Sam Webb says "26 in the Class"
Just finished listening to the Recruiting Roundup on WTKA, and Sam says the coaches are telling recruits there will be 26 in this class.
It was an extended segment that affirms many of the things we already knew and has some new tidbits including basketball prospects. Once it becomes a podcast it's well worth a listen.
Assuming the coaches really do intend to sign 26 kids, is that actually possible? People aren't saying "Boot Kid X so we can sign Kid Y."
I don't like the discussion of individual kids, but the general discussion is worth having. Saying "Fuck it, sign 'em now and we'll squeeze them in" is worthy of an SEC school, but is, IMHO, not way Michigan should do things.
I think that is what people are worried about. If Hoke expects the class to be 26, he expects there to be 8 scholarships opening up. I don't know exactly what the SOP is on renewing kids for fifth year of scholarships but it doesn't appear to be as questionable as some of the things the SEC does. Additionally, it might not be just the older guys. Maybe some of the younger players don't exactly see themselves fitting with the new offensive and defensive schemes, so they will transfer, but haven't done it yet. Also, Blue in South Bend provides a good possibility below: maybe the coaches don't think it will necessarily be a 26 man class, but are telling recruits, so kids don't feel the pressure to commit immediately. This way the coaches can focus on certain recruits and positions of need and not worry about some kids committing prematurely without evaluating the whole situation and then decommitting down the road.
Who is talking about kicking guys off the team? Not granting a 5th year is not the same as kicking a guy off the team before he gets his degree.
is the functional equivalent of kicking someone off the team. They depend on those schoarships to pay for their education. For out of state players, the cost of school for one year can be up to $60,000.00. If you take away that from them, you are essentially kicking them off the team because they will have to find some other way of paying for that.
That's not right.
Going to sound like devil's advocate here but there's a difference between not renewing a fifth year and booting a freshman or a sophomore a la Bobby Petrino.
A) Kids in this conference are guaranteed four academic years when they sign provided they remain in good standing. It isn't a year-by-year like the SEC does. Unless the coaches specifically say a kid will get 5 years (which I don't believe they do), then 5th years are a luxury that shouldn't necessarily be relied on.
B) A kid who has been here for four years is getting a degree. It isn't as if they're being cut loose with nothing to show for it. They're getting the Michigan degree they've been promised.
It sucks that we might have to tell some redshirt juniors they won't get a 5th year but let's not liken it to flat out cutting a kid because it really isn't the same scenario.
Your point a is a totally implicit agreement, though it does seem to exist. Schools cannot actually guarantee more than a one year renewable scholarship.
OK yeah guarantee is probably not the right word but the point is implied as you`ve said. You just don't typically see underclassmen let go for no reason in the B1G, which is why I don't agree with the oversigning comparisons.
No you're definitely right about that, this isn't the same thing as Miles sending a freshman packing before fall camp. IMO there's nothing wrong with letting a fifth year senior go (though I do wish there was a fund to keep them on scholarship until their degree is done) and that's even moreso true if he's got his degree.
they are? i'm not sure that's right.
Scholarships are an implicit four year agreement (except for the SEC, where they get you at least a summer tryout). I can't think of one school where there aren't fifth year guys let go, including schools more expensive than M, where the total CoA is about $51k.
Everyone will be on Hoke's ass if he releases a guy before he gets a degree, but releasing 5th year seniors who are buried on the depth chart is kind of standard practice.
Not getting a 5th year is not "cutting" someone. No one is promised 5 years of college. I know it's gone by the wayside, but most people are supposed to graduate in 4 years. A 5th year is a bonus given out, not automatically granted. Hoke will not give all 5th year players a scholarship, Rich Rod didn't, Lloyd didn't, Mo didn't, and Bo didn't. That just not how it works. A 5th year is a privilege, not a right. I mean, if you play a guy as a freshman, and he leaves the team after 4 years, are you "kicking him off a team without an education"? That guy gets 4 years; a guy who redshirts gets 4 years. Anything more is a bonus.
i could easily see a few of the DBs or LB/DE tweener-types transfering, especially if they are seeing little to no time on the field in year 2 or 3 of their careers.
This is what no one wants to discuss.
I understand why people won't want to talk about it, but these guys are going to find that their playing time will be very limited.
And this can be relayed by coaches. You aren't cutting them because they aren't good enough, and you're not telling them to take a medical leave or that they have to transfer, but you can tell a kid if you want to continue playing football in college and get playing time, it might be in their best interest to look at a smaller DI or DII school. Players get passed up on the depth chart and things happen, it's not the worst thing as long as you aren't telling the player "You're out, go find somewhere else to play."
Some will decide they love Michigan, want the degree, and stick it out and become a back-up. Others are smart enough to see that the guys in front of them are better/younger, and there might not be playing time. And they want to play. So they decide to move on, with no regrets on either side. Guys leave for a variety of reasons. Some have problems at home, and need to be closer. Some aren't good enough, and can see that. Some even just find out they don't love football enough to put in the work needed at that level. It happens.
I've also read on this board that early enrollees can be counted against last year's cap. That gives the staff some margin.
you beat me to it.
Only against the yearly 25-man limit. It's the 85 overall that we're flirting with already. We have 3 open scholarships and 15 graduating seniors, for a total of 18 open scholarships for 2012. We already have 16 commits. A class of 26 means 8 guys on scholarship right now who aren't graduating seniors need to disappear before the 2012 class arrives.
the B1G for 3 players beyond the 85 limit? Is that something the board is missing?
I thought that was an exception to the hard cap at 85, and if yes, then +3 and we're there.
Even with a +3 petition we would still have to get down to 85 by the start of the season so the same problem remains. The expectation of 4 - 5 transfers or medicals seems highly likely and obviously the coaches know who they may be.
....oh wait, that's OSU in the coming years....
/Rimshot
Edit: Redundant at this point.
Early Enrollees will count backwards to 2011 and won't count against the 2012 numbers. I've been reading WAY too much about recruiting so I am aware that Magnuson and RJS, IIRC, are talking about being EEs. So if they were both coming in January and Hoke signed 26 new names, we'd have 2 more for 2011 and 24 for 2012. That's the math. Maybe he is expecting more EEs, further pushing that number for 2012 below 24.
is also trying to qualify early from what i know.
It's not the class limit size of 25 that is the concern, it's the total scholarship numbers of 85.
You can count three EE's towards last years class, but as it has been pointed out above, our problem is NOT the 25 - man class limit. Our problem is the 85 - man roster limit.
So it doesn't really matter what class we put them in.
Also, the EE's that have been talked about are Magnuson, Ringer, RJS, and (if Sam has a gut feeling...) Wilson
you are always better off maxing-out EEs and pushing them to the preceding class. this gives more flexibility in future classes. but yes 85 is the concern right now.
Is it possible that the coaches don't intend to sign 26 guys, but that they want that suggestion out there for purposes of slowing recruiting down a bit? If there were only two slots left, everyone and their cousins are going to try to jam through the doors, but the coaches might want to wait on a couple of guys who won't know for a few months. Saying "we've got 10 slots left" might be the coaches way of saying "don't everyone commit at once, please..."
I would find it more believable that we've had 3 or 4 players leave already and we just don't know about them yet.
When would we find out about those? At the start of fall practice?
at the end of the football season. that's when the players will know how much they've played (or not played or will play in the future).
I would guess at the start of fall practice when they aren't in pads or when someone says something on Twitter about it.
This is a nice problem to have. Recruits want to come here and play. The tough part is some guys may not get a 5th year. Is there any thing to be gained from the coaches knowing their might be transfers but not wanting to say until the season starts?
The only guy from the 2008 class who I can really see not getting a fifth year is Terrence Robinson. I guess that Floyd is a possibility as well, but at least a few guys are going to have to step up and make him third string for that to happen. Unfortunately, a lot of our players from the 2008 class happen to be at positions of need, even if they aren't very good. Cox is a huge unknown. If I had to guess, I'd say he gets a fifth year.
If all things are equal between Shaw, Hopkins, Smith, Cox, Toussaint, Rawls and Hayes, I would think Cox's butt is on the bench and he doesn't get the fifth year. The pressure is on Cox to show why he should get a fifth year.
Don't a couple of walkons have scholarships right now because we had a few to give. In theory they could free some of those up.
what a monster class this is going to be.
to be a huge class...maybe program altering one.
I have said from the beginning that 21 is the floor, 26 is the max for spots. I think that is now the consensus. 10 more spots? Are you kidding me? With that kind of class, we could be talking top 3 class nationwide.
I don't think we are near Top 3 yet, but we have the potential. Looking at Rivals we have 7 4 stars and 9 3 stars, with Standifer and Ojemudia possibly going to get 4th stars (and Funchess and Ringer being two other candidates but more unllikely). We need a higher concentration of top-tier talent (based on star ranking) to move that high in the rankings. Guys like Pipkins, Shittu, Garnett, and Washington all increase likelihood we get there, but guys ranked like Wormley and Olson will hold the recruiting rankings back. Personally, I think this class is great and some of the guys we are grabbing might not be ranked as high as they should, especially since there is less incentive to scout them and for them to play at camps and such. We are getting lots of positions of need with quality players. Class will be a great foundation for future.
Supposedly some of the tweener defensive players and slot ninjas have all but asked for transfers. From what I've heard there isn't any anger or anything, just reconigition that the system is changing and the new system does not fit their skills. One of the reasons Hoke is taking 26 is because the players have told him they're likely moving on at the end of the season.
i'd just appreciate if they'd materialize sooner than later. i think we'd all just like to affirm we're not giving anyone the boot who's in good standing and wants to be with the team.
My understanding is they're making arrangements to ensure a smooth transfer out post bowl game.
One thing to remember is a lot of the tweener kids were highly sought after by teams whose systems had need of slot ninjas or tweeners during the recruitment phase. These kids leaving will likely have options and want some time to look at them.
Meaning they'll move on in January 2012? Why wouldn't they move now and get their transfer year out of the way?
I don't want any of the players to leave, but if they've all but made that decision, why wouldn't a body want to do it now.
Some players have loyalty to the staff that recruited them (hence movement in the direction of Pitt after a number of staffers were hired there). Some players are sure RR/Barwis/etc will have a job somewhere next year. So they'd rather only transfer once.
I was thinking the same thing. Why not transfer this summer, sit out the 2011 season and then they could be on the field next year playing for a team that needs their skills. If they don't fit this current system, they probably won't get much playing time this season anyway.
I'm not seeing many potential slot transfers. Roundtree, Gallon and Dileo are the only players with significant eligibility left. Dileo has supposedly impressed the new staff and they see a role for him. Roundtree has the size to play other WR positions, which only leaves Gallon. Maybe TRob can be included, since he could graduate, then transfer and not have to sit out a year.
If that is the case, that is all the more reason that a WR or two is a must for this class. We already have 3 seniors out the door at the end of the season. Add in a few underclassmen and we go from way too many receivers to way too few receivers in one year.
Otherwise we might be seeing a lot of double TE/FB sets.