Recruiting - Last Four Spots

Submitted by StephenRKass on

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.)

MGoBoard
Football
Recruiting

wlubd

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.

Joined: 02/26/2009

MGoPoints: 7188

robbyt003

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

Joined: 10/25/2010

MGoPoints: 11828

randyfloyd

December 24th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^

on Rivals, about two DL being out for the bowl game. No names were mentioned, but one of them has started before. I don't mean to speculate, but I'm thinking one could be Hettinger, because he has battled injuries all season.

Joined: 08/19/2008

MGoPoints: 3588

StephenRKass

December 24th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

I understand that you can't post premium content. However,

  1. 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Joined: 07/15/2008

MGoPoints: 22989

M-Wolverine

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.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

umichjenks

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??

Joined: 03/16/2009

MGoPoints: -98809

ken725

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.

Joined: 10/26/2008

MGoPoints: 32857

FL_Steve

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.

Joined: 01/14/2009

MGoPoints: 1866