December 8th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^
...we are going to get snake oiled by someone
December 8th, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^
We'll oversign, and send the players that don't make it to Purdue as compensation.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:26 PM ^
I don't think this is where you were going with this, but it triggered a question in my mind. I'm definitely not up on the Big Ten "25 scholarship" rule, but (and this is totally because I really don't know), what would happen if Michigan were to bring in more than 25 scholarship players (since the NCAA doesn't have a 25 scholarship limit)? What is the penalty and how enforceable is it?
December 8th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
I have no idea. Perhaps we should shoot an email to Nick Saban, I hear he has a lot of experience with these sorts of things.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
or maybe Butch Davis if Saban decides not to help...
December 8th, 2009 at 2:39 PM ^
I am pretty sure that the 25 scholarship annual limit is an NCAA-wide rule. Conferences only differ with respect to the gray areas about getting under the limit. The recent Big Ten rule that (allegedly) just passed no longer allows early enrollees to be counted under the prior year. The Big Ten also only allows you to sign (I think) 28 players to an LOI, whereas in the recent past SEC schools have signed well over 30 knowing that a large number of them would be unable to qualify by the time they had to enroll or be issued an actual scholarship, thus keeping them under the 25 scholarship limit.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
"I am pretty sure that the 25 scholarship annual limit is an NCAA-wide rule."
I'm pretty sure it's not.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:00 PM ^
"Current rules allow FBS institutions to provide scholarships to 25 new student-athletes per year. However, some schools traditionally have signed more than that to protect themselves in the event that some prospects do not qualify academically. The SEC set a cap of 28 for its own institutions earlier this year, and at that time conference leaders said they viewed the letter of intent as an institutional commitment to a prospect who is capable of contributing academically and athletically. The Big Ten has a similar policy. (source: NCAA)"
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/ncaa-scholarship-limit-review
December 8th, 2009 at 3:13 PM ^
Since I can't edit or delete my prior post, I retract and apologize.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:17 PM ^
I still had to look it up. Between the different attempts to get around the rules and the changes in the rules and the conferences having different rules from each other, the whole thing has my head spinning.
What I think is going on now is that the staff will sign the maximum 28 guys they can (or at least try to) with the hope/expectation that three don't enroll for whatever reason by the time the actual scholarships get handed out.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:34 PM ^
Looks like we are doing a good job with the snake oil ourselves. Keep is brewing RR!
December 8th, 2009 at 12:29 PM ^
So far, we've got what looks like two guys with grade issues: Kinnard and Drake. There is (I hate, but it's there) talk of Jeremy Jackson and a gray shirt possibility (by posters, no one elts). You can go to 28; there is ambiguity surrounding the early entry rule.
Oh man, there's so much confusion
it's giving me a contusion
and I'm suffering from delusions
I just wish all this were an illusion!
December 8th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
Basically posters just think that Jeremy Jackson's dad can swing the tuition. Other posters have suggested that Vinopal can too - I guess it's b/c he doesn't look poor, and because he seems to really want to go to Michigan.
I think its a lot of BS though. Those kids would come on scholarship next year. umhero stated in another thread that we're down to 16 schollies for next year. So next year's class would be even smaller if we apply gray shirts this year.
I think its more likely that some of the lower recruits get Peace'd ... or, get this ... maybe the higher recruits aren't that interested in us anyways.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
... I inquired about him getting an academic scholarship on a previous post. Kids got a 4.5 GPA. When your GPA could double as your 40 time, you probably should automatically get academic scholarships.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^
I'm quite certain that the academic scholarship counts against the football scholarships.
If it didn't, then schools would be dishing out "academic" scholarships, track scholarships, and the Braylon Edwards scholarhip to about 30 players.
EDIT: Just think about how easy it would be for a school like Cincy to dish out "academic" scholarhips in addition to football scholarships. They'd have 200 players.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
Tuition is free for university employee's children? Or is it just for Professors?
December 8th, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^
Neither I think.
I know that regular employees don't get free tution for the kids, and I have a couple friends that are kids of Profs and I'm pretty sure they are not on a free ride.
For as big a budget screw as UM is in this doesn't surprise me in the least.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
So you are saying adopt Vinopal?
December 8th, 2009 at 4:48 PM ^
It was half tuition for faculty and staff kids as of 2004.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:59 PM ^
I'm not in on the speculation about jeremy Jackson. I think you give him a scholarship and thank his pops for all his loyal years at UM.
As for academic scholarships--can't do that. If they on the team on any scholarship it counts against the team scholarships.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^
but someone said the other day that regardless of what the scholarship is for, if you play football you count against the football scholarship limit. I think it was Tom VH or TOB but I am not certain.
edit* great minds think alike.....mine was just a little slower typing than the other two :)
December 8th, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^
... is that it won't work. I think I get it now.
In that case... we are in jeopardy on becoming that which we railed against all last year with Alabama and North Carolina. Hope it doesn't play out that way, but the risk is there.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
While I agree with the general sentiment, from what I remember, everyone's main complaint with the way 'bama handled things is that they were signing players in excess of the total scholarship limit of 85. They signed higher ranked kids out of high school, and then yanked scholarships from kids who were already on the team to make room.
What it seems like we may be doing is offering more scholarships than we have to give out for this year, which means some of our lower rated commits may get the Peace/Barnes treatment.
Like many other posters here, I am not completely comfortable with our approach. By accepting commitments from lower-ranked kids, and then dropping them at the last minute, there is a strong possibility that they can't find another offer. This sucks, but at the same time, I don't find it quite as slimy as what Saban has done.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:38 PM ^
Good distinction that I haven't seen posted on here before.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:46 PM ^
I really doubt that these kids just wind up never going to college. They land on their feet as long as it's done a week or more before NLOI day and even then they can still find somewhere to go.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:06 PM ^
I would be willing to bet that most of these kids land on their feet and still get to play football somewhere (but can't say definitively one way or the other). I also know that there's immense pressure on RR and other coaches at high profile universities, so I understand the incentive to drop a lesser prospect for someone who took longer to come around. Still, despite all of that, I still find the the whole idea distasteful and wish it wasn't a part of the reality of college football today
December 8th, 2009 at 1:08 PM ^
This is the best recruiting strategy I've ever heard. We should only recruit players whose GPA is greater than or equal to their 40 time.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
This is the best recruiting strategy I've ever heard. We should only recruit players whose GPA is greater than or equal to their 40 time.And at the same time, recruit really, really dumb players.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^
If I could substitute my 40 time for my GPA, I'd be a Rhodes Scholar twice.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
How many FAKE!s can you give a GPA?
December 8th, 2009 at 3:44 PM ^
Even my ridiculously weighted GPA from HS would translate to a 40 time that would be about 9 Fakes out of 5.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:33 PM ^
Yeah then we should take those 1.8 kids that go to WVU. No wonder they're so fast
December 8th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
For some reason, Paskorz reminds me of Barnes from last year. I can't claim to have read MGoBlog everyday, so maybe I've missed posts about him. However, it seems like I've only heard about Paskorz when he committed, and it's been quiet ever since. Last year it was said that the coaches cooled down on Barnes due to his senior season performances. I wonder if there have been commits who did't impress their senior season this time around also.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:13 PM ^
REFRESH REFRESH REFRESH
Also, I really love this bit of journalistic virtuoso, per rivals:
"Pahokee (FL) four-star defensive tackle Richard Ash is considered a four-star prospect by Rivals.com. "
December 8th, 2009 at 12:12 PM ^
That op is just mean! You almost caused me to wreck my work truck!
December 8th, 2009 at 12:17 PM ^
It's so rude when OPs make posts that cause drivers who are playing with their iPhones to crash. I think OPs should have more respect than that.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:29 PM ^
Yeah you know me!
December 8th, 2009 at 12:29 PM ^
It is a Blackberry but thanks for backin me up there. Some people just don't have common courtesy.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^
I thought three question marks would be enough for people to realize I wasn't stating a fact and was looking for confirmation from some folks here. Hell, it's exciting news, if true.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
this would be exciting but dont you have anything to back up what you are saying. I mean anyone could just post bs and saying they've heard things and without a cited source it has no credibility...kind of like your post
December 8th, 2009 at 12:29 PM ^
I just have to believe that the staff know that a number of the verbals they've gotten already aren't going to materialize due to grades, de-commits, etc. and they're covering their bases/asses. Otherwise things don't seem to add up. How many guys can they realistically grey-shirt? Attending Michigan ain't cheap if you're paying for it yourself.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
"I just have to believe that the staff know that a number of the verbals they've gotten already aren't going to materialize due to grades, de-commits, etc."
Or maybe they have found a loop hole in this phantom rule that no one can find or read about anywhere.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:29 PM ^
"Or maybe they have found a loop hole in this phantom rule that no one can find or read about anywhere."
That's what I'm wondering. From a legal perspective, if it's not an actual set in stone policy I can't see how the Big Ten (or better yet, the NCAA) can bind anyone to it.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
This whole "25 rule" seems very starnge to me. Tom VH talked to someone in compliance who said it does exist, but it can't be found anywhere, and multiple people have tried (I know at least myself and umhero have dug for it).
The whole thing sounds crazy, and there isn't even any evidence of the actual rule. I am hoping they have found a loop hole to this supposed "rule".
December 8th, 2009 at 2:50 PM ^
I don't know if "loophole" is the word/approach I would use, but rather (1) challenge whether the rule actually exists (re: EEs) and (2) challenge the enforceability of the 25 limit.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:55 PM ^
Are any other Big Ten schools approaching 25 commits? I kind of like the mental picture of Rod and Martin flipping Delaney the bird on NSD- "This is for Mouton!"
December 8th, 2009 at 4:31 PM ^
I've heard Tim Brewster say multiple times that he plans on signing 30 players in February for Minnesota, FWIW.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:26 PM ^
This would open up four more spaces and allow us to sign 29 with 4 of them EEs. Under this circumstance we would not be able to have all fifth years return or experience more attrition.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
This supposed rule only took effect this year, previously it adhered to the NCAA rule on early enrolees. I can't imagine they dropped it before it really ever took effect. A good question would be if they really ever changed it because there is very little evidence that they have (only people takling with nothing written).