Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Torrian Wilson just sent me a text saying he is visiting Michigan in December.
He said it will be an official visit. He's still committed to Stanford, but open to every school.
Coach Hopson will be visiting him tomorrow.
He said he's probably waiting until signing day to make his final decision.
I think it's safe to say that our commit list could look completely different come February.
That doesn't fill me with optimism, but eventually he has to land a big name.
I agree that our commit list is going to undergo some noticeable changes by signing day.
I hope you mean in a good way. We can't afford to lose what few standouts we have coming in with this class.
I think we could afford to drop one or two RBs and WRs, each. I know it's been beaten to death, but I agree with the crowd that thinks RichRod got a little too enthusiastic about RBs and WRs.
To be sure, every position is important, but OL and Defense are especially important, and even more so in light of our depth chart. It is much easier to let your most athletic guy run behind an awesome OL than it is to let an awesome RB run behind a crappy OL.
For example, look at guys like Mike Shanahan or Kirk Ferentz- they build sweet OLs, and the RB position just kind of falls into place.
Furthermore, WR and RB are probably the two easiest positions to find ready-to-play freshmen. Conversely, ready-to-play freshmen on the OL or on defense are much harder to find.
So, if our skill position guys aren't cutting it in 2010, we can probably try to add some freshmen to get instant playing time (i.e. Demitrius Hart). But, if our OL or defense suck, then we're looking at another two to three years to recruit these kids and get them ready to play.
Thanks for the news, Tom.
Then we can safely say that Mr. Wilson wont be faxing a LOI to RR on signing day.
EDIT: Fine, I'm being a little hard on Hopson. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since Torrian Wilson doesnt play defensive tackle
Haha! You said, "hard on".
With only 3 spots remaining who would the coaches lose contact with first if more prized recruits promised them their commitment?
... Not named Ricardo Miller
or Jeremy Jackson.
or Drew Dileo.
Trying my best to avoid redundant "Dileo" joke...
But I need points to bail out of this mess.
Or Jerald Robinson who is probably the best of the bunch. I have a hard time picking between Robinson and miller.
make JJ a walkon and give his dad a salary bump?
I watched that movie for the first time last night. I was left utterly speechless. Good movie though.
I had similar thoughts regarding Hopson. However I know at one point Torrian was pretty high on us. Would love to see another O-linemen in this class. It ought to be a couple of very interesting months seeing how RR and co. finagle this class.
Also visiting Tenn. in January but that seems to be it, sounds like Stanford is the least likely of the 3 for his LOI
one of the 7 or so WR recruits. We have multiple receivers around for a couple more years plus a ton coming in. I definitely wouldn't mind dropping one for a decent T/G recruit. One can never have too much OL depth
With this latest news along with the Hankins offer, perhaps a couple of our commits are in danger of not qualifying/getting the Barnes treatment. If that is true the only player I heard of having academic issues is Kinard, who else may have some?
The Hankins thing is unrelated. He would play nose tackle, and we don't have another nose tackle in this class. He's probably being offered because we don't have a shot at some big-time recruits like Sharrif Floyd, and our chances are slim with Mike Thornton and Jatashun Beachum. But Terry Talbott is the only DT in this class, and he's a 3-tech DT, not a 1-tech.
It just seems weird that we have 3 spots left and a Grimes a Murphy commitment look to be just a formality. In the past couple days this and the Hankins offer happened and so it makes me think that maybe the coaches have heard bad news regarding at least one of their commits in the past couple of days...or Im just reading too much into it and everything is fine, which is probably the case.
a) We may be able to take more than 25 recruits.
b) The Hankins offer is probably more related to Beachum's unwillingness to decommit from Arkansas (I assume) and the need for another DL in this class.
c) I've maintained from the beginning that I don't think all of our WR commits will sign with us on NSD. I do think that we'll see a decommit, slow-play situation, or a position change.
a) Im so confused about this rule and whether or not its been changed, I dont think it will be cleared up until NSD.
b) Agree, Beachum looked like he may commit at one point then decided to honor his commitment. That and the coaches told Hankins at the beginning of the year that they would evaluate his senior film and make a decision on offering him (i.e. his conditioning). I dont know if he was just incredible this year or because of Beachum
c) I have to agree with you here, either Williamson or J-Rob are going to be givin an ultimatum or the Barnes treatment.
It's not just the "can you sign early enrollees back" issue, but also one that you're allowed to take more than 25 commitments, but 25 can't actually enroll. Each year, we lose 1 or 2 guys because of academic ineligibility.
I spoke with compliance at Michigan today. The rules say that we are allowed to take 25 commits each year, and we can't back date any of them.
Thank you TomVH, Im going to go with this from now on
Tom did they tell you the basis for the rule? Where in the rulebook is it referenced?
Oklahoma has 25 verbals and is still in the hunt for Jefferson, Stills, Martin, and others
Oklahoma State has 26 verbals and continues to recruit.
BYU has 25 recruits and is still recruiting.
I don't doubt that compliance told you that, I just don't understand why no one else in the country seems to be concerned about the rule change.
Maybe with the season over RR and the staff were able to sit down and start hammering at recruiting more than during the season.
Do we ever play with a 1-tech? I thought we always played a straight 4-3 with a 3-tech?
It depends on your numbering system. When I say "1-tech" I'm referring to the nose tackle (i.e. what Mike Martin and Terrance Taylor played).
I really detest having to "slow play" a commit in order to try and get him to decommit so we can take a higher rated player in his place. We accept a commit from a player we extended a scholarship to and we need to honor that commitment.
It wasn't difficult to see that the plethora of early WR commits, both outside and slot, was eventually going to bite us in the balls. I think that's what's happening now.
Chad U. Bacon, uhhhhh how is it biting us in the balls? a couple scenarios play out here. 1. We slow play a WR recruit and get a DT or a G/T/LB commit we weren't really projecting. 2. We don't slow play anyone and keep our commits we have and we're trying to see where we stand with players X,Y and Z. Either way we already have the commits. It is not going to bite us in the balls. What would bite us in the balls is putting all our eggs into 1 basket (think Mallett or even Montana at OSU) and having only Miller committed because he is supposed to be awesome.
He may be referring to the idea that if we slow-play a recruit and force him to decommit, then that will look bad for our coaching staff.
I get that and it will look bad but it happens at a lot of places Alabama for one and they aren't team ramrodded by the media. I'd rather not do it, Id rather go with what we have and I think we do have an underrated class but if it is the difference between a Beachum or Furman or Wilson I wouldn't be against it.
I get that and it will look bad but it happens at a lot of places Alabama for one and they aren't team ramrodded by the media. I'd rather not do it, Id rather go with what we have and I think we do have an underrated class but if it is the difference between a Beachum or Furman or Wilson I wouldn't be against it.
I just think it's really shady and a place like Michigan should be above it. Maybe that's my Michigan elitist attitude speaking but it's how I feel. I won't ever complain about a decommit because of how we slow played Barnes and if that happens again, I'll be ashamed of this coaching staff. I would be against slow playing a recruit even if it meant that Charles Woodson would be able to come back to Michigan for four years. The situation is irrelevant when it comes to ethics IMO. And don't tell me it happens everywhere because I have only seen this in a few instance. Does Jim Tressel do it? JoePa? Sad that I have to retort to the sweatervest on an issue of ethics *shudders*
Why is that okay but it's not okay for the coaches to decommit from a player. It's the same thing both of them suck and they are both shady but it happens now-a-days in recruiting...
Why is it completely okay for kids to de-commit from a school but it's not okay for a coach to lose a players number? 2 sides of the same coin if you ask me...
I would think a 40 or 50 year old man should be able to show more discernment than an 18 year old kid who is making a decision that will impact the rest of his life.
rr could murder babies and bouje would be okay with it
I wouldn't be and to say that is just ignorant. Coaches should be held accountable for decommiting from student athletes but so should the student athletes.
I picked Michigan and never really looked back or floundered on my commitment and frankly there isn't much of a difference. Decommitments are becoming so frequent that coaches have to count on guys decommiting from them when figuring out how many guys they can recruit for their class.
Why do athletes get a pass and can completely hang out coaches out to dry at the last minute? At least the coaches let them know before-hand and it's also a LOT easier for a recruit to find a new home than for a coach to find a new recruit.
I'm not saying that we should screw over kids on signing day but I have no problem slow playing kids before the end of the year because as was seen last year kids screw over colleges and the coaches too.
1) Some kids aren't as decisive as others. Some know exactly what they want and go for it, others are unsure of what they want. I switched my major twice in college before finding what I wanted to do. Wasted 25 unnecessary credits and money because I didn't know what to do with my life. I remember feeling that the decisions I had to make as an 18 year old were unfair. These guys have even more to take into account. Coaches are MEN (cue Mike Gundy speech). They should know their needs and do their scouting and know which players they want before they offer. I'm holding a 50 year old man much more accountable than someone less than have his age. Coaching is their job, playing is only a "hobby" for the players. It is not their whole life.
2) They have so many people in their ear telling them what they should do. College coaches, high school coaches, parents, peers etc. Each telling them a different thing. It's a really stressful and confusing process. Recruiting has turned into a monster.
3) I'm a huge signing day de-commitment hater. Those are inexcusable IMO. If you don't know where you're going, open up the recruitment and don't tell your coaches you are still committed to them. It leaves the coaches out to dry. Jack Campbell, the uber goalie, is one name that comes to mind. Our goalie depth is abysmal now that he won't be coming next year.
4) The kids can get screwed when the coaches "decommit" from them. Say a recruit really only likes 2-3 schools and makes his decision. Then the coach he committed to slow plays him. He looks at the other teams he was interested in and the spot he could have taken is locked up. Now he's gotta look at all new schools and maybe places he won't like. Sucks. And could happen at any time in the recruiting process.
5) I think a nice solution to some of these situations is an early signing day. You could have one right before the high school seasons start and keep the other in February. It would be easier on both coaches and players. Players wont' have to worry about crazy coaches contacting them even after they've made a solid commitment. Coaches know they have part of their class locked up and have less to stress about. It's a win on all sides IMO. Prevents some of the decommitments and if one of your early commitments doesn't sign in August, you know he's wavering so you can be prepared to look at other options available.
It's not always that black and white. With the general pace of recruiting picking up, many recruits often commit just to hold a place in the class while they continue to look around ala DeQuinta Jones (who early on committed sight unseen and then signed with Arkansas on NSD).
After reading your post I am not sure what you are trying to say. The debate seems to be whether it is "ok" for a coach to "decommitt" from a player (as bouje has put it) or whether that right should rest soley with the player.
I guess I am just confused which side of the debate your post is supposed to support. If what you are saying is true, it makes me think that coaches should be able to do this without feeling very guilty if kids are committing just so they don't get left out in the cold and will bolt as soon as a better offer comes around.
Cane.
probably, given his HS, but the staff identified him early on as a nimble, strong OG, so why not go for it?
Oh God, I hope we get him.
Unless we don't get him. In which case, we didn't want him and we are fine and everything is exactly as we planned...
Even with the limited number of scholarships left, the desperate need for defense, and the numbers in the last two classes, I still think taking only one o-lineman in a recruiting class is asking for depth problems in the future. Here's hoping for some snake oilz...
Maybe we can get one of the WR commits to switch to LT down the road. Problem solved.
The plot thickens. Ha Ha Ha (evil laugh)
Don't know if this is even possible, but could a recruit's parents pay they're way and have them become walk-ons? Maybe Jeremy Jackson to help the team out and free up a scholarship.
No. Unless the Jackson family ASKS to do this without any influence, this is hugely unethical.
And even if the Jackson family wanted to do this, don't you think every school in the nation will use it to negatively recruit? As in "congrats on the offer from Michigan, but don't you know that your family will still have to pay for you to go to school there? Oh wait, you can't afford that...better come to my school"
I've never thought about this before, but can't the kids of coaches attend U of M for free? I thought I heard something about that several years ago. Is it just for head coaches? Am I making the whole thing up?
Anyway, if I'm not making that whole thing up, maybe Jeremy Jackson can "walk on" to the team without actually taking up a scholarship offer.
(Although I've heard that Fred Jackson may move on to the NFL this year.)
all full-time employees could have their biological children attend school for free! One of the perks! Not sure about Michigan though!
They're = they are, as in they are coming.
Their = their not coming
no wait...
Yeah, you're right, bad idea!
I read somewhere that he will return next year.
if Jackson MAYBE deciding to leave the program has anything to do with MAYBE just maybe RR cooling on Jackson's son? I could see a very, very strong cause and effect linkage there. Because, you know, why in the WORLD would Jackson want to leave just as his pride and joy begins his playing career at the place where he coaches? As a dad myself, that makes no sense to me.
This could be a similar situation as to why Justin Boren left: his little brother Zach wasn't offered by RR so the Borens decided to take their balls and go home.
I think you're making connections where there aren't any.
I've heard that Fred Jackson has been considering a move to the pros for a while, and that he stuck around to help the transition from Carr to Rodriguez. Now that the transition has been made (albeit not entirely successfully), he might be exploring other horizons.
Lets treat guys who are committed to the program and have been respectful in the process, helped with recruiting others, and been nothing but Michigan men with respect.
Comparing Fred Jackson to the Borens makes you sound like a total idiot.
Jackson is coming to UM and he is doing it in January. IMO he will be a TE when all is said and done.
I would've never brought it up except for it being a coaches son knowing they should be able to afford it. But I do realize that it is a bad idea. My bad!
You're probably right, but I did read late last week (sorry forget which site) that he was asked about that and he responded saying that he would return next year.
Ok, I know this happens all the time in recruiting and that these kids have yet to sign anything, but why the hell is the word "committed" even used before signing day? To me, when someone says they're committed, that means "I've made up my mind for good and that's what I'm sticking with." Don't get me wrong, I hope we land this guy, but as far as I'm concerned as long as you've left your options open to other schools, you're not committed.
[/minirant]
Michigan might have to make some hard decisions about guys who are committed but unqualified as signing day nears. GBW says there are two, Drake and Kinard.
Interesting... Thanks for the info.
Drake wouldn't be a huge loss due to the logjam at his position, although I do think he's a good player. The loss of Kinard would be kind of disappointing, though, because he could potentially play MIKE if the whole Quick thing didn't work out.
I wonder if we'll see some more linebacker offers going out, or perhaps that's why we offered Quayshawn Nealy...
Not to mention 17 deep in slot? LB's galore pleeeeasse!
We took 5 LBs last year, 2 JRs, 2 SRs, 1 incoming. How many do you want?
We have 5/6 slots right now (6 if you include Roundtree) for 2 spots... How is that too many guys for those spots? If you want to say that we have too many WRs period (slots and outside guys) then yes I'd agree with you but I would say that we actually have too many RBs in this class/in general.
We need more DTs, Ss, CBs. We honestly don't need many more LBs.
to hand out some ultimatums to these guys. "Get qualified by X date or we are going to have to look elsewhere." Spots are at a premium and we can't afford to have a less than full roster or guys coming in late a la Turner and (worse) Witty.
Further, it wouldn't be the least bit shady or underhanded. We are keeping our commitment and only asking that the recruit do what is necessary to keep that scholarship. Assuming the date given is fair, we are merely protecting our interests and developing contingency plans. The recruit would have time to meet specified criteria and it would leave them with time to pursue a backup plan as well.
A jim harbuagh departure would be key for us in this battle.
But I am completley against 'slow-playing" a recruit also. Especially if the kid hasn't been fooling around with any other schools. I hope rich doesn't slow play anyone currently on the commit list. I don't care if its dj williamson for kyle prater. A commitment is a promise.
get one of the smarter players, find some random academic scholarship, get him in for free, get him to walkon
Haha, you do realize those are almost unheard of at Michigan? They give virtually no money for academic scholarships, which is pretty sad in my opinion.
If someone is on scholarship for anything, and plays football, they count towards the football scholarship limit.
that sometimes the conversation goes like this: "Hi recruit, how are things going. You know we're still looking forward to your coming here, but you should know that the depth chart that we discussed has changed significantly. We've had a lot of other commits at your position and there's a pretty good chance that you won't see the field before your junior or even senior year. As I said, you're still welcome to come, but we don't want you to come thinking you're going to play in the next year or two."
At that point, most recruits getting that spiel will examine their options and go elsewhere.
Is having that conversation -- if the statements are true -- unethical or highly ethical? I work in the ethics field and I'm not sure what the answer is.
Why would that conversation be unethical? It would be truthful, and it would give the recruit advance warning of what might happen in the next 3 or 4 years. It would only be unethical if any part of that statement were untrue, like if the kid didn't decommit, then the coaches would just refuse to accept his official commitment.
Often in ethics, there's no "right" answer. One could, for example, argue that once the team offers a player or two or three at a position and gets acceptances, then it shouldn't offer any more players at that position. Of course, the problem is that the kids haven't signed their commitment papers so the team that stops offering could be left in the lurch. I lean to saying that the conversation about which I hypothesized is perfectly fine, but reasonable individuals could differ.
I'm with the folks who don't have a problem with gently nudging a recruit with less talent towards a different program. I don't like it, but there's no accountability at all on the recruit's side. Commitments are either commitments, or they aren't. I'm not talking about actively yanking a guy's schollie, but I don't have a problem with signalling to him that he will be buried on the depth chart and he might want to look elsewhere. As someone mentioned earlier, it can be very hard for a coach to adjust to a decommit. Especially if it's really late. And I think that Michigan has been the victim of snake oil and decommits much more often than it has been the beneficiary. At some point, you have to realize that you can't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Thanks for the post Tom! I'd love to get Wilson in the fold. Let's put on a good show for him when he comes. Anybody know any strippers...er, I mean entertainment specialists?
If by "14 deep on the Quick position" you mean 3 deep (Roh, Herron, Watson) with a couple commits who could play Quick or DE (Wilkins, Paskorz), then sure. And Kinard could play MIKE, too, so he's a linebacker either way.
You, sir, are to be commended. It's an excellent idea to take an academic scholarship, take it away from a smart kid, and give it to a talented athlete. Gifted athletes are where all the free money should go, not to the kids who stayed off the street in order to do homework and read books!
