i would find this more credible if it was about Tom Crean
little talk on the board or posts but it appears as though he is decided between Cal & Michigan tomorrow.. which is odd since he is already listed as a Cal commit ,
Interesting piece on ESPN.com by Ivan Maisel, in which he examines the effort by some college football programs to "go national" in their recruiting -- particularly after winning a national title -- and whether that actually benefits them. I thought this was particularly relevant to us, as Harbaugh and staff look to be recruiting the top names from all across the country.
The news hook here is Urban Meyer's talk the morning after winning the championship game about expanding OSU's recruiting beyond "the footprint of Ohio." Maisel's big point is that emphasizing national recruiting beyond a program's traditional recruiting footprint, especially their home state, doesn't really help.
It all makes sense, but what's significant is that recruiting nationally hasn't resulted in more championships. If it did, a team that won it all would do so again four or five years down the road once those picked cherries have morphed into veteran players. In fact, there are plenty of examples of programs that began to recruit nationally and not only failed to win another national championship, but failed to maintain their status as national contender.
He uses USC under Pete Carroll as an example:
But take a look at USC a decade ago. The Trojans won their second consecutive AP national championship in 2004 with a roster of 82 Californians, 18 of whom started. [...] Then USC's coach, Pete Carroll, once at the top, decided that he wanted to -- as Meyer put it -- cherry-pick the nation's best recruits. One of his USC assistants, Rocky Seto, told author Steve Bisheff for his 2009 book, "Always Compete," that Carroll "tells us he only wants [out-of-state] kids who are capable of being first-round NFL draft picks." The 14 freshmen signed by USC in February 2005 included five out-of-state players, four of whom made the USA Today Top 100.
But Carroll never won another national title. By 2009, the fifth year after he had shifted to his cherry-picking philosophy, USC had virtually the same number (81) of Californians on its roster as it had five years earlier. But the Trojans' starting lineup included only 12 in-state players and 10 from out of state. USC went 9-4 that season, got blown out by Oregon and Stanford and Carroll left for the Seattle Seahawks.
Maisel cites Alabama in recent years as another example. He then goes on to ask why "going national" doesn't seem to help -- and happens to mention a certain Stanford program built by a certain coach we all happen to know:
There's also the theory that kids who don't grow up understanding Alabama football and wanting more than anything to play for Alabama -- or fill in your state university here -- don't make the same emotional commitment, that three-star players with heart supply the guts of a team with a smattering of five-star starters.
That's impossible to measure and doesn't take into account a success story like Stanford, which must recruit nationally because of its academic standards. The Cardinal team that won its second consecutive Pac-12 championship in 2013 included players from 30 states and three countries.
Lots of food for thought here. I'd argue Michigan is in a tougher position than many of these programs, because Michigan simply doesn't produce the quantity of in-state talent that California or Ohio or Texas or Florida or even Alabama do. We have no choice but to recruit nationally to some degree. We do need to concentrate on our traditional footprint -- MI, Ohio especially, and Pennsylvania -- and Hoke did a nice job with that, but I think Harbaugh's right to make a bigger effort going after kids in talent-rich states like FL, TX, and CA.
DE Reuben Jones tweets he has decommitted from Nebraska, visits Michigan this weekend.— Tom VanHaaren (@TomVH) January 23, 2015
Not a surprise here, as Ace said in the recruiting roundup he doesn't really know the current coaching staff at Nebraska well (as he wasn't recruited by them). Could very well be the first recruiting pick up of Harbuagh era.
With the recruiting dead period ending last night, Coach Harbaugh tweeted this today at 6:44am...
Attacking this day with Enthusiasm Unknown to Mankind— Coach Harbaugh (@CoachJim4UM) January 15, 2015
GO GET EM COACH! GO BLUE!
In an article at Scout's GoBlueWolverine, there is a discussion correlating recruiting ranking to overall standing. Michigan comes out very poorly. LINK: http://michigan.scout.com/story/1502191-which-teams-out-perform-their-talent?s=162
In the below table, this shows the lowest 10 Division 1 programs in the period from 2006 to 2014. (An arbitrary period, but one that happens to capture a particularly relevant time frame for Michigan.)
The first column gives the median recruiting rank, the second column gives the median final rank, and the third column gives the differential.
There are a significant number of factors: coaching turnover, bad coaching, lack of player development, injuries, players leaving the program, recruits being overrated. Regardless, this is a clear indication that Michigan has significantly underperformed on the field in relation to it's recruiting. One year is an outlier. Nine years is a clear trend. I don't have the raw numbers, but I would suspect Michigan would be even lower on the list if it started in 2008.
|127. Washington St.||48||87||-39|
In contrast, the article also looks at teams that significantly overperform relative to recruiting rank. Most of the teams at the top of the list are mid-majors. However, teams of interest to me included Boise State, TCU, Utah, Wisconsin, and Oregon.
This report is a clear indictment of our two most recent coaching regimes, and even the tail end of Carr's time as head coach. This is why it was necessary to move on, and why Harbaugh is such a breath of fresh air. I'm really looking forward to seeing guys develop their inherent potential.