In-state Preview of 2016 Recruiting
With the 2016 recruiting cycle officially beginning recently, I compiled a list of 38 in-state prospects to watch for the upcoming class. Several already have Michigan offers, and I think a few more could come. And even if not, there are guys on this list who will end up playing against Michigan in the coming years or who might be from your old high school. Enjoy!
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2015/02/in-state-preview-of-2016-rec…
February 16th, 2015 at 12:24 PM ^
I'm not particularly high on Dele' Harding, but the difference I see there is that Harding is a thumper, whereas Rogers isn't quite so physical. Rogers might be a better athlete, but I don't see him as a 3-4 inside linebacker being able to take on offensive guards, so I don't know if he would fit Michigan's scheme as well (presuming that Michigan goes to more of a 3-4).
February 16th, 2015 at 12:14 PM ^
to recruiting in-state kids: only go after the kid if he is a must get otherwise go out of state for better talent and save the in-state feel good story for another day.
February 16th, 2015 at 12:28 PM ^
As mentioned above, it is an absolute must that you take kids from inside the state, whether they're can't-miss studs or not. If you ignore your home state, you're spurning your fan base and your local coaches. And if you piss off the coaches, they're not going to want to send their studs, walk-ons, etc. to your program.
It is simply not a viable option to ignore all the non-studs in the class. Even if means taking a 3-star linebacker and a 3-star offensive guard, you have to keep the in-state relationships. This is widely accepted, and no state around the country ignores their in-state talent. If you don't accept that fact, you're going to be disappointed.
February 16th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
February 16th, 2015 at 3:33 PM ^
February 16th, 2015 at 1:28 PM ^
I'm looking forward to being able to get any kid we want in state
February 16th, 2015 at 1:57 PM ^
Man this looks like another year (2 in a row) without a lot of high level prospects. Once you get out of the top 7 the offer sheets fall off and after about 10 quite dramatically. You can see what an in state bonus there is for OSU, USC.UCLA, Florida schools, Texas schools, etc.
February 16th, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^
You say this like it's surprising. I don't think this is a particularly down year for Michigan. Some are saying it's a deep class. And while it's true that there is no bona fide 5-star, Shane Morris (who was a 5-star at one point) and Will Campbell are two highly touted guys who haven't really panned out, at least not yet. You seem you're wringing your hands, and I'm not sure why.
February 16th, 2015 at 7:18 PM ^
The trend in Michigan is the exact same as it has always been. A couple (1-3) very highly rated guys, 5-10 others with major conference offers, and then lots of MAC-level guys.
That first part was mostly conjecture. It would be cool if someone did a year by year analysis of recruits to find out if the state of Michigan has produced more or less over a longer period of time. Actually, and now that I think about it, someone has probably already done this and posted it here.
February 16th, 2015 at 5:16 PM ^
That to have a program that could compete with Ohio State, and the other top programs, that he would not only have to get the best players in Michigan, but would have to poach a few from Ohio, and get some of the best players from Illinois - that was Bo's recruiting footprint for the most part.
As demographics have changed, Michigan has had to begin to recruit nationally to get the quality players they need to compete. Look at the 1977, 1987, and 1997 rosters, and see where the players came from, and how the emphasis changed in recruiting footprints. Now more than ever, Michigan needs to be able to tap both the local (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania) states, and the talent rich far away states (Texas, California, and Florida) to fill recruiting needs.
I hear alot about it being tough to pull kids out of their home states, but Notre Dame does it every year, with great success they pull kids from every corner of the country, and in the 90's we did it too. Notre Dame does not have a better program than us, or even a better school. I contend that what Notre Dame can do - we can do.
February 17th, 2015 at 6:55 AM ^
a) We CAN get kids from elsewhere, but we're not going to get their top athletes on a consistent basis.
b) We are not like Notre Dame. They are not like us. You're comparing apples and oranges. Notre Dame essentially has their own TV network, and people grew up being able to watch every single one of their games on TV. Furthermore, they're a Catholic college where a lot of private school kids get pushed to play because it's their dream school, their parents' dream school, etc. They are the only school like that. They also don't have to deal with another in-state power (Indiana and Purdue are second-tier programs, whereas Michigan State is currently and occasionally a well respected program).
February 16th, 2015 at 6:34 PM ^
Magnus, I read your shit daily. And i truly appreciate it. Keep up the good work.
Edit: Your taste in books is pretty good. Not enough science fiction.
February 16th, 2015 at 6:40 PM ^
Thanks for the compliments. I read more science fiction when I was younger for some reason.