Should Hoke let an OL visit?
A tweet from TREMENDOUS made me think about this, and I'm curious about everyone else's opinion.
the Tweet: "If #2 player in the country OT Laremy Tunsil still wants to take an official to Michigan, do you deny him?"
Considering the stance that Hoke has taken on committed players taking visits, and also considering that Hoke supposedly told each player that they were taking 5 OL in this class, wouldn't this seem hypocritical?
I guess my question is, should the coaching staff be holding up the same end of the deal that they expect the players to?
edit-This is a theoretical question, I have no idea what Hoke has told the players, and Tunsil obviously has not taken an official visit to Michigan. Mods feel free to delete, I was just curious about everyone else's opinion.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:07 AM ^
I'd say he can visit, but he wouldn't have a commitable offer.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:46 AM ^
February 27th, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^
I'm not sure why this is such a bad idea...
Hoke has a strict policy and has told kids one thing, are you all that are negging me saying that he should go against his word?
February 27th, 2012 at 11:00 AM ^
It is a terrible idea. When Hoke tells kids how many OL they plan on taking, its a guideline. Signing day is in 11 months, and Hoke would need to be nostradamus to know exactly how many he is taking at each position. Guys like Tunsil and Pocic could still jump onboard if they want. You don't turn them down.
February 27th, 2012 at 12:47 PM ^
This is all based on IF Coach Hoke said they were only taking 5.
Now assuming he did. You're saying he should break his word?
If he never said it, then hell yea you take those guys...but the whole post was based on IF it was promised they'd take 5 and 5 only.
February 27th, 2012 at 11:10 AM ^
Now granted, I'm from the country, and you have to pump the sunshine in in the mornings, but did you just say Laremy Tunsil wouldn't have a commitable offer? Also, that he could visit, but he'd know that he didn't have a commitable offer? Watch College Football much, do you?
February 27th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
I said IF you told the other guys that you're only taking FIVE. Then NO he wouldn't have a commitable offer.
I'm sorry, but keeping your word is huge. You expect these kids to come to your program and do the same.
Now if he never said they were taking five...then shit yea bring on a Tunsil or a Pocic.
It was hypothetical...I don't know what Coach Hoke has or has not promised.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:09 AM ^
But make it perfectly clear that he doesn't have a spot unless one of the other guys decommits. That is of course assuming that the 5 OL promise was actually made and what not. Hoke's honesty and word are far more valuable to current and future classes than 1 recruit.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^
The target of five OL's in the 2013 class is something that is speculated by message boards.
Has anybody seen or heard the coaching staff commit that they will only sign five OL's 2013 class?
However, there is stated policy that committed players may not take any more visits.
Correlating one with the other is baseless.
February 27th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
I don't have much of an opinion on private promises made between others; I just wonder, straight-up: What is the provenance and the evidence for Hoke's having "promised to take only 5 OL in this [2013] class"?
Good thing he didn't promise Justin Boren's parents that Michigan would give an offer to Zach, right? We'd be wondering how Michigan's family values had eroded so badly...
February 27th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
That kid's name is the name that should never be spoken. They were all over Kalis for decommitting but it's perfectly fine with them to suit up a kid that previously lined up against them on the actual playing field. That former starting center for Michigan..er...Ohio will never be spoken by name again.
Also, isn't it common knowledge that we take what we need first and then fill out the rest with top talent? I have a good family friend that sits on those sidelines (I was just speaking to last night about Kugler) that knows this is commonplace.
February 27th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^
The guy whose name you won't speak was a guard, not a center.
February 27th, 2012 at 11:14 AM ^
February 27th, 2012 at 12:01 PM ^
I doubt that Hoke said "I promise you Chris Fox et al., we will only take 5 OL this year". It was probably more like, "Weeeell we're probably looking at taking around 5 OL." I don't really think that's a contractual agreement. You're getting thirdhand information so you really don't know exactly what he said. The OL have to compete for a spot anyway so why should it matter to them if there's one more in the fold?
February 27th, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^
February 27th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^
I would let them visit, but know that we are already full on OL. If someone decommits then there would be a spot available. You don't want what happened with Stacey, and have no one you want to fill that spot.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:10 AM ^
hy·poc·ri·sy
[hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPAFebruary 27th, 2012 at 10:25 AM ^
To be fair, that sounds like exactly what he's talking about.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:43 AM ^
Hoke would be acting hypocritically if he was committed somwhere and took official visits somewhere while telling our commits that they can't take official visits. As I'm fairly certain that Hoke's elgibility has been used up, I doubt that's the scenario. Perhaps the view that I'm taking is too literalistic, but I don't see the hypocrisy..
February 27th, 2012 at 11:29 AM ^
People do the same thing with irony...
When a strict OPPOSITE is not possible, it's not that hard to find an equivalent. In this case, it's if Tunsil still has a commitable offer during his visit, and he decides to commit...
Hoke got commitments based on specific information, and he has certain expectations of his commits. If the equivalent respect isn't afforded to the commits despite the fact that Hoke still expects said respect from them, it's possible to construe that as hipocrisy.
That is the coach equivalent of being "commited somewhere and taking official visits elsewhere."
February 27th, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^
Of course you let him visit. If we lose a commit we need to be in on guys who can replace them. Also, there are other reasons to host visits. Visits are advertising for your program. You want the best guys in the country coming for visits and speaking highly of your program to the media and to their teammates. This is a no brainer...
February 27th, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^
February 27th, 2012 at 10:16 AM ^
I don't think it would be prudent of the coaches to simply stop allowing people to visit as it is still very early in the process. I do think,. however, that the staff needs to be as up front as they want their committs to be and let the visiting player know that at present they are not taking any other OL. If one decommitts there will be an open spot, but otherwise it's full.
I should also say that this is only the case IF Hoke and company told they other committs that they were only taking five OL. If they didn't actually say that then there isn't a problem, but if they did and would still take another, that would be an issue IMHE. Then it would look like they were just telling kids there were less spots in order to get them to committ. I think Hoke has to much integrity for that, but that is how it would look.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^
Nope. OL recruiting is full.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:17 AM ^
Is there a rule about how many OL we can take? A commit can only pledge to one school, but Hoke could sign a class of 22 OL if he wanted.. A target for how many recruits you want at a position is not exactly a commitment. After meeting specific needs, wouldn't Hoke be signing up the best available players anyway. If he's got 2-3 slots left after the "must haves" for positions of need, then why would it be disingenuous to sign another OL?
February 27th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^
The other is to be a man of your word. Playing silly games with word definitions just does not seem like something Hoke would do.
Of course, once again, Hoke failed to invite me along on the recruiting trips, so I have no first-hand knowlege of what the staff was telling the recruits.
February 27th, 2012 at 11:21 AM ^
How is this a silly word game? Hoke's commitment to the player has nothing to do with other players at his position. That's why his commitment and the player's commitement are fundamentally different.At the time of a verbal commitment, 2 things happen:
1. The player commits to sign an LOI next February and subsequently join the team.
2. The coaches commit to accept the LOI and honor the player's scholarship offer.
The player exploring other schools puts #1 in question. Hoke allowing another player at the position to visit, or even accepting a commitment from another player at that position does nothing to put #2 in question. That's not a word game.
Now, if Hoke says, "I'm going to let Tunsil visit, and if he commits, one of these other 5 has to go," then he's a hypocrite. If Hoke promised these players that he'd only take 5 linemen, and the addition of a 6th hurts their chances for playing time, then he lied, although I don't think this would be hipocrisy. Either way I'll be happy to line up with my torch and pitchfork.
But, unless you have some proof that Hoke promised these kids that he was only taking 5 OL or that he intends to revoke an offer to one of them should Tunsil commit, then I fail to see how there is anything wrong with what he's doing.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:16 AM ^
The stance is, if you are committed you don't need to take visits, if you want to take visits, that is fine with Hoke, he just no longer considers you a commit.
How would letting a kid visit be in any way hypocritical? I think people make too much of the "stance" that Hoke has taken. It is faily innocuous. He just moves kids back to the precommitted status, as in no spot is being held for them.
If this OL wants to visit and Hoke takes a commit from him and then tells all 6 that he is still only taking 5... well, then you might have a point. Or if Hoke came out today and told them that he is taking 6 OL and says that he won't let any of them look around (which of course he can't anyway) then that might be hypocritical, anything less is just smart recruiting.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:18 AM ^
Nothing wrong with visits. There could be guys that change their minds ie Caleb Stacey/ P. Brown, and such. Good to have guys on the back burner. Smart.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:18 AM ^
Let him visit; don't let him commit unless a spot opens up.
I'm convinced that Michigan sent a powerful message to Ondre Pipkins last year when it turned away Tommy Schutt. Communicating to these five kids that Michigan values them so highly that it would turn away Laremy Tunsil would send a similarly powerful message.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:26 AM ^
I feel silly having a meltdown that we turned down Pipkins when Pipkins was lowly rated then and Schutt was all 5 star and stuff. I suppose the coaches really do know what they're doing. Hoke uber alles
February 27th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^
Yeah, but I think everyone agreed he was overrated and Peewee said he was eating turf all day against Kalis.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^
Agree with letting him visit, but not commit. He had his chance... missed the boat. But it's important to maintain a relationship with him, make him see what he may have missed out on, just in case one of the others has a change of heart in the next 11+ months.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:25 AM ^
February 27th, 2012 at 10:26 AM ^
I think Hoke reserved 5 slots for OL, but there's usually a couple spaces left at the end of each class for the "best players available". I'd have to think Tunsil would be that type of player.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^
Coach Funk told Pocic, McGovern and Tunsil that they can commit if they want. They will not turn them down. This is according to TomVH
February 27th, 2012 at 10:49 AM ^
That's insider info TVH asked to keep on the board ONLY, dude.
Not cool.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:54 AM ^
You can't stop the signal, Mal.
February 27th, 2012 at 11:15 AM ^
Everything goes somewhere...
February 27th, 2012 at 11:27 AM ^
Tom gets paid to drop information, once information goes public, as long as he is sourced as the contributor I see no problem with sharing information. Plagiarizing is a completely different story. Perhaps the more advertisers see him being sourced, the more desire they will have to throw some ad dollars his way.
February 27th, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^
February 27th, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^
Thanks for the info, dude.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^
This is the easiest visits they will have. Walk a player through the history of Michigan but he knows there is not a opening at this time. Tour Guide if you will. Standing firm also increases your chances on another year for early interest.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:33 AM ^
There's no chance for Tunsil anyway. NONE! He's gonna go Florida or FSU.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:44 AM ^
(heavy eye roll)
February 27th, 2012 at 10:38 AM ^
Why not have any other potential OL recruits just plan a visit to MSU? That seems like a good way of getting them to commit to Michigan.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^
Any OL commits deciding to enroll early are counted toward the prior year's class. So, if a current 2013 commmit tells UM he plans to enroll early, then we would only expect to have four OL commits in the 2013 class. Moreover, we have been waiting on Kozan to decide if he wants to join the 2012 class; and 2013 recruits should know this. Thus, if Kozan decides not to come--or the coaches remove him from consideration--then shouldn't 2013 commits undersand that that a 2013 recruit could take Kozan's place in the 2012 class? In fact, a new 2013 OL recruit who wants to visit here could be told that he may have a place if he wants to consider enrolling early.
Granted, this may seem like a technicality; and BH does need to be careful about recruits' actual understanding of his prior promises. But so far, I have not seen any statements that would rule out the possiblility of another OL.
February 27th, 2012 at 12:15 PM ^
This is an interesting point and I'd be interesting to know if anyone is enrolling early as well. We've got some smart kids lined up in this class so I don't doubt it. I think all this talk of promises by Hoke is stupid, however, because we don't know what he said. Did any of the recruits say Coach Hoke promised me he would only take 5 OL recruits?? That sounds kind of childish and whiny to me. Also, I really doubt if that was a deal breaker for a kid that Hoke would pander to his desire to have less competition... How does that seem like his style to anyone? I'm pretty surprised everyone has jumped on this stance in this thread. I think it's much more likely he gave an estimate of their initial NEED. They could still WANT another one if he wants to come as well. The only promise I see Hoke making to a recruit is that he'll get a world class global education, he'll compete for Big Ten Championships every year, and if he commits to the program, Hoke will be committed to him.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:48 AM ^
Can the phrase "mods feel free to delete" be sent to Bolivia? They're mods. They don't need your permission to delete. Try posting something really inflammatory and include "mods don't feel free to delete" just to see what happens.
February 27th, 2012 at 10:55 AM ^
Because the thread is getting a negative response.