We can take 28. Should we sign non-qualifiers?
According to this thread:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/early-enrollessclass-size-solved
we can oversign by 3 and take 28 players total in the 2010 class, and we DON'T have to lose 3 of them by August, as long as 3 of them are early enrollees.
So if that's the case, then do we even mess with non-qualifiers? When we thought we could take 28 but we had to lose 3, it didn't seem that big of a deal to sign non-qualifiers (which Kinard and Drake are rumored to be) since they would just be 2 of the 3 guys we'd need to cut out of the class.
But now that we CAN take 28 and keep every single one of them on the squad, do we even take a chance that these kids won't qualify? Why not take 28 players that we're sure can qualify for the fall?
December 9th, 2009 at 11:02 AM ^
Good point.
The hard and fast limit you can sign IS 28, correct? You can't sign 30, knowing that 2 will likely not qualify and get down to 28, correct?
If these assertions are correct, then I agree that UM should probably say, "Adios!" to any borderline academic casualties. The numbers are just too thin to risk not signing the maximum number we are allowed in the class.
The sad thing is that, IIRC, Josh Furman is not yet qualified and I would hate to lose that athletic freak (I am assuming that he will announce his commitment to UM on Dec 19. based on Sam Webb's "gut feeling") by instituting the above strategy.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
But he has glasses!! Must be be dreads, right?
EDIT [this is a reference to another thread, ignore if it you get it]
December 9th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
Furman reminds me of Dhani Jones way too much to be a nonqualifier.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:20 PM ^
I only included the comment about Furman because I read "somewhere" (sorry can't provide a link) that his coach or someone associated with him said that Josh had not yet qualified.
I could be entirely mistaken, if so, my bad.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:38 PM ^
I can neither confirm nor deny that Furman has qualified. I just have an irrational belief that with the glasses and the vague reminiscence of Dhani Jones, he must be qualified.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:04 AM ^
I would give these kids a chance to qualify up to a certain date prior to signing day, and if they can't, tell them their spots are at risk if someone else who is already qualified wants to sign an LOI. That doesn't mean they are SOL automatically--maybe no one else signs--but if they didn't get it done, it wouldn't be too unethical IMO to cut them loose. And if no one takes the spot, they still have a chance to get qualified before fall.
Granted it may not be possible for them to qualify (perhaps no test date available until after signing day or some such), but hopefull something along these lines has been the message all along, if indeed these couple of guys are iffy.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:08 AM ^
PFP - I think you're right on point, and I think this is what the coaching staff is going to do with the kids on the bubble (give them the chance, but let them know they are at risk of losing a spot).
December 9th, 2009 at 11:08 AM ^
I think we should keep in touch with them a la Witty and let them know that when they get their grades up they will have a chance to get their offer back. Not that anyone (media) would care because its actually a good story coming out of Ann Arbor, but I think it is pretty cool that the coaches didn't just stop talking to Witty because he didn't qualify. Whether they REALLY like him as a football player or not, you gotta like the loyalty.
For some reason, I have a feeling that they made a deal with Vinopal in which if there is room on signing day (somebody decommits, isn't going to qaulify)he will get a scholarship and if there is not then he will gray shirt.
So I guess to answer your question finally, I think the coaches should stop recruiting the non-qualifiers, but should not stop talking to them if that makes any sense. Something like hey, we are going to hold off on that scholarship offer until you qualify at which time you will get it back. And we'll be checking in on you from time to time and you are sure welcome to come to some games if you like.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:36 AM ^
Uh, why do you think they made this kind of a deal with Vinopal and not, for example, Carvin Johnson?
December 9th, 2009 at 11:42 AM ^
Probably for the exact same reason as you're suspecting.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:11 AM ^
"Joe Prospect graduates from h.s. early and enrolls at University A in Jan. 2010 as a scholarship fb player. University A is now at 81 scholarships (out of 85) for the 2009-10 academic year and Joe may be counted against the initial limit of 25 for either 2009-10 (if there’s room) or 2010-11."
"-all of the above describe NCAA rules; the Big Ten rule is that at no time can you be in a situation where more than 3 scholarships over the limit have been offered. So, if I have room for 25 initial counters next year, I can sign 28; if I have room for 20 initial counters next year, I can sign 23."
How does that count towards having early enrollees? It says we can "if I have room for 25 initial counters next year, I can sign 28" but it also says you can put early enrollees to the previous year. Does that mean we could put 5 players into last years class if they enroll early and we have 5 sots left over from last year and then sign 28 for next year knowing that 3 probably won't qualify?
December 9th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
I think signing 28 is a hard cap for the academic year, not the recruiting cycle. In other words, if we counted two EEs from the 09 to the 08 class we could sign 30 this recruiting cycle because we could count five enrollments to the 09-10 academic year.
Obviously the 85 cap prevents us from enrolling 30, but that gives us wiggle room with non qualifiers.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:59 PM ^
I think this has now become the big question. Is 28 the absolute max for signings or LOIs?
December 9th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
The only problem I have is the risky qualifiers are so hard to predict. Like last year with Turner, we didn't really know much(at least i didn't) about that situation, and it went right until the very end until it was solved.
My question is, if say Tony Drake isn't eligible to come in, but then suddenly retakes a test and gets in, do we wait, or just bail early? Tough call. But then again, we are taking a larger class (28?), so to the coaches it could be worth the risk of 1 or 2 guys not qualifying.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
For better or worse, I think the leniency that a player will be given correlates directly with how badly the staff wants them. If you're the lowest guy at a position where we have depth ... you're probably out.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^
Do we actually have 28 open scholarships on our roster? I thought we had like 23 or 24.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^
I just did a quick count off Mgoblue. I'll give myself a margin of error of 1, but by my count we have 58 guys coming back next year on scholarship, leaving us 27 scholarships to give.
Assumptions: Warren and Smith leave. No walkons get scholarships. Patterson and Cone leave, Wright and Banks stay.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:03 PM ^
There are rumors floating around that a couple guys might bail, the primary culprit being T-Rob. I can't remember who the other guy was, but the chance we lose one guy (although I'm not rooting for it) is decent.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
The discussion on non-qualifiers is interesting, but unless we have six other people who want to sign with Michigan AND who we want to sign it is sort of a moot point. If some of these remaining recruits that have been discussed really want to sign on, then I think you tell the non-qualifiers that they're at risk and you cut ties as needed. But we don't really know who is at risk and who isn't and at this point I doubt we're going to really sign a full 5-6 more recruits. I see us signing about 3-4 more and thus we can let the Drake's of the world have until the fall to get their grades up.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
but to refine it further, I think it comes down to a case by case basis.
If the coaches really like a guy (whatever his recruiting star rank may be) and his grades are good, it's a no brainer.
However, if there is someone really special out there (again, IR-regardless of stars) who may be having trouble qualifying, and the coaches believe he is the perfect fit; take a chance.
I would probably get a bit nervous if they did it with all 3 spots, but taking some risk is one of the reasons we like Rich Rod. Right?
I'm not going to cry myself to sleep because only 26 or 27 guys actually enroll from this class.
Are any of the current (possible) non qualifiers so awesome that we take that chance on any of them?
I have no idea (but gee their highlight films all look good;-) That what RR gets paid for.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:31 AM ^
relevant hard deadlines to each borderline kid. If standardized test scores are the issue, make the next one the clear-cut "last chance." If grades are the issue, make this semester/quarter's grades the ones that "make or break." This gives them time to qualify/find a backup plan and sets a clear goal that must be achieved.
And yes, it should go for EVERY borderline kid, no matter how painful.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^
So the max that can sign officially this Winter is 28? Somehow, I got the impression that:
For EE SA (1/10,) we can apply up to three to the 2009 - 2010 year(because the 2009 class only had 22.)
For the balance of the incoming class, applied to 2010 - 2011, I thought we could sign 28, but only enroll 25.
This means I thought we could sign 31 in January (including Witty,) have 3 who are enrolled in January count toward 2009 - 2010, plan on attrition between January and August of three, and have an additional 25 enrolled for Sept. 2010.
This is all pointless speculation, since there must be enforcement guys who are paid to figure out exactly what we can do.
However, if we can indeed sign 31 in January, but only enroll of a total of 28 (3 in current class, 25 in next class,) I would think that we would WANT a few non-qualifiers signed, because you would NEED some attrition/non-qualifying to end up with that total of 28 enrolled (3 this yr, 25 next year.)
December 9th, 2009 at 11:59 AM ^
as we lost Witty. It looks like the Big 10 is allowing us per NCAA rules to count three EEs toward last year plus a class of 25. Not sure if they were afraid of repercussions of having stricter rules then the NCAA or they are going to do this on a case by case situation, but it is good news for RR and Wolverine fans everywhere.
Given that those getting the offers are suppose to be student/athletes I see nothing wrong with giving a hard deadline for qualifying as long as it is done uniformly and the staff maintains the "Witty approach" of staying in contact with the kids if they don't make it. I think the Witty case alone is a real example of "family values" that RR and staff never seem to get credit for in the paper.
If Witty is #23 I would gladly take five from the following to fill the class- Hankins, Ash, Parker, Furman, The Cali three (highly unlikely), Grimes (Murphy), Anderson (doubtful), Wilson, Thornton, Clemmings, Christian Jones (doubtful), Riley, Shaw, Big Tex, or David Mackall
December 9th, 2009 at 11:38 AM ^
Honestly I think you accept as many verbal commitments as we can and when the time comes we say goodbye to whoever we must say goodbye too. I don't think Michigan should limit theirsevles at all. Yeah we have a pretty good looking class right now but their is definitly better prospects out there who are interested. Don't push them away and say we have no room, if they want to commit then I say let them. When we have to figure out who the 28 will be then that's when we cross that bridge but we shouldn't close the door on anyone right now, it's too early.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^
How many of these guys are WRs? i dont think we'd even have to worry about this if we didnt sign 102998329723 receivers.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
a lot, but we only have at most 5 SE's on the roster at this time IIRC:
Stonum, Hemingway, Stokes and maybe, Roundtree (or is he a slot) and Cameron Gordon (who might be moved to defense).
If we continue to only put one FL (aka slot) on the field, then we could probably afford to go easy on the slot WR's as we currently have:
Odoms, T. Rob (who apparently can't catch a cold), Grady and Gallon.
That's a maximum of 9 WR's on the roster (I don't count walk-ons) and I think the staff has stated that they want 12-14 IIRC.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:11 PM ^
I have heard really good things about him. I think it might be worth the risk to keep him. I don't know much about the others but we should wait to see how many people want to commit before we start worrying about this.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^
The more you have, the better your chances.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:07 PM ^
Easy there Nick Saban. You offered a kid, with all due diligence to their character and academics. These are kids not point values on Rivals team rankings. If Johnny is having trouble with the organic chemistry unit, let him have the chance to work it out.
Magnus, cutting these kids loose would be disastrous for them personally especially while they are trying to focus on getting the most important things straightened up. You deal with highschool kids as a coach, you should have more understanding then that I would think.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:21 PM ^
I'm not suggesting that we SHOULD cut them loose. I'm asking if it will happen. There's a difference.
That being said, written offers include language that basically says, "If you sufficiently meet the academic and behavioral requirements set forth by our institution, this is an offer for an athletic scholarship to the University of Michigan." So there is language included in the offers that gives schools some leeway to rescind written offers from players whose academic and behavioral conduct during their senior years does not meet the standards of the institution.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
What I mean is this. There are always some behavioral and grade issues out there. We have found ways to get several of our offered players on the team. Guys like Slocum come to mind. I'm wondering what percentage we could pull if we had too many offers out.
There are multiple categories of players. There are those who you basically find some way, however dubious, to get on the team. There are those who you basically find some way, however dubious, to get off the team. Skill on the field may sometimes affect which way you go.
In general, I want to see the coaching staff give players a chance to succeed, but I don't want them to have to babysit players. Cissoko is a good example. I think it was right for him to be kicked off. I also think it is right for the coaches to give him the chance to work hard on his own to return.
The same would go for hs players. I think that sometimes, we may have worked too hard to keep questionable characters on the team. They have to in some way learn that it is up to them to succeed, and they won't be coddled and carried the whole way.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:51 PM ^
Magnus, I maybe was a bit harsh there, but ya if we let kids commit, qualified or not we are only 1/3 of the way through the high school academic year and there is more then enough opportunity to pull it up. Depending on whether the school is semestered or not, kids might have only had a couple of assignments and tests so far. Now that being said I think the staff will not just "cut loose" on a kid if he's not making the grade, they'll try and help them qualify.
On a side note the desperation on the board these days is frustrating. I miss the old Haloscan days, before neg banging and posse flamming, there was handlejacking. Those were the days.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:05 PM ^
Am I the only one who is a bit wary of oversigning to compensate for players who aren't smart enough to meet the absolute barest of academic minimums? I mean no disrespect, but if a player can't achieve a shockingly low score on a standardized test or keep their high school grades at a pretty pathetic level compared to what is expected of the rest of the incoming student body, why do we have confidence they can be successful in contributing to the academic life of the University? Or do we not even care as long as they can catch a ball or make a tackle? Shouldn't we care?
I realize this is an endemic problem in modern intercollegiate athletics, but we're Michigan... I'd rather we spend our time recruiting and offering players who have performed academically as well as athletically instead of sitting around fretting over whether or not they'll hit 4 digits on their SAT.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:33 PM ^
Having confidence that every recruit can contribute to the academic life at Michigan is too steep a standard. Even Harvard and Yale lower their standards substantially for the athletes they admit.
I don't know if you saw this thread, but it's worth a read. http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/ot-sad-test-results-d-town-what
Many of our recruits (especially borderline ones) come from terrible schools like the ones in Detroit. If they have bad test scores it's a leap to conclude that it's because they're stupid or even that without support they can't succeed.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:52 PM ^
They should be able to hold their own. That means doing their class work without having to have their hand held the entire time, contributing thoughtfully and positively to class discussions, etc. etc.
We should have some expectation that they are able to succeed academically at the University of Michigan. Minimum academic standards exist for a reason, and we need to stop overlooking the fact that we're an extremely competitive research university with high academic standards. Yes, invariably there is going to have to be lower standards for athletes. That's the name of the game if you want to compete. The question is how low those standards should be and how it relates to what happens once they arrive on campus.
And, yes, I realize that there are plenty of recruits that come from failing schools. And that's a perfectly explainable reason for lack of academic success. That doesn't mean that UM is the right school for them. I would be very interested to see a breakdown of school districts our recruits who have had problems qualifying came from.
As for bringing Ivy League schools into the discussion, I don't know if that's necessarily a fair or accurate comparison. Same sport, vastly different cultures and realities.
EDIT: And I don't mean to paint all athletes/football players with a broad brush when it comes to this. In my time in school, I had a lot of classes with athletes. Most all of them were thoughtful, curious, contributed, and worked really hard (sometimes harder than the rest of us LSA lazyasses). There were a few, however, that were clearly in waaaaay over their head and struggled with even the most basic stuff. Not everyone, but certainly some.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:10 PM ^
But if you're compromising at all you're acknowledging that their primary reason for being admitted is their athletic ability. And when you're at the point where you're admitting substandard students, why would you prefer to disproportionately admit recruits who've enjoyed the benefits of going to a good school and having a supportive educational environment to prove they aren't Michigan caliber students, when you could instead pull kids from muck and give them one of the greatest educations in the world so they can make something of themselves even if football doesn't work out?
I have to say that your line of argument, that we ought admit substandard students, but not if they're so substandard that they might come from a broken school, has a very ugly smell.
And let me just anticipate a response: If you look at the story I linked to about the proficiency statistics of the students in the Detroit school system, I doubt any player coming from that broken system has a real chance to live up to your standards.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
Give everyone a chance per the NCAA and Big Ten rules. Let them determine for themselves whether they want to apply themselves, as needed, to get a degree. Some kids will, some kids won't.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:17 PM ^
Something that few have talked about is the future (ie, 2,3,4 years down the road) implications of these large classes. The last class was pretty large (I don't know the number off the top of my head, 22?) and this one looks to be near the limit. Next year we won't be able to sign 25 because of the number of scholarship players on the team. Of those scholarship players, a majority will be underclassmen. Barring significant attrition, those scholarships will be locked up for years to come. They will also be locked up by players of potentially lower talent. That could hurt down the road. I would rather they not sign 28 and instead save those scholarships for next year when our record will be better and will attract higher level talent.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:41 AM ^
We can't afford to wait to give out scholarships. You saw what a lack of scholarship-level talent did to us this year. No school ever saves scholarships for future years. That's ridiculous. Even if we take a full class this year, we'll probably have 16-20 scholarships next year, which means we can wait for 16-20 GOOD players and not have to throw out 181 scholarship offers.