Recruiting - Last Four Spots
With the commitment from Chesson at WR, Michigan filled perhaps the greatest remaining need for the incoming class.
From my understanding, this leaves only two solid needs, and a third lesser need:
- OL - Josh Garnett, Jordan Diamond, Alex Kozan, outside chance for Kyle Dodson.
- TE - Sam Grant, Pharaoh Brown, and outside chance for McNamara.
- CB - Yuri Wright, Armani Reeves.
I definitely see a positive outlook for a commitment from at least one in each of these position groups. Should that happen, and if it works out for 3 to enroll early, Michigan would have one last spot for the best available athlete at any spot (or, there is an unexpected 5th year renewal, or a scholarship to give to a walk on, an unexpected transfer in.)
Am I missing anything? (other than sleep.)
December 25th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
December 24th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
I thought the max number of players a team can sign is 25?
December 24th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
In the B1G you can sign up to 28, provided you have 3 early enrollees (Bolden, Ringer, Wilson this year) that you can backdate to the previous class. You can only backdate up to 3 and only if that class has room under the 25 per year limit. We signed 20 last class, so we're good on that front. And of course, there's always the 85 total limit. We have room for 26 and attrition should allow us 28 without problem.
December 24th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
if there are no early enrollers. But you game 1 additional scholarship (if you have them available and only up to a max of 28? or maybe 29) per student athlete that enrolls early
December 24th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^
December 24th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
1. That is premium content and Brian has rules against it being posted
2. It is Heininger. The way you spelled his names makes me think you have never watch a game this season.
December 24th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
I understand that you can't post premium content. However,
- I think you can post the teaser heading, which in this case was done (i.e., someone on the DL who has started is injured.)
- Sometimes, there is someone on the board who either through inside info or another source rather than the pay site, is able to provide info.
- Given 1 & 2 above, the info provided (someone is hurt) doesn't reveal premium content, but restates the header at Rivals. The speculation is merely speculation, and doesn't reveal content (obv., by the spelling.) Lastly, perhaps someone on the board can provide illumination to the fear that we have injuries keeping two guys from playing in the Sugar Bowl.
December 24th, 2011 at 2:19 PM ^
From Brian's policy-
<br>
<br>Earlier today a thread got pulled because it was too specific about paywalled content. A slightly vaguer thread popped up and will stand even though it relates the gist in about four different replies. (Gist: w00t Dee Hart, something that was apparent from Tom's interview Saturday.) So what's the policy around here?
<br>Hell if I know, really. Pulling the first thread was pointless. A new one popped up instantly and provided basically the same information. I think it's actually worse for us legally to pull certain threads for counterintuitive DMCA reasons. In any case you can't copyright a fact, only its expression, legal attempts to revive "hot news doctrine" aside. Strict policing is a waste of time for little benefit, done on behalf of a site that nukes links to mgoblog on sight.
<br>The information will spread whether or not we deploy the iron fist. The net impact of strict policing of premium content will be to obscure the source of the information. Instead of something coming from Rivals it will be a step removed or just asserted with no backing. A recent example: a premium post was replicated verbatim on HailVictors.com and then linked here pointing to HailVictors, not Scout.
<br>So:
<br>You might as well relate the gist of some paywalled content. It'll come out anyway.
<br>Do not C&P. Rephrase.
<br>Don't relate every last detail. Leave the paywalled content some value. In this case, "it looks good for Dee Hart and we should be getting good news relatively soon" would probably work.
<br>If you do so, provide a link. Don't just say "Site X says." The link will draw some traffic, may spur conversions, and will help the site with search engine rankings.
<br>This is not a license to rephrase every rumble from an insider or the entire contents of an ITF. Sporadic and important are your watchwords.
<br>What gets deleted. Copy and pastes of any premium content, even small sections that would be fair use of publicly available information. Posts that talk about premium content and do not link to the original source. Posts that relate every detail. And some posts that don't rise to the "this will be reposted in twelve seconds" standard.
December 24th, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^
December 24th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
Why we are not recruiting any more D tackles? There is no way the coaching staff is that comfortable with Big Will, Ash, Big Q and a true frosh in Pipkins.
<br>
<br>Am I missing something??
December 24th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
Are you certain that there is no way the coaches are satisfied? DT recruiting has been the biggest mystery to us all season, but clearly the coaches have a plan. I don't think DT recruiting will get overlooked when we essentially have 3 DL coaches.
December 24th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
Wouldn't they have recruited more if they weren't satisfied?
December 24th, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
the article currently on the front page. It is very well written and informative and will likely answer your question.
December 24th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
It could be a very intersteing development on NSD. If Garnett commits, i wonder if the strength of this OL class would be a factor for Dunn, as could be running behind a top 5 OL in the country during his career, and possibly sway him. If I remember correctly he is not an EE any longer. Just saying.
December 24th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^
He's not going anywhere. If we were to recruit another RB it would be Juwan Lewis, Rushel Shell, or a surprise name. I could see us banking a schollie or taking a run at a QB like Bart Houston.
December 24th, 2011 at 3:15 PM ^
Thanks for the clarification, regarless of who else we end up getting i'm so proud of the class we have at this point.
December 24th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^
Someone spill it...I mean...WTF is going on!?