sputter up and down the field, but it sure beats watching opponents run the ball at will on us.
Just saying.
I agree that defense is more important, but I don't see why taking 1 scholarship away from the inside linebacker spots and giving it to another QB would have been an issue. I have very few problems with what this coaching staff has done, whom they have offered, how they have used scholarships, etc. compared to when Rodriguez was here. I used to question whom Rodriguez offered, his use of redshirts, his play calling, his defensive prowess, etc. But this QB thing has bugged me all along about Hoke, and outside of that, I don't have much to question.