Tate comments on Clay
Tate posted a few comments about Clay on facebook tonight:
Tate Forcier: Everyone needs to show Brennan Clay what an amazing place Michigan is...
Tate Forcier: We still have a shot at Clay. Lets make him apart of the Michigan Family!!!
yes, i know... save the creeper comments for yourself lol
I saw these as well, but no way in hell was I going to be the one to post it.
That being said, who knows about Clay... hopefully Tate's right.
Ok, but it's the gratuitous 'lol' that really bugs me. Were you actually laughing out loud at someone calling you a creeper? Because if you were, that sounds, um, creepy. Like you get that often. Or like you are awkwardly laughing too loud at a joke made at your expense that you know is really true, but nobody else knows it yet.
Sorry, I have an unhealthy disdain for the act of, and people committing the act of, of attaching 'lol' to everything they post on the internets.
As for Clay and Tate, I say, as I have expressed in an equally bitter way on a similar thread, leave the kid alone. He made a choice, let him live with it. Verbal commits should mean something. In fact, they should mean a lot. The whole process is screwed up because nobody knows what a verbal commit means anymore. We have 3 choices - 1) take them seriously, 2)don't take them seriously, or 3) something immensely chaotic in between. I say option 1 is the only way to go. It is the only one that provides any certainty, clarity, predictability. The others give us only uncertainty and utter CHAOS!!!!
Go watch this video about lols: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDlLBuVWgiw
As for the rest of your comment, I agree that those are essentially the only three options (since they cover all possible options) but I don't think that we really make the "choice" about what to think about verbal commitments. Since none of us are making those commitments, we can't really affect the general landscape of commitments, we can only sit back and observe.
My observations have led me to believe that most verbal commitments are solid, but that it's possible to identify early kids whose verbal might not be solid until they sign an LOI. Clay is one of those kids with all of the early warning signs of not having a solid verbal commitment to any school. Thus, while we'll have to live with and respect his choice no matter what, I don't think that it's ridiculous to talk about the possibility of him changing his mind. There are simply some kids prone to doing so. There are other kids that it's never worth discussing if they're going to go elsewhere (like Ricardo Miller for us). They've shown no warning signs of decommitting and have in fact generally shown great support and respect for their chosen school.
Since this realistic possibility of decommitment only exists for a relatively small group of people that can generally be fairly easily identified, chaos does not necessarily have to ensue. Chaos does ensue, however, when we begin to delude ourselves that the pool of people that will actually decommit and go elsewhere (especially to Michigan) is at all large. Thus, if we keep our heads on straight, the boards shouldn't get overly chaotic and our expectations should stay grounded.
Therefore, I'm still holding out a small sliver of hope that we can get Clay. That sliver will grow if he does such things as continue to take visits (especially here) or continues to talk to Tate about Michigan. Do I think that we have a good shot for Clay? No. But I do think we've got a better shot for him then for some other commits that have already verbally committed elsewhere that I'd like Michigan to get? Yes.
Thanks for the video, I take solace knowing that I am not alone, and perhaps not crazy, in hating the tired lol.
I appreciate your response, it is a good read. A couple of comments. First, I didn't mean to claim those of us alone who frequent this board can change the landscape of how commitments are handled. Such a notion is solipsistic and requires an ego, near-sightedness, and sense of grandiosity the extent of which I do not have. I was using the great "we" that refers to your landscape - recruits, coaches, fans. My notion that everyone would view commitments differently is, you are right, a bit silly. But I hold firm to claiming that such is how it should be.
Second, I have to take issue with your first assumption that the number of recruits that might decommit "only exists for a relatively small group", and your second that those that do decommit "can generally be fairly easily identified". First, we had at least 5 decommits last year that were not pushed out. 22 eventually signed LOIs, which means we had something around 20% decommits. This, however, is not the universe of those that might have decommitted, only those that actually did. Even if I am getting the math wrong (is it 5? do I divide by 22 or the total number of commits all year?), the logic still holds. Not all who might decommit actually decommit. I would guess that those that might is much larger than those that do.
As for your second assumption, we did have some surprise decommits along with those that were expected. Beaver was one. But yes we did rationalize almost every decommittment. There is always something in the past to use to make sense of a decommittment, which makes them seem as if they were predictable. I would venture that some that in retrospect seemed predictable perhaps would not have been as knowable in prospect, as you claim. Thus, decommits that afterward seemed predictable probably weren't to the extent that we rationalized. For several recruits, we eventually rationalized that, yes, we should have seen that coming. But the fact is we didn't.
I can't find fault with the remainder of your points. If Clay changes his mind, great. But I do think we should move on, leave the kid alone, spend time and energy on other players.
Warning: Yet another long read (at least for a message board) in response to other long reads.
I'm glad you liked the video, I think that she has quite a few other funny videos so I'd suggest you look at some of the others (I only recently discovered her channel so I haven't viewed most of her videos yet).
To your first point that my first point claimed that you said that the MGoBoard community can affect commits, I didn't mean that. I meant that us and all recruiting fans in general don't have a choice of how a recruit views his own verbal commitment and thus what his later actions will be. Since a large part of our goal as recruiting followers and fans is to not only be proud of our current recruits, but to predict where other potential recruits will go, it is (whether we like it or not) "important" for us to divine what the 17 year old recruits are thinking in terms of what their verbal commitment actually means. That is why we can't just take every verbal commitment to mean the same thing. Even though it would be much easier for us (and teams) to believe that, it simply isn't true. Therefore, we have to try and figure out the reality of each situation in order to better predict the future (in order to be the best fans [of recruiting] that we can be).
Secondly, after reading your post and rereading my own, I realize that I probably shouldn't have used all inclusive phrases and words when it came to identifying decommitments. I still believe that most of those kids will generally display similar tendencies before and after verbally committing to a school, but not necessarily all of them. Beaver is a great example. We as fans had no idea that he was wavering in his commitment until he changed. The coaches may have had a better idea but it doesn't sound like it. I would classify that type of change as the most rare of exceptions and normally at least the coaches will pick up on something being amiss even if the fans don't/can't.
I do believe that the math should've been #Decommits/#TotalCommits where we had 5 decommits (I think that you're right there) and 27 total commits over the year. 5/27=0.185=18.5%, which is still an extremely high number. And you're definitely right that those that the number of kids that show early warning signs of possibly not being secure in their verbal commitment, are higher than the number of kids that eventually do decommit. My point is that if you think of set A as being all of the kids that show those early warning signs and set B being all the kids that do eventually back down from a verbal commitment, somewhere around 90%-95% of set B would be found in set A. If that is true, then coaches know who they really have to continue to recruit until they sign and LOI and fans can at least soften the blow of a decommitment by already knowing that the probability of a set A decommitting is much higher then a kid that isn't in set A.
I would also argue that the 18.5% number is abnormally high both for Michigan and college football in general. As we're all painfully aware, Michigan went 3-9 for the first time since God said "let there be light". This unusual display of ineptitude and failure probably had a strong affect on some the commitments. We also know that RichRod sort of changed his recruiting style from the beginning to end of the year, he changed more to what he likes and is used to compared to what he had to do to finish the 2008 class. This means that some kids that might not have committed under his new recruiting style did commit and when they saw the change were possibly influenced to change their minds. I don't know, but I feel like most of the kids that did end up decommitting were recruited earlier rather then later. Finally, as we all know Michigan is changing its offensive style quite a bit and we've got our third DC in 3 years. This means that some kids might've committed with some expectation of the type of offense or defense that they'd be playing in (or that they'd be playing under Shafer) only to realize that that is wrong, also pushing them to decommit. All of these factors combined probably pushed an abnormally large number of kids to decommit.
I do feel that the 18.5% number will decrease, but it won't go to 0. Even if RichRod starts making the BCS every year, I believe that we'll see him giving out more offers then we're used to. This leads to situations which Brian has discussed which can be sticky and eventually lead to decommitments.
Finally, you're right that we definitely didn't identify all of the kids that did decommit as kids with a fair likelihood of doing so. We had to rationalize why many of them left and there were far fewer warning signs that they would do so then my post would seem to imply. I would argue that that is, once again, an abnormality brought on by all the reasons discussed above the high number of decommitments.
I too, of course, hope that Clay changes his mind. And since I see him as belonging in set A discussed earlier, will still try to keep up with his recruitment, although not nearly as much as other recruits U of M is going after.
In response to your first comment that was in response to my first comment that addressed one of your first comments - I think we are talking about two different realities - you take a descriptive approach, I a normative one. You are concerned with how we deal with the reality of how commitments actually work these days. I am concerned with how they should work. Thus, in my world, a decommitment would come at a high cost for the recruit. For example, drawing on a Clemson example I think, engaging in the recruitment processes after verbally committing could mean the accepted offer is withdrawn. Kids would then be much more reluctant to commit until they were sure. Another option is an earlier signing period.
As for the second point, yes Beaver is an outlier. And we unfortunately can't know what the coaches know. They may be surprised by some decommitments that we are not surprised by (e.g., a recruit might tell coaches one thing and friends another), and not surprised by some that we are surprised by. I do agree with you in that most of the time the coaches have more of an inkling than we do. They are likely surprised less often than we are. But this still does not address your claim that those that might decommit are a relatively small group - whether the coaches are aware of them or not. Thus, while your logic about group A and B is clever and unassailable, my claim is that many recruits see decommitting as an accepted action these days, and this fosters more who see decommitting as an option. I would venture that some in fact see the benefits of decommitting as greater than the benefits of their first commitment (inherent in that is a cost/benefit analysis of the decommitment itself - costs of leaving the program = low in this recruiting environment, benefits of leaving = high if doing so means they can then accept an offer to a program that better suits their needs). Thus, their first commitment gains them attention, and they are free to then decommit and trade up for another program (this can be an intentional or unintentional process).
I also agree that there are many recent historical factors here that fostered decommitments. You are right, there will be a natural decrease in decommitments, but we need to return to this at a later date to see if the drop off is like one you would expect (medium to high) or one I would expect (low).
Bleedin9Blue - All logical, intelligent, and well-put points. I look forward to your comments, then I call a truce for now. We are so deep into the minutia that I am somewhat unsure what what side I am arguing anymore.
The next three months can't go fast enough.
You ain't just a kiddin.
other sports enough to distract me!
lots of it
floats your boat, but I have a girl for things like that.
Last week on Tates status, Clay stated "Tate, it better be sick up there on sep xx(cant reemember date)" Or something like that.
Hopefuly he still visits.
Here we go again... let's go write on his wall telling him how amazing michigan is... Or we can acknowledge that he's a big boy and can figure it out for himself.
That's what's frustrating. All you want to when you see this is tell the people to STFU and quit writing on these kids' walls, but if you do that you're just as annoying. So... I just stay off their sites altogether now.
...I bet every other big-time or decent recruit in the country gets swarmed by fanbase-begging just like Clay. Especially on Facebook, since it's so easy, some people are just stupid and feel that obligation to be "special" by posting on the wall of a hopeful future player for their team. That said, it's not like if Clay wanted to be left alone he couldn't turn down random fans' invitations, so he must welcome the attention somewhat.
I don't think facebook will win him over
What about BOOK OF FACE?
Maybe he is on the super-time-wasting site "youtwitface"? Maybe we can win him over on there.
Now that is possible. We should try that approach instead.
to continue putting in work to secure his services? How bad does R2 want him...I suppose we're going to find out. If Clay decides to tell all his suitors to not stop recruiting him....wonder what Stoops gonna think? This could turnout to be quite interesting.
I'm just confused by the commitment to OK. To my understanding, he either wanted to stay on the west coast or go play with his old QB, Tate. I had no idea OK had a shot, and I don't know how good they will be after this season with a bulk of their D and a Heisman candidate QB leaving. At least with M he gets to be a possible star RB on a growing program. He would have an O-line full of three year starters in front of him, but I'm sure there's elements I'm not aware of so we'll have to wait and see.
Oklahoma will be good every year because that's who they are. They still recruit great every year and they still have Stoops at Head Coach.
Oklahoma makes sense, actually. Stoops' conversation with him probably centered around Adrian Peterson's start-from-the-get-go career. and w/ Bradford gone after this season, he has the chance to develop into the focal point of that offense.
but, Michigan sure make's sense, as well. maybe he's waiting to see if tate actually holds onto the starting job? who knows.
...Clay's commitment. I would have done it too. You've got a commitment to the national champion runners up.
However, you know that a team that runs an offense you love, with your best friend, is improving. If you see that improvement during the 2009 season, and you like the coaches, and what they've installed, and you enjoy the visit, you de-commit and commit to Michigan.
But, your "fallback" is Oklahoma.
Some life!
He's a smart kid. What you just wrote makes alot of sense. That would be the logical action of someone who has carefully thought the situation through.
Commit early to a place with strong upside in terms of your development, take your visits, and see what happens.
RR and Stoops have a relationship off the field. RR came to Norman to learn how to better use a tight end in the spread offense, and Stoops wanted to learn more about using slot receivers and superbacks. I doubt the coaches allow this situation to get ugly over one recruit. Honestly, I say they go after Austin White a little harder now.
..Clay's commitment is 100% solid and that Clay does not have the mental fortitude to withdraw a commitment made after he stated he would take official visits to schools and then decide on a college.
It doesn't matter if Stoops and Rodriguez are friends. Tate and Brennan are friends. If Brennan wants to come to Michigan, do you really think Rich is going to say, "Uh, no thanks. You've made a commitment to my friend Mr. Stoops."
since they are friends, RR may back-off (this does not apply to Tate) and not negative recruit him. At the end of the day though, it is Clay's decision and hopefully he changes his mind to Blue.
palm fronds in the parking lot of the Big House.
If you are a real Michigan fan, you will buy some then stalk Tate and lay them down in his path.
(Viton)
Instead, I suggest we install a small body of water between the locker room entrance and where they let the athletes of the bus, then Tate can simply walk across it, and challenge his teammates to follow him