MWW6T7

November 16th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^

IMO , it is always nice to have defensive players who have spent some time on the offensive side of the ball.  It seems to make it a little easier for them to make the transition, read offenses, and be more pruductive early on in thier college careers.  Now , I know this is not the case for everyone but it cant hurt.  Especially in a MLB, or DB case.

Young Pretty a…

November 16th, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^

I like this kid.  I watched him absolutely carry his team versus powerhouse Rockford, just to come up a bit short 13-35 (Game was closer than what the score indicated).  Besides being a rock at linebacker, he also played Quarterback for West Ottawa. 

Hoke_Floats

November 16th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^

I really have a preference for Michigan guys to be the 'core' of the team

I want them to win of course, but I like to see guys from Michigan on the field in at least some of the spots

david from wyoming

November 16th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^

Can I ask why not Ohio or Florida or just players that the staff likes more, no matter where they went to high school? Having a core of Michigan players because they are from Michigan seems silly to me.

Hoke_Floats

November 16th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^

You don't get why Michigan should have guys from Michigan?

I want them to win, but I would also like to see at least 25% of the class from UofM

I am not saying 75% or 100%, but I like UofM to be well connected in the state. 

Whether its putting on clinics for High School coaches and players or nurturing the best talent, I think the program has a duty to promote football in the state of Michigan.

His Dudeness

November 16th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^

They can put on clinics in state and still have talented kids form other states... and they do. If people continue to flee Michigan I think you may change your tune. What if we were the University of Rhode Island?

I think your opinion on this makes little sense.

aaamichfan

November 16th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^

I agree with much of what you're saying, but I question the reasons for such an argument being made. It doesn't seem like the In-state/OOS makeup has changed much from Lloyd to RR, but this has become an issue only during RR's tenure.

david from wyoming

November 16th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^

I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just trying to understand you here. I'll agree that Michigan aught to promote high school football in the state, but I don't follow why you think the football team should have some magic number of players from the state. Fostering better high school football at the high school level doesn't require commitments at the college level.

Student wise, Michigan is a public university and has a certain responsibility to the state's higher education goals and aught to admit a lot of local students. The football team operates under a very different type of rules and responsibilities.

Hoke_Floats

November 16th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^

 The football team operates under a very different type of rules and responsibilities.

I believe the football program to be an extension of the school.  These are students who happen to also play football on saturday.  The state's best and brightest student athletes should be part of the team which represents the state's premier institution

If there are 2 kids who are equal in every way I would prefer to see the Michigan kid get accepted.  If the kid from out of state is better, than he should get the scholarship.

I know the state of michigan does not have a TX or Florida talent base.  But I do believe the state produces at least 7-15 Big 10 caliber players a year.  I would like to see UofM at least talking to all of these guys.  If they do not work for the program thats fine, but I believe the coaches should at least touch base.  ( I know it is very hard with time limits etc. )

(FWIW I was irate when we lost Jerome Bettis to the Irish)

Not saying we should say no to the next CWood or Denard.  Not saying we should pull out of Pahokee, or Dallas or Maryland or anywhere there is a quality student who wants to play for Michigan.

What I am saying is, the University of Michigan has an obligation to football players in the State of Michigan to at least give them a look.

david from wyoming

November 16th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^

I guess I disagree that the academic and athletic sides of the university have the same obligations to the state. The academic side gets public money from the state while the athletic side does not. I think anyone would agree that Michigan aught to be in on the recruiting of talented Michigan players and that we should be winning a fair number of the top recruits. But I don't see why the school should take the best Michigan students simply because they are from Michigan, because the football team is not getting public funding. The athletic teams should be taking the best student-athletes possible, no matter where they are from.

UMdad

November 16th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^

I think what he said is perfectly fair.  The majority of the student body is from Michigan and so are the majority of Michigan fans.  He just stated that he would like it if the core guys were from Michigan.  He didn't rant or rave about 'losing the state' or 'not recruiting Michigan men'  I always like to root for local guys when possible, and although I want Michigan recruiting and signing the best 20 however many guys they can, I would love it if Michigan was producing those guys. 

Blue_Sox

November 16th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^

Wanting Michigan guys in the class and wanting Michigan to "produce" those guys are two separate things. The latter is a fine argument to make. I would love to have a pipeline in the state like Texas, Florida or California where those programs have to actually turn down awesome talent. Idealistically, yea it's cool to have local products to root for.  But he said he wants Michigan products to be the core of the team. That seems to imply he would make it a requirement we have 5 recruits from MI a year, even if they might not be as talented as kids we can get elsewhere. I'm not so sure that is a wise tradeoff.

ish

November 16th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^

what does "the core" even mean?  you want the best players to be from michigan?  i don't think you can choose that.  you want a plurality of players to be from michigan?  i'm sure that will happen.

we all want the best players from michigan to come to UM, but that's because they're the best.  i don't want the staff to select players just on geography.  the staff has to be convinced the players will help us win.

WolvinLA2

November 16th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^

Yeah, I'm from Michigan and played high school football in Michigan, and I couldn't care less how many of our recruits are from MIchigan.  Now, I want as many of the in-state kids that we offer to come play for us over other schools, but if there is a LB from MI and one from Oklahoma and the one from OK is better, I want the one from OK. 

We've always had great players from Michigan - Braylon, BG, Woodley, Wheatley - but the vast majority of the stars, and our favorite players, have been from out of state.  I'm OK with that trend continuing.

aaamichfan

November 16th, 2010 at 11:40 AM ^

I guess it's better that the core group of guys be from the midwest, but I'm not so sure giving Michigan guys preference should be a requirement. As long as they understand what Michigan football is all about, I'm not too concerned with where they're from. 

Speed Kills

November 16th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^

"I want them to win, but I would also like to see at least 25% of the class from UofM" (Though I think you meant the state of Michigan.)

"out of 117 players I counted 50 from Michigan - 43%"

Ok well that should make you happy since all you asked for was 25%. Ok? Great. Let's move on...


 

Blue Durham

November 16th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^

versus out-of-state, you should probably limit it to the scholarship players, rather than the whole roster of 117 players. The walk-ons heavily skew it to in-state (not surprising if you have to pay tuition). There are 75 players listed in Brian's depth chart that came with a scholarship (this does not count the 4 who walked on and who later earned a scholarship), but this does not include lang-snapper George Morales who did come here with a scholarship (I do not know if he has one or not - I would assume so since the team does have scholarships to offer). So I would use the 76 as a base: There are 14 (18%) in-state holding scholarships Of the 41 walk-ons (including Kovacs, Leach, Moundros, and Grady), only 7 (17%) are out-of-state; 34 (83%) are in-state. What we see on the field is and has been predominantly out-of-state. As long as we get the best in-state players I think that is OK. But that is the question now, are we?

WolvinLA2

November 16th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^

On offense, our only in-state starter is Huyge, and he's only a starter because Perry is injured. On D, Martin, RVB, Demens, and Cam Gordon are our starters. Thomas Gordon, Moundros and Ezeh have also started games. Most of our starters are out of staters. Let's not stop recruiting those guys.

Blue Durham

November 16th, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^

an article that showed that the state of Michigan was on par, football talent-wise, with not California, Texas, or even Ohio, but South Carolina(!).

While it is good (or great if you happen to be the University of Texas) to have a strong base in their home state, to be a national power, Michigan needs to recruit nationally.

Arsenal Fan

November 16th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^

does TomVH have anything new about this kid? I know we were a presumed leader for him, and that he wants to take his recruitment slow.  But i am just curious to know if there is any new news that anyone is aware of?

CincyBlue

November 16th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^

He was visiting Northwestern last weekend and was offered on the spot.  His stock is on the rise for sure and Michigan needs to lock him up. 

His family are Michigan fans, so this should turn out well for the Maize and Blue!

True Blue in CO

November 16th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

Seems like the coaches used the delayed offer to keep him motivated and he elevated his play.  Great leaders make up for talent limitations and looks like this kid has a lot of heart and drive.  Good addition to the class if we can reel him in.  We need players who really want to be at Michigan like Desmond.

His Dudeness

November 16th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^

Kids on this side of the state are constantly told UofM never looks at this side of the state and MSU does, etc. The west side of Michigan is very MSU biased (see Brian VanHogTon). Funny thing is when UofM comes to grab a recruit they like they usually come away with the kid. I think it is very strange that a kid with MAC level offers wouldn't commit on the spot to UofM if offered. I guess the kids is crazy these days... and shit.

Search4Meaning

November 16th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^

Desmond friendly environment.

1.  Desmond Howard - Heisman Trophy winner

2.  Desmond Robinson - Heisman Trophy Candidate

3.  Desmond Morgan - history awaits you at the Big House!