spoiler alert: i linked this
- Member for
- 6 years 20 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|8 hours 4 min ago||I think the biggest challenge||
I think the biggest challenge to that would be competitive balance. A few kids would get Wheaties or Nike contracts, but the vast majority who got paid would get it, legitimately, through "endorsement" deals from local boosters (for being in a car dealership commercial or law firm newspaper ad or whatever). The capacity for that kind of spending would be vary enormously from school to school. Alabama and Michigan boosters would pour a ton of money into it, and they could essentially offer scholarship players big-time, guaranteed salaries. Other schools' boosters wouldn't. The NCAA couldn't impose a salary cap, since the money wouldn't be coming from athletic programs, so big-spending schools would probably get a major advantage in recruiting. That would be great for us - and maybe wouldn't be a problem at all - but it would have consequences.
My opinion is that every option sucks, including (and maybe especially) the status quo. So I'm not helpful here. If there's a really clean solution out there, I haven't seen it. Your suggestion seems as reasonable as any other - and maybe the direction I'd go, too - but every idea seems flawed.
|8 hours 38 min ago||Yup, that's where I'd start,||
Yup, that's where I'd start, too.
|8 hours 51 min ago||Without Arizona State hockey||
Without Arizona State hockey in the Big Ten, is life even worth living?
I can't believe that was ever seriously considered. There are a ton of good, interesting college hockey programs nearby. Why we'd look to Tempe is beyond me.
|9 hours 50 min ago||I honestly don't care what||
I honestly don't care what the NCAA does about paying / not paying players, but whatever it does, it needs to enforce its own rules. It's bullshit to have rules in place and then look the other way when schools violate them, because it punishes the programs that play by the rules and rewards the schools that don't. Recruiting is a zero-sum game. That must drive the clean (and relatively clean) coaches totally fucking crazy. It drives me crazy as a fan.
|1 day 4 hours ago||For those scoring at home,||
For those scoring at home, that's a 70-word sentence.
|1 day 6 hours ago||Enjoy the 7th round, Jourdan.||
|1 day 11 hours ago||Nice! I was hoping for a||
Nice! I was hoping for a corporate name, and it's even more exciting to be reminded of such high-end, non-diarrhea-inducing pizza whenever I see the Wings' arena. It's also great to detach ourselves from Joe Louis, since local history is dumb and irrelevant.
|1 day 13 hours ago||Well, Don, you staved off||
Well, Don, you staved off senility well into old age, and for that you should be proud no matter what happens going forward.
|1 day 13 hours ago||Douchehole?||
|1 day 13 hours ago||I agree. I'd also love to see||
I agree. I'd also love to see a list of Michigan's past "camp offers." Guys like Channing Stribling and Brandon Watson who entered camp without an offer, weren't high-profile recruits, and then received an offer after impressing the coaches. It'd be interesting to see how they've done over the years.
|2 days 3 hours ago||That isn't what this study||
That isn't what this study says at all. In fact, the recruiting sites' focus on predicting NFL success rather than college success keeps the rankings from being more helpful than they are. Mike Hart is a great example. The recruiting sites probably would have rated Hart differently if they were thinking about college productivity instead of NFL productivity. People evaluate recruiting sites based on players' NFL careers, though, and Hart wasn't big or fast enough to have a great NFL career. So they didn't rate him very highly despite his insane high school production, and they were right to do so given their primary criterion for evaluating recruits (potential for NFL success). Fortunately, Lloyd saw him as a valuable college RB even though he wasn't likely to do much in the NFL.
I don't mean any of that to say that recruiting rankings aren't predictive of college success. They are. But as true as it is that recruiting rankings matter, it's equally true that people exaggerate and misinterpret the ways in which they matter. They're useful as a general guide, but there are all kinds of situations in which I'd trust a coach's judgment over a recruiting ranking (e.g., fit with scheme, NFL/college potential, character worries, evaluations after scouting players in camps, etc.).
|2 days 4 hours ago||That's not very interesting, Part II||
This is like saying that kids who scored highest on their 3rd grade math tests did the best in college, so college admissions committees should start paying attention to 3rd grade math tests. That's somehow both obvious and dumb.
|2 days 5 hours ago||Jedd Fisch is fucking great.||
Jedd Fisch is fucking great. As Adam said, a lot of that is Rudock's and the WRs' development, but Fisch has also been an excellent, very active recruiter. I thought he might treat this as his latest quick stop - and a disappointing one after losing the Jacksonville job - but he's been as active with recruiting as any coach on staff. It seems like Fisch, Wheatley, and Partridge are the names that come up most with recruits.
|2 days 7 hours ago||That's true, obviously, but||
That's true, obviously, but it's not like they just started winning when Chris Peterson (or Dan Hawkins) got there. They've been winning throughout their history. I didn't realize that until I looked them up.
And it's kind of interesting that top schools by winning percentage don't include a bunch programs that are beating up on weak conferences. I mentioned a few of them above, but it goes on... 9. Nebraska, 10. Penn State, 11. Tennessee, 12. Florida State, etc.
|2 days 8 hours ago||Boise St. has been quietly||
Boise St. has been quietly dominant for a long time (about 50 years). Granted, they haven't played in the best conferences (while shuffling around the Big Sky, Big West, WAC, Mountain West, etc.), but here are the NCAA rankings for the best all-time winning percentages:
1. Notre Dame .732
One of these things is not like the others.
|4 days 6 hours ago||WELL OKAY is my favorite so||
WELL OKAY is my favorite so far. Gonna make a run, I can feel it.
|5 days 2 hours ago||Still the greatest photograph||
Still the greatest photograph ever taken. The hair, the cameltoe, the sleeves up to his fingers, the grin, the all-white outfit in a sea of red, the fact he's sitting to rub himself while everyone else stands... . There's so much to love about this.
|1 week 11 hours ago||Point is, it's early and the||
Point is, it's early and the longshot thing isn't a serious concern right now. If Signing Day were tomorrow, I'd bet on us landing three 5-stars (McCaffrey + two of DPJ/Wilson/Slaton/other). That's more than our share of top talent, and it's been a long time since we've done that. A lot will change before Signing Day, though, both in who's regarded as a 5-star and which schools those guys are focused on. So IMO no need to worry about that.
To be honest, though, I don't love how many offers are going out and commitments are being accepted. I was hoping the coaches would be a little more reserved with offers this year, and that doesn't seem to be happening. I'm sure it'll work out fine, but I miss some aspects of Hoke's approach to recruiting.
|1 week 12 hours ago||The 247 Composite has 31||
The 247 Composite has 31 five-star recruits. One of them is committed to Michigan (McCaffrey, #17). Two of them, the last I heard, said that we lead (Wilson, #18; Slaton, #24). Another guy seems very open but the common thinking is that Michigan probably leads (Peoples-Jones, #5). And then we're involved with a bunch of other guys who are probably unlikely (e.g., Browning, #16; Kaindoh, #26; Samuels, #28).
So maybe we get three of those guys. We haven't even had two 5-stars in the 247 Composite since 2005. I think we'll be okay.
|1 week 1 day ago||So confronted with||
So confronted with conflicting information from a stereotype (WRs tend to be divas) and a person's apparent character (Peoples-Jones seems like a good, humble kid), you think it's best to roll with the stereotype. Nice.
|1 week 1 day ago||I don't think that||
I don't think that association is fair to Peoples-Jones. Has he done anything remotely diva-like? Everything I've read from him makes him sound like a really good, sharp kid. He's just a guy with the luxury of being able to take his time and check out his options.
|1 week 2 days ago||And there we have the main||
And there we have the main character in my nightmares tonight
|1 week 2 days ago||I've tried.||
I've tried. Not flexible enough, unfortunately.
|1 week 2 days ago||Wait, the NFL Draft is coming||
Wait, the NFL Draft is coming soon? I hadn't heard a word about it. ESPN and espn.com should really start covering that.
|1 week 2 days ago||Damn, you're not gonna like||
Damn, you're not gonna like the thread I'm starting about how I should wash my balls.
|1 week 3 days ago||Between the Bo Melton edit||
Between the Bo Melton edit and the fact that Michigan appeared out of nowhere as Clark's #2 school, I wonder if the Rutgers coaches might have encouraged him to make this look like a Rutgers victory over Harbaugh. Chris Ash from OSU is there now, and Urban supposedly used to do that with Florida-FSU recruiting battles (encourage kids planning to commit to Florida to say it ultimately came down to Florida and FSU and they went with Florida).
|1 week 3 days ago||This comparison offends||
This comparison offends developmentally challenged monkeys who butt-hump moldy stuffed animals.
|1 week 3 days ago||I'm not surprised that people||
I'm not surprised that people pay for it - addictions are addictions - but I am surprised that there are enough people to sustain fee-based Michigan recruiting sites at Rivals, Scout, 247, and (at least for awhile) ESPN.
|1 week 3 days ago||Remember the commitment watch||
Remember the commitment watch last week from Rivals? It's time to disregard that group until they demonstrate otherwise.
|2 weeks 8 hours ago||On the topic of unbalanced||
On the topic of unbalanced recruiting classes, I think we're going to see a lot of true freshmen play this year. Burning those redshirts effectively moves kids into the tiny 2015 recruiting class, and it'd be nice to have a little more balance. More importantly, though, the 2017 team will need some major contributions out of the 2016 class, and I could see this staff taking the Grant Newsome approach with some guys to prepare them for next season. A few 2016 recruits will be Day 1 starters in 2017, and you probably don't want the first snap for a guy like David Long or Lavert Hill to be against Florida in Arlington.