I just received scouts free weekend visit list e-mail, and they listed Jibreel Black and Torrian Wilson as visiting this weekend. I thought a) He was a solid Louisville commit, and b) UM had cooled on him. Anyone have any insight on this??
Torrian Wilson visiting this weekend according to Scout
I feel bad for all the teams like Louisville who get kids to commit and then a week later they are taking visits elsewhere. If he does decommit that would make two schools that he did that to. While I would be happy to get another Olineman in the class it's pretty lame of him to do. Rivals doesn't have anything on that yet, I'll keep my eyes open for something.
It's a mistake. The only visitors this weekend are Black and Kenny Wilkins. Wilson is no longer on the radar in any way, shape, or form.
So how do you know this?
How do I know what, exactly? Wilson's not visiting, and they're no longer pushing for him. His knee injury made UM coaches skittish, hence all the noise about a "mystery OT" popping up, they were looking for alternatives as they slowly backed away from Wilson.
What do you mean what? Everything you're saying right now you're positing as fact. You're not saying "I think" or "I've heard from others on this board" at the beginning of anything you've said. Both would denote a measure of uncertainty, but since you haven't thrown out anything like that, you're implying that you know this information as fact. I'm asking you how. B/c if you just "know" this stuff based on intuition, you shouldn't be posting it as fact. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I would fully agree that it's extremely unlikely that Wilson is visiting this weekend. But since I don't know for sure, especially with Scout saying that he will, I'm not going to pretend like I know for FACT that he won't.
Except Scout isn't saying that he will. As I said, that email was a mistake. If you're a member, you can view their list of visitors for this weekend that was updated at 9:13 this morning. There are two visitors this weekend: Jibreel Black and Ken Wilkins. And they've been saying for over a month that UM was nervous about his knee injury. He committed to Louisville, it's over.
Thank you for the additional info.
Success in college football is 80% recruiting 20% coaching.
You can't hate recruiting and love college football.
That's like saying you hate cleavage but love boobs. They go hand in hand.
If you don't like the rules the NCAA has in place as it pertains to recruiting that's different. However, if you want to win the game you have to play by the rules. (-USC)
I hate the BCS that doesn't mean I hate college football.
I love and follow recruiting because it directly effects the future of the program.
College football is 80% Recruiting. Absolutely. Coaching only matters 20%.
Just ask Notre Dame.
Success in college football is 80% recruiting 20% coaching.
Ron Zook begs to differ.
I think that Boise State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, and a host of other schools make your assertion a bit dubious. None of those programs finish anywhere close to the leaders in recruiting year after year, yet they continue, in most years, to be very competitive with schools that sign much more highly ranked recruits.
Do you really think that if Nick Saban retired and the 2010 Alabama squad was coached by Mike Debord that there would be no dropoff?
that if Nick Saban was coaching at Middle Tennessee State that he would be winning national championships?
college football is 80% recruiting and 20% coaching. Rich Rod is a great coach that just needs to get his kids in the program. There is no doubt in my mind that once RR gets a few full recruiting classes some experience in his system MICHIGAN will see a dramatic improvement on the field.
You have to have the horses to run the race.
its about developing the kids you recruit, look at all the 3-stars that have become All-Americans and the 5-Stars that have been busts. Thats one reason Barwis is so big for us
Yep. Barwis has been huge for us. Look at all those wins he's piling up...
If you actually believed he would result in additional wins on the field you have no one to blame but yourself for taking the over-the-top hyperbole about him seriously. Barwis has earned every nickel he's gotten since he arrived. He's done his job perfectly.
but on the other hand, how do we know he's doing his job "perfectly?" If he was doing it poorly we'd see it on the field (ala numerous LC era opposing players saying that we were gassed in the 4th Q) but what is the evidence that he's doing it better than average?
I didn't say that. What I was stating through implication is that NO ONE has been "huge" for us, since we've gone 3-9 and 5-7 in the past two seasons. Not Rodriguez, not Magee, not Tall, not Gibson, nobody.
So you don't think players getting stronger and in better shape is big for us?
What does it matter if players get stronger and in better shape if you're losing?
I don't care if the players all weigh 400 pounds and can only bench press Lindsay Lohan, the thing that matters is what's in the win column. If those 400-pounders win, then THAT'S huge. Nothing is "huge for us" when we're losing.
You're missing his point entirely.
His point is that unless a team wins more than 5 games, it is impossible for a coach or staff member to be performing well in their individual role. I don't really think that is accurate. Please tell me how Barwis is not doing a good job or how is not having a big impact on our team.
That's decidedly not my point.
So then explain what Barwis should be doing to help our team out more so he can be big for us.
You don't get it.
The OP's original point was that Barwis has had a large impact on the football team. Your point was that he hasn't because we haven't won more games. My point was that everyone who has an impact on this team is not going to directly impact the wins and losses. What is there to get?
Barwis has earned every nickel he's gotten since he arrived. He's done his job perfectly.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but where is the evidence of that? Is there anything to indicate that our players are in better shape or more "explosive" than they were under the previous regime?
Don't get me wrong, I hope Barwis is turning them all into football killing machines, I'm just not sure we've seen anything thus far on the field to evidence his impact on the program.
I wasn't aware Barwis was calling plays for us
Regardless of whether he's calling plays or keeping the statistics, nobody can be "huge for us" when we're going 3-9 and 5-7.
You were the one who said he was "huge" for us.
Ummmm...no, I wasn't.
Do you think that the "Barwis effect" might be more evident when we have more depth? When we are able to run players in and and on a regular basis as opposed to relying on certain players almost entirely?
I don't think it will necessarily be more evident. We've already seen the evidence. Slimmer linemen, superhuman feats of strength by Will Johnson, Mike Martin's Hulk-ness, Brandon Graham's general awesomeness, etc. It's already evident. It just hasn't really led to anything, for reasons that are largely unrelated to him.
Yes, you were. The OP said that Barwis has been big for us, not huge.
Once you learn what a synonym is, please feel free to start posting again.
That is strange - I would think a more common synonym for big would be large. Why did you go with huge? Enormous is another synonym for big, why didn't you go with that?