Recruiting vs. The Process ?

Submitted by MichiganMan14 on

Michigan's recruiting has been an interesting parallel to the actual performance on the football field in particular.   Fast promising starts that lead to under whelming and disappointing finishes.  Ohio should NOT be out-recruiting us in Football or Basketball but they are.  We should not be watching kids like Webb, McDowell and possibly Cole commit to other schools....but we have and just might lose out on the whole trio.  We have done a nice job in recruiting but we are now coming to face the consequences of broken promises and misleads.  Kids were being sold on winning the B1G and playing for National Titles.  We are no where near either of those goals.....and that is what Michigan should always be in contention for.  We haven't been a contender since 2006.  So when will it change?

 

The change has to come from a special team.  Possibly Team #135.  It seems like Michigan is attempting to cheat the process by reeling in 5 star talents to fix the problem before proven coaching and a restored "Brand" is in order.  Michigan needs to win and they need to win last year.....the excuses about 2nd year offense this and 3rd year offense that are lame and not what top talent wants to hear.  Top Talent wants to win and play top level college football.  Michigan is NOT playing top level college football at the moment....and when you retain the entire staff of a POWERHOUSE program that is severely underachieving you are not sending a message to recruits that you are serious about winning.  

 

Michigan needs to win 10 plus football games year in and year out and win rivalry games.  Thats what kids see and thats what will convince them to come to Michigan.  The recruits that aren't Michigan Kids need another reason besides the Winged Helmet to come to this program.  They want to win.  Ohio is winning.  Bama is winning.  FSU and Oregon are winning.  These programs can legitimately tell recruits that they will play for conference and National title games.  What can we legitimately tell our recruits?  Honestly.  We need to cut the  damn excuses and raise the expectation levels of this program immediately before we judge commits or recruits for looking elsewhere.  

The Change starts with the Kansas State game and anything less then a supreme sense of urgency around the program will simply speak loud and clear that we as a program have fully accepted our current and lengthy state of mediocrity.  The only thing that can pull us out of this mess is some improved coaching and the members of this football team deciding that they want it to look like Michigan again.  It's sure as hell been a while since we've seen some Michigan Football.  

 

We do need a Few Good Men and recruiting will always be paramount.  We need to focus on making sure that we have Michigan Level coaches and that they are developing our kids to be Michigan football players.  A few 10+ win seasons from now we could be where we want to be....and thats preparing for USC in the Rose Bowl.  Anything less is a failure and until we ALL start thinking like that, we will continue to look up to our Rivals in the standings.  

 

It's all in the Process and there are no shortcuts.  

 

 

wolverinenyc

December 18th, 2013 at 10:41 AM ^

This. Some players want to wear the winged helmet and they know that winning or losing with integrity while attending a world class university is what that means. Some players just want to play football and hopefully get to the pros. In either case it is their decison to make. Some kids will not come here no matter how much we win. there are some kids who are great talents we will not want here because they will not uphold the standards of being a Wolverine. I hate to lose as much as anyone but the "process" as it were is putting the best pieces in place that you can while not stooping to the dirty practices we all know go on in college athletics and then finding a way to win the right way. That takes more time. We may honestly be 2 years away from the team we want to be. In any case, George Cambell is a kid who wants to see whats best for him. I'd love to see him at Michigan and perhaps we still will. I have no problem with him making the best choice for him.

BiSB

December 18th, 2013 at 10:49 AM ^

Michigan doesn't exist on a separate plane from other schools. Michigan doesn't play on a different field than other schools. Michigan doesn't recruit in a different universe from other schools. "This is Michigan" is a fine mantra, but it's not a substantive thing.

There seems to be a sizeable portion of people who believe that RichRod failed because he didn't understand that This Is Michigan, and that Hoke succeeded in '11 because he DID understand it. And that is steaming bullshit. Michigan succeeds and fails for the same reasons other teams succeed and fail; talent, experience, playcalling, player execution, luck, etc.  Believe it or not, other teams have rich traditions, solid coaching staffs, and first-rate facilities. Michigan has some advantages when it comes to recruiting, but not the kind of universal trump card people seem to claim.

There isn't a Deus Ex Machina source of power and success that the coaches sometimes ignore or fail to tap. They're running in the same race as everyone else.

westwardwolverine

December 18th, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^

One thing you leave out in your examples that is very "telling": Coaching. 

Yes, lack of execution will hurt you. Yes, youth will hurt you. Yes, lack of talent because of attrition will hurt you. 

I said it higher up in the thread, but take a look at Oklahoma vs. Texas. Oklahoma is in the same situation as Michigan: Rival of a major school located in a state teeming with Division 1 talent without much local talent themselves. And yet, they've outperformed Texas over Bob Stoops' tenure. During a length of time that extends 15 years, surely Oklahoma and Texas have both faced all the challenges you listed...but Oklahoma has come out ahead. So what is the difference? Two schools with similar talent who play on a neutral field each year and one is consistently better than the other...could it be coaching? No, no. Not to a certain brand of Michigan fans. It HAS to be everything else but coaching. Lloyd Carr definitely wasn't 1-6 vs. Tressel because Tressel was a better coach, it was because of *all above listed factors* and OSU CHEATS!

That's what I don't get about the Borges (because I think we're pretty well set on Hoke being the coach for at least two more years due to him getting 2/3 of things right and not wanting to blow up everything) debate. The people who defend Hoke's decision to keep him around are basically saying he's not at fault AT ALL for the season and that he's doing a fine job and that its everything else BUT him that's the problem. That there is literally nothing Al Borges could have done better this season and there is no one out there who could have done a better job than he did. 

Meanwhile, the people who argue against keeping Borges agree that all those things are problems, but that there certainly must be someone better than Al Borges out there for the money we are willing to pay for a coordinator. Certianly there is someone out there who could have put together the offense to, at the very least put up 200 yards of offense against Nebraska and Iowa. 

But whatever. 

Space Coyote

December 18th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^

Who has said that at any point ever on this board?

"Meanwhile, the people who argue against keeping Borges agree that all those things are problems, but that there certainly must be someone better than Al Borges out there for the money we are willing to pay for a coordinator."

No bias in this argument.

westwardwolverine

December 18th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^

Its just the truth.

If you're advocating for keeping Borges when Michigan is willing to pay him the money they do, then you're saying he's not the problem and that we cannot do better than Borges. You're saying that he did not underperform and that Michigan's stretch - the worst four game stretch for any Michigan offense as far back as I can see- was not on him at all. Perhaps that's not quite true. I seem to remember you calling out a play or two here or there. So maybe rather than absolving him 100%, its 99%. 

I've seen a lot more balance from the rational Fire Borges crowd (namely noting all the problems listed by BISB) than the rational Keep Borges crowd (Which states he's a "Good OC" because his plays are nice and that's really all you can ask for from an OC). 

Space Coyote

December 18th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^

"Its just the truth."

No it's not

"If you're advocating for keeping Borges when Michigan is willing to pay him the money they do, then you're saying he's not the problem and that we cannot do better than Borges. You're saying that he did not underperform and that Michigan's stretch - the worst four game stretch for any Michigan offense as far back as I can see- was not on him at all."

Nice job overgeneralizing that one and again, strawman argument. No one is saying the team didn't underperform. No one is saying that it isn't also in some part due to coaching. They are saying there are other factors involved and that those other factors supersede "the Borges problem"

"Perhaps that's not quite true."

No, it is beyond "not quite true". It's blatent twisting and misrepresentation of the opposite argument.

"I've seen a lot more balance from the rational Fire Borges crowd (namely noting all the problems listed by BISB) than the rational Keep Borges crowd (Which states he's a "Good OC" because his plays are nice and that's really all you can ask for from an OC)."

I've seen nice balance on both sides. You're seeing what you want to see and I think most people here would agree with that, whether or not they think Borges should be fired this year.

BiSB

December 18th, 2013 at 1:00 PM ^

If you're advocating for keeping Borges when Michigan is willing to pay him the money they do, then you're saying he's not the problem and that we cannot do better than Borges. You're saying that he did not underperform and that Michigan's stretch - the worst four game stretch for any Michigan offense as far back as I can see- was not on him at all.

That's not true. I'm on record as being pretty strongly in the BORGES ARRRRGGGG crowd, but you can think he was bad and still want to keep him. It is possible to think that once he has a better line, his stuff will work. It's possible to not be enthralled with Borges, but to not be sure who we could get right now that would be better. It's even possible to WANT to get rid of Borges, but to not be willing to absorb the transition costs associated with making the move.

It's the backup QB/backup goalie syndrome. If the starter is struggling, you can recognize his struggles while still running him out there for every game. It's not logically inconsistant.

westwardwolverine

December 18th, 2013 at 6:48 PM ^

The problem is there ARE plenty of coordinators who are more talented than Borges and could be enticed because we are offering up a 98-99th percentile salary. With a back-up goalie/QB, you're looking at one option who is the back-up for a reason. Borges is the guy because he's coached with Hoke before, not because he earned his spot. 

People keep talking about "transition costs". What about the retention cost? We've seen Borges shit the bed 2-3 times a year all three years he's been here. Is the transition cost really going to be that much worse? 

ca_prophet

December 18th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^

"If you're advocating for keeping Borges"

I am.

" when Michigan is willing to pay him the money they do"

Money is irrelevant. We can and will pay what it takes to get the right guy, but that's not the only factor in getting a person to come work for you.

" then you're saying he's not the problem"

I'm saying he's not the only problem, and probably not the dominant issue.

"You're saying that he did not underperform"

Wrong. I am saying that his performance was bad, but I don't know how we could have gotten a lot better on offense with an O-line that simply wasn't up to B1G standards.

"and that we cannot do better than Borges."

Bingo. I am saying that there is no way that we get a proven coordinator who in one offseason will do a better job than Borges next year when transition costs are factored in. It's not like we can just back up the Money Truck and get Leach/Briles/name-your-OC to arrive panting on your doorstep. Practically speaking, the available replacements for Borges are Debordian retreads or mid-major OCs who have had success and are willing to take career risks to get a jump to the big stage. I do not think those guys are likely to do better than Borges when you factor in the cost of learning a new system and changing all the position coaches (and the effect that had on recruiting).

Putting it simply, I'm not pro-Borges. I'm anti-replace-Borges. Those are NOT the same thing.

westwardwolverine

December 18th, 2013 at 6:57 PM ^

"Not up to Big Ten standards". My God, out of all the power programs, no one makes their team sound more like a MAC team than Michigan fans. 

And while it may be possible to think Borges did a bad job and want to keep him, I strongly disagree with this sentiment. To me its crazy. Its baffling that people can pinpoint a problem, see that we have the resources for a solution (again, people can be enticed by money. Happens all the time!) and say, "Nah, I'm of the opinion we should stick it out with the guy whose cost us 1-4 games every season since he's been here". 

Like I said above, you talk about transition costs...what about retention costs? Because I feel at least a couple times a year there are going to be games we lose specifically because we decided to absorb the cost of keeping Al Borges. And so one year of transition cost (which probably results in the same) doesn't really seem like a big deal if we can find a superior option. And again, for the third highest salary in the country, we should be able to do that. 

ca_prophet

December 18th, 2013 at 8:24 PM ^

"And so one year of transition cost (which probably results in the same) doesn't really seem like a big deal if we can find a superior option. And again, for the third highest salary in the country, we should be able to do that."

Name some names. There's been another thread elsewhere discussing the top candidates; most if not all of them were shot down as unrealistic/undesirable by the board.

Put another way, I don't think anyone we could get in practice would be an improvement. The Money Truck isn't going to get Baylor or Stanford's OC to walk through that door.

westwardwolverine

December 19th, 2013 at 8:03 AM ^

Here's what gets me: You are acting as if money - which drives so much in this country - suddenly doesn't matter in college football. Seriously?

We finished 84th in total offense. We were 10th in the Big Ten. We were 11th in rushing offense. Now, as I said above, certainly some of that stems from the factors listed, but we had more than enough talent on that team to put forth an above average offense. Certainly one that was better than Illinois, Penn State, Iowa, etc. And we didn't. 

You say we couldn't get Baylor's OC...really? Doubling/Tripling his salary wouldn't make him consider it? 

I don't know enough about other teams to run through a list of names, but to say that there is no one out there who is better than Al Borges who couldn't be persuaded to come here and get paid more than just about anyone else at his position in the country is crazy. 

Former_DC_Buck

December 18th, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^

As a fan from an opposing fan base, when I hear Hoke say things like “this is Michigan” I don’t always hear the “This is unacceptable and we need to do better to meet those standards.”  I often hear “This is Michigan, of course we are going to run the ball and the o-line will block, because this is Michigan.”

 

I hear some of the same things coming from the OSU coaching staff when it comes to defense, so I’m not saying you are the only team that does this.  However, it does seem to be a fallback position for Hoke.  It also seems to be, to an extent, in the mentality of the team.  What I saw this season (except for CMU) you struggled in games where you should have won because you were Michigan.  Maybe that is youth, and goodness knows you are not the only team where playing down to your opponent happens, but because it is so prevalent it looks like it is more of a correlation. 

Reader71

December 18th, 2013 at 5:25 PM ^

Every team does this. Evey team. Even in the NFL, where coaches and players change all the time. I'm a Jets fan. Rex Ryan came in telling everyone to "play like a Jet", which is the opposite of what we really wanted, because the Jets suck and have always done so. But its a way to build team chemistry and an us-against-the-world mentality. A lot of coaches believe that guys perform better when they have the pressure of expectations, hence "This is Michigan" and "The expectation is for the position". Its coaching. Its common. Its generally a good thing.

LSAClassOf2000

December 18th, 2013 at 10:09 AM ^

As a matter of historical perspective, we do recruit comparably to Ohio State, with the average margin of difference in the collective Rivals ranking (I have the Rivals data for the last dozen years of Big Ten recruiting) being only 0.08 stars in Ohio State's favor. That does include the 2014 class to date - if you consider only the completed classes, it is even more narrow than that. 

Another item that might be of some interest - in that time, we've landed 14 five-star recruits to 18 for Ohio State and 131 four-star recruits to 143 for Ohio State. I would think that this is reasonably competitive even if we are trailing. 

westwardwolverine

December 18th, 2013 at 11:43 AM ^

If you look at just the Carr era, we took in an equal amount of 5-star players and more 4-star players than Tressel did, yet that is when OSU distanced themselves from us. 

It wasn't a lack of talent at Michigan that created the gap between the two rivals. 

BIGBLUEWORLD

December 18th, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^

Hoke has a sense of integrity and is a great recruiter.

Mattison shold have been named DC of the year in 2011.

We are one good OC away from having an exciting year in 2014.

If we get an OC with "Leadership" ability, in the immortal words of Iggy: "We will have a real cool time."

The introduction to Werner Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy states: "Knowledge of the future state may be obtained either by waiting until it arrives or by having seen the future or final state of similar systems in the past."

 

 

 

 

ericcarbs

December 18th, 2013 at 10:32 AM ^

This was published on Bleacher Report (I know, they suck, don't post, blah blah blah but I thought this was a good read)

But Don Treadwell is on the market. For those who don't know who he is, he is Sparty's former OC and recently fired HC of Miami (OH).

He developed Cousins (3 star QB) into a solid backup in pros and a QB who beat Michigan all 4 years and some mobile QB who switched to WR (forgot his name and don't care to look up).

He also developed some 2 Star running backs into great RBs (Bell).

Lastly, he would be a solid recruiter in Ohio with his ties.

 

I really hope Hoke and Brandon decide to AT LEAST give him a solid look.

 

Here is the original article.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1892495-if-al-borges-left-michigan-who-would-replace-him

Committed

December 18th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^

That would be the end...



Michigan is looking to change its luck by hiring a guy who just got fired by Miami (NTM). BUT he helped to resurrect one of our biggest rivals?



Mind as we'll just hire tressel. Think of the mindfuck that would cause in Bucky land...

They love tressel, hate us. Something has to give.



Disclaimer: Im not serious. No Treadwell. No tressel.

NiMRODPi

December 18th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^

I think we need to just calm down and see if we get any development out of Hoke recruits. Those recruits are still young, and we do seem to be improving in a number of spots while the offense was very Jekyll and Hyde.

I mean you look at Dantonio over at MSU. He's been there seven years, and not every season was sparkling awesome. He got a Big Ten championship in his fourth season, and then 2011 was another solid year followed by 7-6, and then this most recent championship. This stuff takes time and they aren't always going to be winners. The RRod recuiting years were not kind to us at all and were built for a different system.

Florida State we've been told has been on the brink of awesome with great recruiting for YEARS and they've just finally broken through.

BIGBLUEWORLD

December 18th, 2013 at 11:20 AM ^

Just so happens, I work for the NSA.  We tapped Al's phone.  Here's a verbatim transcription of his conversation:

"Yeah, I know harping on 'Execution' is a sneaky way to deflect responsibility, but if I don't shift the blame to the players, peple might start pointing out my obvious faillings.  Oh wait, they already do.  Well okay, maybe I should go cry to Brady about being loyal to me.  Oh wait, he said that he, "cares about the kids", and since I'm not doing a good job for them, he might put them first.  Then where would I be?  Maybe I should take responsibility and show some leadership.  Let's see, how do you spell that: Leeddrshyp?  Liedirshipp?  Oh never mind, who needs it.

Anyway, the real reason we scored in that loss to Ohio is because when Heiko interviewed me, I picked his brain about how to run a screen play, and darned if it didn't work!  Yeah, too bad it took me three years.  I bet I'll be able to make excuses and drag ass around here another year or two, even if it means I drag everyone else down with me.

I'm getting my money while the gettins' good.  Got it all figured out."

He also called some terrorists in Yemen, but that's classified.  We can release this recording because anyone with a brain knows this is what's going on.  It's no secret at all.   

  

MrJLeet

December 18th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^

We're prolly gonna lose Harris too. Any people will be saying oh its ok good luck to him we can find someone else. Yeah not that many running backs and WR like those two. We are fucked, no one believes in Brady Hoke, he's not an elite coach and never will be. This kids want to play for winners and unfortunately we don't have one

BlueCube

December 18th, 2013 at 11:47 AM ^

Alabama lost two recruits this week - Viane Talamaiva and Stephen Roberts.

Blake Sims decommitted and then committed again during his recruitment.

In prior years they had Justin Thomas, Brent Calloway and Keenan Allen decommit.

It's not always about record, weather or anything else. Decommittments happen.

alum96

December 18th, 2013 at 12:12 PM ^

So many of these threads have become like groundhog day - just switch the names of the coaches, the years, the records and aside from 2011 it is like the same year over and year since 2007, just with different twists on it.  UM gets classes between #5 and #15 almost every year for decades (adjusting for # of slots open) - if their final ranking / record is below that it is an indictment of the staff from top to bottom.  People say "7-5 was ok" and "not that unexpected" - yes in the 5th best conference UM finished with its 2nd worst Big 10 record in the modern era.... yet even that people are willing to explain away.  8th place in a lousy conference?  When a team like PSU who has sanctions, a freshman QB, no depth, transfers galore hurting their depth chart (and a win over a quality opponent on the road - imagine that) finishes better in the conference people can still explain it away. The M in Michigan has turned into Mediocre and until that changes by some quality run of 4-5 years (not a 1 year flash in pan) we are going to be having the same discussions and arguments and comments. 

So many are poking fun at MSU for their 2012 season ("but just last year the great Dantonio failed!) but they have now put together 3 seasons of 11+ wins out of 4.  Sadly we have become so used to 3-5 losses as our "typical year" for a good 2 decades, a run of that many 11+ win seasons in 4 years seems like something nearly impossible ... and that is probably the most damning thing I see.  These comments about OSU higher in the thread are funny... folks MSU is grabbing 2nd tier players from Ohio ranked well below the ones we grab, and not complaining about the "built in advantage" OSU has as a state.  I don't hear complaints up in Wisconsin about the "built in advantage" Illinois has.   I still see people here still in delusion and comparing the program to Alabama level  - the real discussion is what is it going to take to get to even Wisconsin's level at this point.... that is basically where Carr had us.

 

93Grad

December 18th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^

as the start of Michigan's decline.  The excuse making from some fans is off the charts.  Michigan has been mediocre at best for the last decade and only 3 of those years were due to RR.  Right now, we are no better than the 4th best program in a terrible conferernce and with the way PSU is weathering their storm we could soon fall to fifth.  Some fans are just in serious denial about the state of the program.

Jeffy Fresh

December 18th, 2013 at 12:14 PM ^

He decommitted because of a bad season? So should you commit to a school only if it had a good year? I bet a lot of kids wish they hadn't turned down auburn. Winning is unpredictable. How bout staying with a school you committed to and be one of the ones to make a great team rather than needing others before you to make the team great. Also, I'm sure all the whining bitches complaining all day on this site has no impact on the myriad of 17 year olds reading this site to stay up on their potential future teams. Keep up the work guys, you are all helping this team tremendously.

Magnum P.I.

December 18th, 2013 at 2:59 PM ^

If you were a blue-chip high school football player, would you not be interested in the trajectory of your future team? Kids do the math, look at trends, deduce the four- or five-year stability of a staff. They're not stupid. Yes, a bad season is an important data point, especially  when it's part of a negative three-year trend and you're being sold on a return to glory narrative. 

Magnum P.I.

December 18th, 2013 at 3:06 PM ^

I'm surprised that this thread has been received so harshly (though you were a little inflamatory, OP). The elephant in the room is that Hoke has been selling recruits on the promise of being part of making Michigan great again, and he's been a great salesman. After the 11-2 first-year season, the results on the field fit the narrative, and the recruits came a callin'. After the 8-5 second-year season, the results on the field kind of still fit the narrative, and recruits still came a callin'. After a 7-5 third-year season with some very ugly play, it's much harder to make that narrative work. It's harder to look at the trend data from the last five years or last ten years and extrapolate wonderous success over the next few seasons. Kids will do this simple analysis. There is an incredible urgency next season to get it done.    

KC Wolve

December 18th, 2013 at 3:52 PM ^

Win games. I don't give a shit how they do it.



Also, as a Royals fan, hearing about the Process from our GM the last 7 years makes me sick.



No more excuses, win games.

BIGBLUEWORLD

December 18th, 2013 at 4:41 PM ^

Thank you for showing care and realistic expectation for improving this football team, westwardwolverine, Magnum. P.I. and the many others who keep it civil yet speak up.

I strongly yet respectfully disagree with the "business as usual crowd" who are resigned to an erratic, inefficient offense.  Do you have mixed emotions about winning?  Are you short selling Michigan stock? 

How can anyone be complacent when we have a good head coach, a good defensive coordinator, a great tradition, national alumni and fan base.  Then there's the offensive coordinator who uses double speak to blame the players for his lack of leadership.  Hoke's experience is primarily with defense.  We need a strong OC with leadershp quality and the ability to make halftime adjustments that work.

How do we know he lacks leadership?  The results speak for themselves.  "By their fruits ye shall know them."  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.  With due respect for Al's effort, he is failing.  Why should we, especially the players, all be dragged down to his level of failure?      

BIGBLUEWORLD

December 18th, 2013 at 4:53 PM ^

Jeffy re: "whining bitches".  We're rubber, you're glue.  It bounces off us and sticks to you.

Nevertheless,  it's a free country.  You can extend your warm affection towards Al.

991GT3

December 18th, 2013 at 6:20 PM ^

recruiting issues. Four and five star players want to play  and when a winning program stockplies high quality players many of them don't play and ruin their college careers.

That is why programs trending upward tend to attract talent with promises of playing time and development. Recruits who say they do not mind competing for a position are not being totally honest with themselves. When recruited, their main consideration is playing time. 

MDot

December 18th, 2013 at 6:39 PM ^

yea, as much as I hate to say it, the whole "OSU should NOT be out recruiting us" thing...well, when you add up that their state produces more talent, arguably the 2nd biggest name in college coaching, being the only big-time school in state, and their on-field success...listen, to say they don't have advantages on us would just be wrong.

 

I wanted to make a bigger-picture thread about a similar topic, but apparently I cant until I make some blood sacrifice, so...