Its Mike Farrell so...right there.
But he offers his opinion--because we're all so interested--on weird 2013 recruiting situations and includes Dawson and Conley's recruitment with Michigan.
Apparently Hoke's commitment policy doesnt work...
Much more content beyond Michigan too but predicts Conley to O$U.
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1445291
Oh good, the opinion I value
Premise is incorrect
The premise that Hoke "can't enforce his rule" is 100% wrong. Hoke never said he won't recruit students he regards as "decommits," or that they can't play at Michigan; he just said he isn't holding their spot until they stop visiting other schools and recommit.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
(No subject)
I put up a tough front, but deep down I just want to be held.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Because half of the population is stupid.
Just half?
Just half?
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
Depends on what population you're talking about...
I once attended a fooball game south of here and was joined by 200 players, 500 band members, 500 members of the media, 10,000 students, and (according to a notable source) 80,000 truck drivers. More than half were stupid.
We're gonna play with toughness, we're gonna be responsible and we're gonna play with toughness. This is Michigan.
You are selecting on the
You are selecting on the dependent variable. Certain people self-select into certain categories, such as being a fan of certain sports teams.
It appears to be harsher than
It appears to be harsher than that. With Brown, there was an immediate and clean break, and there was essentially that with Dawson too. It sounds like Dawson will ultimately end up in the class, but we very nearly lost a 4* kid who ultimately wanted to come to Michigan. The staff appears to lack bedside manner in dealing with these wavering kids.
If Hoke is going to stick with his "no visits" policy, then he at least needs to reconsider his policy of turning away or slow playing blue-chippers like Schutt, Burbridge, Pocic, or Levenberry. The first two on those list ended up with our rivals.
We passed on Burbridge
We passed on Burbridge because of grades.
How would you have handled guys like Pocic and Levenberry? We didn't have room to take them. Would you rather the coaches string them along? And the rumor was that we didn't take Schutt to lock up Pipkins, which is fine with me.
I don't think it's a lack of bedside manner, it's a strict rule. This will help with most kids, and it will turn away one or two a year probably. That's the cost of doing business. Chances are, most of the guys we lost, we would have anyway without the rule. This rule, remember, isn't what made Pharaoh Brown interested in Oregon, same with Conley and OSU.
And yet Burbridge ended up
And yet Burbridge ended up making grades and playing for our biggest rival, giving them the #1 player in the state of Michigan three years in a row, while we struggled with a roster full of guys who can't get separation (other than Gallon) on any consistent basis.
How would I have handled Pocic and Levenberry? I would have given them a spot if they had wanted one, knowing that there is always attrition, and there will always be a spot that opens up over the next 12 months. Whichs precisely what has happened. If, for some freaky reason, spots do not open up, then that means you don't get to take a long snapper or a 3* depth receiver. Turns out, we did have room for both guys, as evidenced by the offers we have been sending our lately.
The rule isn't what made Pharoh Brown visit Oregon, but it is what made him permanently exiled from the class once he decided to take that visit. Maybe he would have picked Oregon anyways. I have no idea. What I do know is that two out of the three guys who have been affected by this policy have experienced harsh, abrupt breaks from Michigan immediately. The fact that it looks like one of those guys has come crawling back to Michigan asking for another chance doesn't mean that the policy doesn't deserve some scrutiny. Especially in light of the fact that Hoke fills spots rigidly and then turns away Top 200 talent after he fills those spots.
Anyhow, the context here is "why do people still have problems with Hoke's no-visit policy"?, and I have tried to explain why people are at least a bit apprehensive about it.
Did Brubridge have that great a year at MSU?
I don't think he was the instant help you seem to think he would have been.
If you were in charge of the football program we'd have a class with ten linebackers and 8 offensive linemen. Then wonder in 3 or 4 years why we were so thin at a particular position.
Kinda like wondering now if a 1 offensive lineman class was a good idea....
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
"How would I have handled
"How would I have handled Pocic and Levenberry? I would have given them a spot if they had wanted one, knowing that there is always attrition, and there will always be a spot that opens up over the next 12 months."
Yeah, that works out great until you have 10 linemen, 8 linebackers, 4 quarterbacks...
No team operates on a level where they take whoever wants to commit. They try to get what they need, and they address additional needs when they arise.
Just because Aaron Burbridge had the grades to get into MSU doesn't mean that Michigan would want him. He reportedly barely qualified, which could mean trouble down the road. Rich Rodriguez took a bunch of academic risks, and look where that got us - a team that completely lacked depth in the defensive backfield.
Yeah, sometimes I think people miss the difference between
qualify and academic fit. Sure, we take our risks now and then. Everyone does. But the fact is even though getting into one school means getting into another, it's just harder to make the grade and stay eligible for four years at a school like Michigan than it is at MSU. Or most other schools. They don't have to just get in, they have to stay. And no matter how easy the classes are (or aren't) there's a reason kids accepted into a lesser school who have nothing to do with athletics don't get into Michigan.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
RichRod didn't take any bad
RichRod didn't take any bad grades guys who would have made it at MSU. Dorsey wouldn't have made it anywhere. When it comes to athletes, they are the same as us. And it's not like taking a guy like Demar Dorsey makes us worse. If he doesn't make grades, we are the same as we were before. Unless he scares off somebody else good, which is very unlikely. With Burbridge, that is definitely not what happened. We did not have a completely full class, and his not coming to Michigan didn't allow us to get another blue chipper.
Also, I'm pretty sure that successful programs aren't turning away Top 200 talent as anything more than a rare exception. I can't think of us ever getting a high 4* guy because OSU turned him away.
Taking a guy like Demar
Taking a guy like Demar Dorsey COULD make us worse. A scholarship used on him prevents us from using that scholarship on someone else, even if it's a 3-star kid. Each and every academic risk that Rodriguez took was one roster spot taken away, and even if those lower rated guys don't often pan out, at least one or two of them might have developed into decent players.
Things I trust Brady Hoke's
Things I trust Brady Hoke's opinion on over Mike Farrell's = Everything.
Funny. TomVH did an article
Funny. TomVH did an article a bit ago about how Hoke's policy helps keep commits. Which should I believe concerning UM recruiting?
I seriously wonder about the
I seriously wonder about the mentality of folks who post an article that they so clearly dislike by someone they so clearly give so little credence to. Is it sadistic pleasure and thus self-agrandizement derived from wasting others' time?
Sadistic pleasure.
Yes. You said it.
I thought we decided using
I thought we decided using "O$U" was stupid.
Mama says, "stupid is as
Mama says, "stupid is as stupid does."
Maybe
His "s" on his keyboard is broken. It happens!
“Well, I was this close to bringing a sinner to Jesus, and now he is consigned to eternal damnation. I hope that you’re happy.” - Boyd Crowder, Justified
That explains why I didn't
That explains why I didn't see him at that super secret MGoBlog meeting...
"Oh no, no, I'm not in the group yet. No, I'm afraid I just blue myself."
All the people who start
All the people who start threads "Any news on ____?" didn't get invited either.
"The straightest line from A to B is straight: From A to B"
"When you have Denard Robinson, you can have everything"
~George Walden
Negged for "O$U"
Negged for "O$U"
USING GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF CAPS LOCK SINCE APRIL 2011
I'm not sure what's unclear
I'm not sure what's unclear about a policy that says "If you're taking visits I no longer consider you committed." If that scares away recruits from committing then they weren't really committing anyway. Duh.
No kidding. If it helps to
No kidding. If it helps to eliminate the whole notion of place holder commitments, I'm all for it.
Why is it apparent that
Why is it apparent that Hoke's policy doesn't work?
From A Nick Baumgardner Piece...
Here's what I think is the most succinct quote from a Nick Baumgardner piece back in October (LINK):
"Hoke says he asks his commits to not visit other schools, and at the same time, he gives his firm word that the player in question will always (in most instances) have a scholarship offer from Michigan throughout the recruiting process."
So, I guess I don't understand where Mike Farrell is trying to go with his indictment of the policy here. As far as I am aware, what is quoted above has always been the position. This staff lets people take their time but makes it clear that, once you make a decision either way, it's time to move forward either with Michigan or without. I think that's pretty fair.
"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."
Follow the random tweets of a Michigan alum - http://twitter.com/#!/LorneEC3
Problem
The problem is the definition of 'worked'.
I don't think Hoke's policy is to insure every player becomes a Wolverine. Hoke is trying to insure that the promise kept by him and the kid are true...that is all. And if kids waver, so be it...and if they come back fully committed, all the better.
neoavatara.com/blog
I will need Pam Ward's
I will need Pam Ward's opinion on this matter as well as Jason Whitlocks before I can make up my mind on whether or not I like Hoke's policy.
The problem with following
The problem with following recruiting so closely is people extrapolate what's going on in various situations from extremely limited information. Tens or even hundreds of conversations are happening with these kids on a daily basis, and we are privy to none of them. This is why, even when something seems annoying or some recruit or coach doesn't do what seems appropriate in a particular situation, I try and keep my mouth shut. Nobody knows exactly what coach Hoke's policy is. Nobody knows what Dawson did while flirting with Florida. Nobody knows exactly what it was that made Coach Wilcher make his 'ship has sailed' statement. And nobody knows what words were exchanged between Hoke and Dawson before the re-offering of the scholarship. I think for that reason we should all try and do a better job of limiting the discussion to class needs and player skills. Just my 2 cents.
Also Mike Farrell is a clown.
Call Mr. Plow, that's my name, that name again is Mr. Plow
People are reading way too
People are reading way too much into this and getting all bent out of shape over nothing. If you take visits to other schools you aren't really committed to Michigan, so according to the coaches you aren't officially committed either. It's not only fair, and completely reasonable, it's also a good idea. Honestly I think it helps the program by knowing who's really in your class, and it helps kids to make up their minds and stick with it, instead of us going through the ridiculous drama filled recruiting sagas that Mr Farrell makes money covering like Bryce Brown, Jordan Payton, or recently Nkemdiche stringing multiple programs on openly.
"that's why you don't go to Ohio State, Lawrence"
Agreed
Everyone spends so much time speculating how this should work. I am pretty sure that home could care less what mike Farrell thinks. He runs this program and has a relationship with these kids. I do not see a problem with him assessing the situation and making a decision that benefits both parties.
How can you extrapolate
How can you extrapolate anything from less than a complete sentence by a recruiting analyst's comment? He doesn't like no visit policies? Who cares!! Seriously, grabbing for straws just to bitch about something.
"Everybody thinks of changing humanity, but nobody thinks of changing himself." - Leo Tolstoy
I like the policy only because
it makes recruiting interesting and it differentiates Hoke from many other coaches, although not all of them.
At least a national recruiting analyst is covering Michigan and our principles.
Wait to see the coverage when he requires UM tattoos upon verbal commitment ...
"Everybody wants to be a hero, so to speak. But it takes everybody." - Charles Woodson
Conley prediction...?
Mike Farrell is an ass hat...got that off my chest and I feel better. Anyways,
I don't understand how Farrell makes the statement, "Conley probably ends up at Ohio State." What about Conley's recruitment makes him think that he will "probably" end up at Ohio? I think that is a huge assumption with no solid evidence other than his all powerful Oz prediction powers. Lastly I enjoyed his deductive skills...that Conley's official visit to Michigan is on the 14th, and that this is another example of how Hoke's no visit policy doesn't work. He picks two examples, two very unique and odd examples, and deducts that this no visit policy doesn't work? The fact that Hoke expects a commitment to be a commitment is not reasonable? What's so difficult for a recruit to commit when they are absolutely sure they want to come to Michigan? He cites two examples, from three that I can remember(P.Brown), and disregards how we've kept 40+ commits true to Michigan; that type of record sounds like clear failure for Hoke *sarcasm*
Hoke 2016
The godfather of recruiting
The godfather of recruiting has spoken. Now Hoke must change his policy. Please, Farrel doesn't know anything about running a college football program and the task of keeping recruits committed for several months.
Damn
The policy doesn't work. Too bad. I suppose we must now disregard these ridiculous classes Hoke is assembling.
Mike Farrell
...is an ass hat.
That is all.
“True loyalty is that quality of service that grows under adversity and expands in defeat. Any street urchin can shout applause in victory, but it takes character to stand fast in defeat. One is noise — the other, loyalty.”
Mike Farrell writes like the
Mike Farrell writes like the stream of consciousness of a 5 year old. He can't even remember what he wrote one paragraph ago. His example #1 is complaining that Max Redfield is basically psuedo-committing to multiple schools and jerking everyone around and then he turns right around in example #2 and criticizes Hoke's policy to not let commits visit other schools.
"What the heck
is going on with recruiting these days?"
Hoke knows the exact policy
Hoke knows the exact policy and Hoke isn't telling us.
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
- Vince Lombardi
The Mind of Mike Farrell
is a scary place indeed. He seems to contradict himself through the entire article.
"I am excited to be with Brady and I am excited about where this program is headed" D C Coach Mattison
Oh good, the opinion I value least on this matter has finally arrived.
"Michigan Defense" is dominating everything, in every aspect of life. That's a rough definition.
-Craig Roh 10/29/2011