a theory on the prevalence of walk-ons

Not sure about that Magnus. It is a decent theory and I know people have bashed Carr about the hierarchy of of not playing young kids, but I think almost all teams play their best players regardless, because I think you lose your team if you don't. Players know who the best players are, everyone has played on teams in youth sports where a son or favorite got pt over a better player andit kills team morale. Since it may be hard for a walk on to prove himself under Lloyds limited live practice you may be right, but maybe Lloyd wasn't doing it as an intentional thing, but they just didn't have a chance. Coaches love making kids work for playing time and Lloyd seemed like he relished the chance to hold that over a kids head, like S. Crable

PS That rap on Lloyd was BS about not playing guys...the list of frosh's playing were endless...Henne, Hart, Mannigham, Woodley etc.

It seems to me that an athlete has rougly a 3 year window to make it. 15-18. Google Trent Daavettila and you will see that some athletes develope later.

Good post, Magnus. I don't have numbers, but it always seemed like other Big Ten teams played more walkons.

Rich Rodriguez is playing the best players he has available to him. If Fitzgerald or Demens or Vlad were good enough to play over the walk-ons than they would. Rich Rod has stressed competition since his first day in Ann Arbor and I think we are seeing the results of those competitions now. It's ludacris to think that the walk-ons are playing just because they are walk-ons and not because they are better than scholarship athletes at this point in the season.

namely, that "if you're on scholarship, you're playing." could explain the lack of fitness and conditioning displayed by a few former players.

I don't think its a matter of walk-ons v. scholarships players. Instead, I think that Carr, like many other coaches, had a bit of a rigid idea of who will play. And, who will play is the older player who has accomplished something in the past.

On the flip side, RichRod is constantly talking about open competition. He seems like he's got a pretty quick hook with starters who are outperformed by their backups.

So yes, it's possible that we had some awesome walk-ons under Carr, but it's also likely that we had a lot of younger scholarship guys who could have beaten out the starter ahead of them.

I remember back in the day living next to a Michigan football player. One of his complaints was that walkons didn't get a fair shake. Now, anyone who wants to play and isn't on the field can complain about "the coaches aren't fair." But I think there is something to this. And if the coaches are giving an honest evaluation, and putting the best players on the field, regardless of pedigree, that's awesome. This only increases competition, and puts scholarship players on notice that nothing is guaranteed.

It has been repeated here, ad nauseum, that the star system is imperfect. It is somewhat of a gauge, over the longhaul, of who should be on the field. Obviously, you want as many four star and five star players as possible. But, sometimes someone slips through the cracks. This is basic statistics. "On average," a 4 star recruit is going to be better than a 3 star or 2 star or no star recruit. The problem is forgetting the phrase, "on average." It doesn't adequately account for the outliers . . . the Mike Harts of the world. Maybe they play for a crummy team, or have a terrible coach, or who knows what.

In Chicago, everyone is gaga over Johnny Knox, a 5th round WR draft pick for the bears from Abilene Christian. We'll see over time how he pans out. But there is a long history of players at every level who played far beyond what their pedigree would lead you to believe.

I guess the thing that pleases me most is that RichRod is giving a clear signal that he is playing fair. If you work hard, and have the talent, you will see the field. I would LOVE for Michigan to have the rep out there that if you are good, better than anyone thinks, but are only recruited at a lower level, come to Michigan and play as a walkon. Getting 2 - 4 "diamonds in the rough" every year is like free money. It doesn't count against the schoarship and numbers of recruits allowed.

It could be as simple as we have a good group of walk-ons currently.
The changeover from LLoyd to RR created a unique opportunity for walk-ons. Let's see what happens over the next few years. Also most of the players being passed over are Freshman. Walk-ons being second on the depth chart is probably a less likely scenario once we have a veteran team.

Some thoughts about walk-ons and team culture going forward

Following the open competition thread, do you think maybe the coaches are trying to light the fire under say Fitzgerald, Demens or some of the other younger scholarship guys? Think in terms of investing in the future. By challenging them to fight for their spot, they are faced with adversity they may not be accustomed to dealing with. RR's wants to push them to do their best. In HS, they were BMOC's. Now they have to compete daily.

RR wants them to stay hungry and humble. A walk-on player is not going to have any false notions or sense of entitlements, he had to work for every moment of time he gets. This will make an impression on the younger players, frosh particularly. So, the walk-ons are going to push the other guys and their presence helps set the tone at practice in particular. Wasn't it Barwis who said you rise to the level of your preparation? I think the WVa coaches are used to scrappy, tail busting athletes who fight for their job. Didn't Beilein also give minutes to walk-ons in bb too?

If they made the 2 deep, then we could assume the young scholarship guys are simply not ready. However, an alternative is that the walk-ons actually get the system and the spirit the coaching staff is trying to establish. Further, they may be fully committed and 'all in'. While probability suggests that scholarship and rated players coming from high school will have a more significant impact during their career, it can take time to adjust to the college game. Consider Newsome the PSU QB. Or consider that Tate is exceptional and not the rule. As M has many younger players on the roster, their time may not be just yet. While they are developing, why not fill the 2 deep with guys who play with determination and heart.

As has been stated previously, the jump from 3-9 to say 7-5 or 8-4 is a big jump. Given the cupboard was considerably bare last year, I'm thinking RR just doesn't want to wait for another recruiting cycle to fill it... he wants to turn over every stone to find guys who are all in and will run through walls for him.

As an example, some may feel that Leach may is not that 'good' but it looked to me like he hustled and played through every down. Given the short notice of the suspension, I think Leach did pretty well under the circumstances. I realize in the long run we want stud muffin lb's, but I do like to see guys bust their tail and play hard.

In summary, the walks-ons appear to be playing a significant role in developing the team culture, RR and coaches are developing.

I was familiar with the walk-on situation when Carr arrived at Michigan. Way back then, with more scholarships and a consistant program under Bo, there was more depth so freshmen and even sophomores didn't play as much (scholarship or walk-on). In those olden days, my impression was that the young scholarship players got the benefit of more direct coaching and more opportunity to show what they could do. By the time they were upperclassmen, they played and the walk-ons didn't, partly because they blossomed more due to the extra attention when they were younger. I attributed this extra coaching attention to three things: 1)the investment of a scholarship meant the coaches had more of a commitment to developing that investment; 2)the player's receipt of a scholarship meant they were more likely to stick it out through tough times (injuries, family issues, more challenging/time-intensive academic choices) so the extra coaching attention wouldn't "go to waste" if the walk-on left the team; and 3)the scholarship players usually were usually bigger, faster, and had more long-term upside.

I don't know that this really means much in the age of 85 scholarships, but if the depth is thin, RR may be more often faced with the choice of playing a walk-on (who may be more polished or quicker to grasp positional responsibilies but not as phyically gifted) and playing a young scholarship player who's more "talented" but less ready to play now. Or not.

Mels dummy

knowledge of the system and awareness on the field over pure talent. This could lead to walkons playing over recruitings thought to have superior talent.

It does not surprise me that Kevin Leach is starting ahead of a true freshman. He redshirted in 2007, and played in 6 games until injured in 2008. He is two years older than the freshmen and has 2 more years of college coaching.