RichRod's recruiting tactics
Hi all,
I was wondering if any of you had any sort of inside information on RichRod and Co's recruiting tactics, specifically their use of Michigan's academic prowess to lure in recruits and their parents. There are only a handful of schools that have both excellent academics and athletics, so it boggles my mind that if parents want their sons to have a backup plan in case of injury that there isn't already a line to come to Michigan. I know I may be extremely biased since I graduated from Michigan's business school and I understand that there are a million other variables for recruits to make their final decision, but how much does RichRod truely stress the value of a Michigan degree when he is recruiting? I feel like he and his staff will never really understand and use it to the fullest because they did not receive a degree from Michigan. If we were able to drill into the parent's heads (especially their Mom) the true value and importance of a Michigan degree I feel like we would have a tremendous advantage against other schools. So does anyone know how Michigan's academics are pitched to recruits? If so how extensive is the pitch and is RichRod taking full advantage of the tools he is given?
if i joined the squad i could have sam mcguffies old girlfriend
"I feel like he and his staff will never really understand and use it to the fullest because they did not receive a degree from Michigan."
Bo got his degree from tOSU.
Lloyd was given an honorary Phd from Michigan. I believe he may be the only coach we have had who has a degree from Michigan.
Actually (assuming you are talking about his undergraduate degree) Bo went to Miami of Ohio.
We have had a few alumni coach the program but they've actually tended NOT to be good coaches. During our bad stretch in the 1950s and '60s, we were coached by a pair of alumni (Oosterbaan and then Elliot).
There are TONS of coaches out there who didn't receive a degree from their respective institutions.
Mary Sue Coleman and Lee Bollinger didn't attend Michigan. Does that mean they don't understand the importance of a Michigan degree, either?
Mary Sue Coleman doesn't understand the importance of allowing the law students to have beer at their end of year BBQ and doesn't understand the importance of ArborFest.
At the DC event he specifically mentioned this. He said what he stresses to recruits is "there's only a handful of schools" with the kind of combined athletic tradition and academic reputation of Michigan. He said there are a few others, but only a few. And that's what he tells recruits.
I have heard or read a number of interviews w/ Coach Rodriguez where he mentions the importance of academics at Michigan and also being able to use Michigan's academics as a selling point to recruits.
Schools with good academics and football teams (at least, good teams now, as defined by "generally makes a bowl"):
Michigan
Illinois
Penn State
UCLA
USC
Cal
North Carolina
Texas
Wisconsin
Florida
Goergia Tech
Wake Forest
Boston College
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Maryland
Virginia
Navy
We're not THAT unique in offering a good team and a good education.
As much as I hate to say it, a Notre Dame degree is very meaningful. Networking the graduating students is organized, and the alumni are incredibly strong. Few alumni groups show as much loyalty (and favoritism) to the school's graduates. Ask anyone who has lived and worked in Chicago how true this is.
Illinois, UCLA, Cal, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Wake, BC, Northwestern (!), Maryland (!), Virginia (!), and Navy (!) aren't in the same league as us as far as football.
If you could quantify our historical football prowess in a number, F, and our academic prowess in a number, A, I would argue that only maybe USC or Notre Dame would possibly have a higher F x A value.
All you did was make a list of a bunch of good academic schools that aren't horrible at football
You are a douchey traitor.
You are normal.
A traitor UM I tell you! Bashing his own team like that!
I disagreed with his point, but the douchey traitor comment was mainly Sarcazzem
Illinois, UCLA, Cal, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, Wake, BC, Northwestern (!), Maryland (!), Virginia (!), and Navy (!) aren't in the same league as us as far as football.
you realize we were 3-9 last year, right?
and that over the past 5 years we have lost 23 games?!
in that same span, Wisconsin has lost 17, as has Boston College. that would put them in our league IMhO. Wake Forest has lost 26 games in that span, which while worse, is very comparable.
I'm not saying these programs are Michigan, but if you were an unbiased recruit looking at on-field success AND academics, Michigan is an attractive option, but certainly not the only one, and certainly not on the same level as USC.
Cal may not have our history, but is an attractive option for recruits. UM and Cal are probably the top two public universities in the country. Cal has done pretty well on the football field recently and has put some players in the pros. Plus, living in NorCal versus the frozen north can also be a factor favoring a school like Cal.
As mentioned, Notre Dame has an impressive combo of academics and football history.
UM presents a nice package but not the only one.
Thats why I qualified my statement with this:
"historical football prowess"
I thought we won the National Championship last year? Did Tom Brady and Braylon Edwards set all sorts of passing- receiving combination records.
I don't think "historical football prowess" has much to do with recruiting, honestly. Kids want to go to a school where they will (1) play, (2) win, and (3) get drafted. After all of that, they might consider whether it is a school where they will be proud of the tradition, etc.
I agree that most recruits would take a spot with us over the schools with exclamation points, but on the three factors that I've mentioned we've got to be roughly tied with those other schools. I wouldn't think twice if a 5* recruit chose Illinois, North Carolina, or Cal over us. Tulsa, sure, but not these others.
Then why does ND get so many great recruits still? They haven't had a decent team in a while, and they sure aren't sending guys into the NFL is boatloads.
I think you're wrong. Name a single school that can consistently have top 10 recruiting classes that doesn't have historical prowess
...that pay well.
"I wouldn't think twice if a 5* recruit chose Illinois, North Carolina, or Cal over us. Tulsa, sure, but not these others"
Correct. But if Illinios or MSU suddenly began churning out top 10 recruiting classes year after year, I'd bet you'd think twice. Isolated events are just that. Patterns indicate something quite the opposite.
My point exactly. You, sir, are a reasonable fellow.
seems to me like you could add quite a few teams to that list, considering you counted Northwestern you could throw in Purdue, Missouri, Ohio State, Georgia
US News Top 2009 Public Colleges: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-top-publ…
UM is #4 FWIW, under Cal, Virginia, and UCLA, respectively.
Missouri and Georgia aren't in the top 100 Universities nationally. Ohio State and Purdue would be valid inclusions.
Missouri is a bit smaller, but has a nationally renowned journalism program. imagine telling a recruit "you can go from being Chase Daniel to being on Sportscenter as an analyst."
sounds enticing to me. US News 100 list does not make or break you as an academic institution.
This list is essentially a 2nd-Tier and higher. If a player aims for a "very good" school there are 50 D-I schools to choose from. If he is of the 1st-tier mentality I think it narrows the list considerably (UCLA,CAL, Stanford, Duke, UM, NW, ND, UNC, UVA, etc.) But then you have to add region to the mix.
Great athletes with great academics from the Midwest... then we complete with ND and NW.
Last year we were in the running (for a bit) for the OL from Mass. (?) who had a list of UVA, UNC, Michigan, Stanford, Duke, BC (I think he went to UVA or UNC). You don't see too many lists like that
I think it's the kids with the 2.8 GPA with a UM offer that academics is more luring
That list isn't right. Illinois, Penn State, Florida, and Maryland can't hold a candle to the others on this list academically. And you're forgetting Duke, Stanford, and Vandy.
Duke and Vanderbilt are awful football programs, which was a criteria.
US News and World Report Rankings of listed schools:
12 - Northwestern
18 - Notre Dame
21 - Cal
23 - UVA
25 - UCLA
26 - Michigan
27 - USC
28 - Wake Forest
30 - UNC
34 - BC
35 - Georgia Tech
35 - Wisconsin
40 - Illinois
47 - Penn State
47 - Texas
49 - Florida
53 - Maryland
These schools are among the top 25% of all 4 year Universities in the country.
Right or wrong, academics is not that big of a factor in a recruit's mind. Location, on the other hand, is the largest factor in determining where a recruit signs.
How do I know this? Because people have looked at the data and concluded this, that's how.
Next time bone up on the facts behind recruiting before you spout off about the inherent greatness of a M degree.
Most of these kids say they are looking at academics because it sounds good. In most cases I think these kids are looking for a way into the league.
I understand that academics means sh*t to the recruit, but means a whole hell of a lot more to the recruit's parents especially the mom. Every recruit thinks he is going to the NFL and doesn't give 2 sh*ts about academics. I know this. Thats why the point of my post is that we should be stressing the fact to their parents who have a major influence on their decision. I acknowledged that there are a million other factors that influence their final decision as well. A good education from one of the top public schools in America is sure to hit the soft spot of any recruit's Mom, and thus is the point of my rant.
Thats why the point of my post is that we should be stressing the fact to their parents who have a major influence on their decision.
First, you're assuming that this isn't being done already. Many other commenters pointed out that this is probably false.
Second, did you click the link? Location, location, location is the strongest determinant for where a recruit signs. Period. It's laughable to suggest that it's possible to overcome that factor with academics. It's just NOT supported by the facts.
You can wish all you want about pitching academics to the parents, but 1) it's probably already being done, and 2) as studies have already shown, it won't matter as much as location.
First of all, stop with the "especially the mom" shit. You're making asinine assumptions with sexist overtones supported (at best) by some anecdotal evidence. It just isn't needed for your question and it makes me hate you a little.
Second of all, what makes you think that a Michigan degree is all that valuable in the first place? It's a great school for students who come here, study hard, get good grades, and then head out into the world with business degrees and the like. But most of the kids who come here for football are going to major in something like "General Studies," just pass their classes, and leave without many discernible skills. If a kid doesn't get drafted, I doubt that the Michigan name on an otherwise mediocre transcript is going to open any more doors than any other university.
In fact, if a kid from out-of-state (say, Alabama) wants to go back home for a job, he'd likely have more of an in with "I played football for Auburn" or "I played football for 'Bama" than he will with "I earned my degree from Michigan."
Second of all, what makes you think that a Michigan degree is all that valuable in the first place? It's a great school for students who come here, study hard, get good grades, and then head out into the world with business degrees and the like. But most of the kids who come here for football are going to major in something like "General Studies," just pass their classes, and leave without many discernible skills. If a kid doesn't get drafted, I doubt that the Michigan name on an otherwise mediocre transcript is going to open any more doors than any other university.
Dingdingding!
Absolutely, 100%, dead-on, right. Get this man a sandwich.
Every recruit thinks he is going to the NFL and doesn't give 2 sh*ts about academics. I know this.
Um, no, "best chance of going to the NFL" is NOT, repeat NOT, the strongest determining factor in recruiting. Location is. I thought I made that clear when I repeatedly used the word "location" and never once mentioned "NFL."
BTW, location is a pretty strong pitch with the parents too- they like the idea of being able to see their boy playing in a college game, and RichRod will not be able to guarantee that to a kid in, say, Florida...at least not like coaches from the SEC or ACC can. So your grand idea to "pitch the parents" also relates to location. FWIW.
But again, what world are you living in that someone says "location" and you hear "NFL"?
i agree that some recruits might not care about their education. but to be honest i think most recruits understand the fact that they will not make it to the pro level. those are the mid to low level recruits that look to academics. the other problem with academics and "mom" is their background. some parents only want the best and fastest way into the league for a big payday so their "boy" can take care of them. with all the information on the net those that are interested in academics already know what UofM has to offer them those that don't care and are just looking for a payday doesn't want academics shoved down their throat.
"Next time bone up on the facts behind recruiting before you spout off about the inherent greatness of a M degree."
Whoa... For real? The OP asks if anyone knows if RR is talking up the special combination of academic and extracurricular excellence at UM to recruits.
So I take it that your response to the OP is "whether RR is pointing this out or not, the question is MOOT because education is so insignificant compared to location that it shouldn't even be addressed at all... and had you taken the time to RESEARCH the subject, you would have realized how moot your question was and avoided wasting precious electrons with your post."
Did I capture that correctly? If so, I concur that education probably is down the list of priorities compared to location and depth chart for a recruit, but I disagree that it's a completely moot point for recruits.
...And, it to answer the OP, the answer is yes - it's certainly something the recruiters talk up during the process.
So I take it that your response to the OP is "whether RR is pointing this out or not, the question is MOOT because education is so insignificant compared to location that it shouldn't even be addressed at all... and had you taken the time to RESEARCH the subject, you would have realized how moot your question was and avoided wasting precious electrons with your post."
Did I capture that correctly?
Yes. I would also add that others very quickly pointed out to the diarist that academics is already part of RichRod's pitch, which also makes this diary moot. But the context around the diarist's essential question ("does RichRod understand the value of M academics in his recruiting pitch?") is pretty stupid and pointless, so all around a great waste of electrons by the diarist.
So, yes.
I think we're in violent agreement, then.
I tend to think that this is why RR turned down the job at Bama. I think one of the biggest things that a coach looks at when accepting a job (or refusing a job) is the ability to recruit. Bama has a big enough name for the recruiting aspect but they do not have the big name as far as academics. Now that he is at UM he has the big name for the recruitinbg aspect but also the high level academics to sell to parents. Now we have to keep in mind that because of the higer level of academics at UM the list of ultra talented kids gets smaller than the list at say Bama because of the raised requirements to get in. Having a school that offers both, high level academics and high level athletics is a great selling point but it also has its drawbacks as well.
....Michigan has had "top 10" recruiting classes for as long as "top 10" recruiting classes have been tabulated. Seems to me that even with this "smaller" list of ultra talented kids Michigan, amazingly, finds a way to recruit high quality student-athletes.
I fully agree that UM has always had top classes and for good reason. I only meant to say that having a higher level of academics made the list of kids that would meet the repuirememts shorter. I always thought this was a part of the reason why Carr always had such a high gradguation rate. If I remember right he maintained one of the highest rates of all coaches at his level.
...but I'm willing to bet a G-dub that it had nothing to do with Alabama's lack of clout as an instituition of higher learnin'.
I live in a small town in NY...there is a family here who have been ND fans since I can remember in grade school bc the grandfather attended. He went on to be a used car salesman. Years later, his grandaughter, who is 3 years younger than myself, graduated from ND 3 years ago and is now entering her 3rd year as a waitress at a local dive of a restaurant. Now I am aware of the economy, but it makes me chuckle just a bit whenever I see her.
About this comment is ugh, I'm ashamed to be in any way associated with this dipshit.
Why is that funny? I don't get the joke. Please explain it to me.
You may not like ND, but don't be a dick and laugh at other peoples' circumstances.
an asshole!
DieforM, you've put your finger on just what's been bothering me about Michigan football for the past century or so. When you said "I feel like he and his staff will never really understand and use it to the fullest because they did not receive a degree from Michigan" about RR, you were also making a very valid point about Fielding Yost, Fritz Crisler, Bo Schembechler, Gary Moeller, and Lloyd Carr, since none of them received a degree from Michigan. This explains the really miserable record that all of them together achieved, because they had the misfortune or bad judgement to get degrees from Miami of Ohio or Chicago or Ohio State or Northern Michigan. If they'd gotten a degree from the University of Michigan, then maybe they could have matched the stellar record of Bump Elliott, who did obtain a Michigan degree.
Unfortunately, this also means that you should take care to avoid a good percentage of the UM Medical School faculty and staff. Even a cursory glance at a recent issue of Medicine at Michigan will reveal the horrible fact that many of the doctors conducting research—and maybe even operating on you, god forbid—don't have degrees from the University of Michigan. The malpractice rate for these non-UM doctors must be sky-high.
In fact, if you look at the resumes of the supposedly good professors in most of the schools at UM, you'll find the shocking fact that many, many of them don't have degrees from UM! How they can adequately communicate to the students the value of a UM degree is beyond me. I think an Ann Arbor News investigation of this fraud is warranted.
This is why I'm agoraphobic. I may walk outside without running into someone awesome enough to have gotten a Michigan degree.