there would have to be some to wash away
- Member for
- 4 years 39 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 years 27 weeks ago||I have no idea what Chris||
I have no idea what Chris Webber has done in his past. I wasn't there. Everyone claims he lied about the whole thing well I simply don't need to judge because I wasn't there when money was exchanged. I know that what we have heard is he took money as a teenager. He was a young poor kid that took money! OH THE SHAME.
Meanwhile the NCAA and U of M profit immensely off of talented athletes like Webber. And they want HIM to apologize for mistakes he made as a kid. If you don't see what's wrong here that is pretty sad too. So continue to demonzie a kid who made mistakes, I'll stick to blaming the adults who should know better.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||Wow so Webber had two working||
Wow so Webber had two working parents so he msut have been middle class right?? Bullshit! He was poor and you need to check YOUR facts. He was given a scholarship to attend Country Day. It has nothing to do with the amount of money he could afford to pay.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||It's unfair to a shitload of||
It's unfair to a shitload of people that Chris Webber was merchandised by the university for their own gains? How is that unfair for you? Were they selling your jersey in college? You can't compare Chris Webber to the average person attending a university, it's just an apples to oranges comparison. If people are pissed about it, then so be it. It's just not fair to the student athletes being exploited.
Chris Webber has no time for a job in college being an athlete at his level. Between classes and practice and games and travleing there is no time for him to maintain a job. Webber could have paid his entire college tuition with a quarter of the amount of money he generated for the university. Why doesn't the university do away with athletic scholarships and let him have a portion of the money he earned. You would see the unfair amounts of money that colleges gain off of student athletes of his caliber if they allowed this.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||If you don't see the hypocisy||
If you don't see the hypocisy and immorality of universities pocketing cash raised by the likeness of college athletes that's fine. You're wrong but entitled to your own opinion. There is an ethical dilemma here and you don't need to dig too far to see it. I can't really understand how you don't see it to be honest.
And yes discussing how laws can be unethical is something that is valid discussion. Maybe segragation is extreme comparison but you missed the point of the comparison. The idea is that just because a law is a law doesn't make it ethical. Also just because you follow implore people to follow laws that are unethical doesn't make it right to do so.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||@gobluesasquatch||
You are missing the boat on this one. Chris Webber and men's basketball merchandising makes CONSIDERABLE PROFIT! The overall athletic department does not make profit simply because of expenses for all of the sports. This does not mean that Webber and athletes of his talents do not make the bulk of this money for the university. Without men's basketball and football programs where would the other sports be? You think that they generate little revneue overall now, just take away the PROFIT that the men's basketball and football teams generate. Where would that leave the athletic department? You fail to include the amount of indirect money that boosters send to the university because of talented people like Webber and the impact they have on wins and losses.
Maybe the university should stop exploiting players by taking the money that the players generate and then distribute it wherever they want. If meals and training are payment enough then let the kids that make the large amount of money decide. Give them a portion of the money that they earn and let them pay it however they choose. The thousands of Michigan number 4 jerseys sold should have been part of Chris Webber's personal profit, they are selling his likeness. If college athletics wants to be fair then stop selling these young athletes' jerseys and likeness. They are taking profits that aren't paid back evenly.
Michigan recieves donations because of people like Chris Webber that bring respect and wins to the program. Yet we continue to compare him to regular students, well that's simply not fair. Webber wasn't a normal student at U of M, he was being merchandised. While he may not have had it as bad as Albom mentioned, he wasn't from a family with a lot of money. He couldn't afford normal things that most college students take for granted. When you have lots of money coming your way when you have been poor all of your life, it's hard for a TEENAGER to say no. Ed MArtin was an adult preying on him, let's place a little more blame in the adults who exploit kids, thank you.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||No I won't consider an||
No I won't consider an athlete of Webber's sport and stature as a resident. The university does not make the kind of money off of you that they make off of Chris Webber. I'm sorry but if you don't see the difference in the amount of money generated by a person like Webber versus someone working at a hospital then there is really nothing to discuss.
It's exploitation to sell and make the kind of proceeds that they make off of jersey sales and give meals and "training" as compensation. Training in basketball? Webber didn't need Michigan's training as much as Michigan needed Webber for wins and losses. There is not a fair exchange taking place here.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||The law is bullshit. You are||
The law is bullshit. You are missing the point. There was a law separating black and whites at one time in America too, does that make the law right? Ethics are more important than laws.
If U of M and other universities are profiting and generating more revenue off of athletes than they are giving back then there is a problem so saying to disregard personal belief because of law is ridiculous. If people disregard personal belief then nothing would ever be changed. Laws could be put in place and no one would question them, is that the way the world should be run?
|3 years 27 weeks ago||Webber||
Why would Webber want to be on this documentary when his image was rubbed through the mud over all of these years? He made mistakes when he was a kid and people continue to pile on a young man who was preyed upon in his youth. Ed Martin was a grown man that took advantage of a young person and people want to continue to discuss how bad of a person Webber is.
Why would Webber join a documentary where he was the dirty, shady player who took money meanwhile his buddies, like Jalen Rose, recieved money and never recieved one ounce of criticism. The school turned their back on Webber and he feels betrayed by everyone involved including the his "friends" on the Fab Five. No thanks on being part of that kind of film.
Oh and those who hate Webber yet love the Fab Five, you may not have even watched the Fab Five play back in those days. Webber was the absolute best player by far and all of those achievements that the Fab Five gained were in large part due to his contributions. Without him, Michigan would never have even been to two Final Fours in a row. While you place all of the blame on Webber, remember that without him all of the wonderful achievements were not possible.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||30 K is a tiny fraction of||
30 K is a tiny fraction of what the universities make on the college athletes. The fact that Chris Webber got an education is great and all but lets get real. I've seen 30, 000 number 4 Michigan basketball jerseys and I don't think they sell them for 1 dollar each.
When college athletics has to come clean for being dirty then Chris Webber should come forward. That's great that you paid for school but most academic students paying their own tuition do not come from the economic background that Chris Webber came from. Webber was only a teenager when he was handed money, he was a kid living in poor conditions. Do you honestly think most kids in his situation say no thanks? And why do we place so much blame on a teenager in this type of situation and not blame the adults who tempt kids from these poor economic backgrounds?
The University of Michigan should be ashamed for placing so much blame on a kid put in the situation that Webber was put in. Saying that Webber needs to apologize is ridiculous. When are they going to apologize and return all of the money they made off of Webber? Hint: the amount Webber was paid by Martin could never approach the value that Webber had as an athlete at U of M. Forcing Webber to apologize is belittling and I hope Webber is above that. I would never get on my knees for U of M or or any other greedy college university that places blame on kids for accepting money while knowing damn well that they are profitting immensely on their talents.
The University of Michigan is an academic institution first and foremost, before they get all holier than thou and say how wrong Chris Webber is maybe they should confess to allowing unqualified academic students into their universities to make money by winning sporting events. Does Michigan have Chris Webber's best interests at heart when they allow him to study at a rigorous academic insitution for which he is underprepared? Wouldn't Mr Webber have been better served attending a university for which his academic talents were a proper fit? Oh wait he helps win games and with winning games comes money! If U of M apologizes for exploiting athletes then yes they can force Webber to come clean, until then forget about it.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||Banners||
To those of us who were able to enjoy the Fab Five era, there is no erasing that from the memory banks. It was an incredible experience, one I will never forget. Banners or no banners, the Fab Five was and always will be my favorite sports memory.
There have been great sports memories in my lifetime in Michigan with the Bad Boys, 84 Tigers, great U of M football teams and basketball teams, Red Wing championships. Nothing compares to the excitement of the Fab Five making those deep tournament runs in my opinion. They can erase the record books and banners and TV replays but the Fab Five left indelible memories that will never fade.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||C Webb isn't the only one to||
C Webb isn't the only one to blame for the penalties that were imposed on the university. Quit placing all of the blame on Webber, that's bullshit.
Not like it matters anyways, I'm sure Webber doesn't care if anyone at our university thinks of him as dead anyways. He is a very successful person beyond Michigan athletics. He doesn't need a hypocritical university that made many more dollars off of him, than he ever was payed by Martin.
Michigan is part of the NCAA hypocrisy in this situation. Let's distance ourselves from a person who made mistakes when he was a young kid and was preyed upon by adults who should know better. That's very classy! Hey here's an idea, how about Webber comes clean when Michigan returns all of the money they made on the number 4 Michigan jerseys they sold in the Fab Five era. It's ridiculous how many people hate Chris Webber and fail to understand that they have no idea what it's like to be a dirt poor teenager who is offered this kind of money.
|3 years 27 weeks ago||Ed Martin was the ass that||
Ed Martin was the ass that was paying a poor teenager from the inter-city money. Martin knew the Webber family was not well off and how tempting gifts and money are to kids like Chris Webber. So many throw Webber under the bus and never think about the ramifications of being a poor teenager from the city. Sure he made a mistake when it comes to the letter of the law in the NCAA but to speak of Webber like he is a big asshole or the scum of the Earth is ridiculous when comparing him to the likes of the NCAA, the universities who profit off of these kids and the boosters who know how tempting money is to kids from poor backgrounds.
The NCAA is perhaps the most hypocritical organization in all of sports. They rake in millions of dollars from kids like Webber who play sports for their bottom line and give the players nothing in return. Then they condemn and wax on about how awful it was for poor, ghetto youth to accept large sums of money from adults. Meanwhile the NCAA and it's universities sit back and do everything in their power to maximize their profits thanks to these same kids whom they are willing to demonize.
Lets not pretend like Webber was the only kid that has ever taken money from boosters and then lied about it. What about some compassion for a kid who felt betrayed by an adult that he thought he could trust. People like Martin are parasites who feed on the temptations of poor kids from the ghetto. Unfortunately "friends of the program" like Martin aren't even the worst of those involved in college athletics. To me the worst of all are the NCAA and it's universities who continue to take in millions of dollars every year and demonize the Chris Webber's of the world who can barely afford dinner.
I hope Chris Webber never comes back or associates himself with the the University of Michigan for his own sake. He has become the fall guy for a situation in which he was preyed upon as a youth. The university and most of it's fans have criticized Webber to the highest degree and have no idea what it's like to walk in his shoes. Webber was a poor, inter-city kid that was preyed upon from an extremely young age yet no one mentions this. Great job U of M and other NCAA institutions for distancing yourself from poor young kids that have been paid while you continue to cash in on their talents. Continue to belittle athletes while you stuff all of that money in your pockets, seems not many are watching you.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||Most Michigan fans don't even||
Most Michigan fans don't even understand the challenges that RR faced. How would fans of a terrible sports personality like Colin Cowherd understand? Not like they pay attention to the amount of underclassmen starting on defense. That poll looks about right to me in regards to how clueless most people who could stomach Cowherd probably are.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||Romey you obviously must have||
Romey you obviously must have forgotten about the inexperienced quarterback turning the ball over at critical moments in the game. That is what first year starting quartbacks normally do. They make mistakes and those mistakes were critical. Robinson will improve his decision making as he enters his second year as starting quarterback.
Also, I wouldn't say we had a veteran offense when most of the players weren't even seniors. There is much room for improvement even on offense although the improvement on the team will be most apparent from the defense. Starting freshmen and sophomores throughout the defense was the biggest problem.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||When Rodriguez took over||
When Rodriguez took over Michigan he had a terrible roster. Why ignore that fact and only judge on past records? It makes you look bad when you ignore important information. I don't care if Michigan won the National Championship the year before RR took over, the team didn't have the same players the next year. Are you that blind to ignore this MAJOR fact?
RR had to rebuild the Michigan program just as much as Hoke had to rebuild Ball State. They both took over terrible rosters. The difference is that you are stuck in the past history of the programs rather than the players they were coaching. It took more than a few seasons for Hoke to turn around Ball State. RR had the roster finally turned over for Michigan way before he reached a year 5 like Hoke did with Ball State. RR was ahead of Hokes pace on rebuilding. RR now has Michigan's roster set for big things. So when Hoke takes over and wins with his players, he can thank RR!
|3 years 32 weeks ago||We didn't have a good roster||
We didn't have a good roster when RR took over. Even if Mallett and Boren would have stayed the talent was very, very bad at the tail end of Carr's regime. Look at the junior and seniors on the roster by RR's third year. That will tell you enough of the recruiting that Carr did prior to RR showing up. You can't expect success when you have nearly zero production from the seniors and juniors on the roster.
By year 3 RR was relying nearly entirely on his own recruited players. Name one coach that has taken over a team where he could not rely on the previous coaches players. It's shocking that RR improved his record over the past three seasons with the terrible depth left from the previous coaching staff. He had to rebuild the entire team from scratch and had a winning record with the youngest team in college football. Pretty damn good job if you ask me.
Also you are a fool if you think RR's system only wins in "crappy" conferences. Oregon and Auburn beg to differ. The "crappy" Big East conference in Rich Rod's days destroyed Oklahoma and Georgia in bowl games. Guess the Sec and Big 12 are crappy too...
|3 years 32 weeks ago||Tough but fair things like||
Tough but fair things like his bowl game or bad defense? Yet you RR bashers ignore things like the youth of the football team or the lack of contribution from the players left from Carr's regime?
There is nothing fair in blaming the failures of the team on RR when he was never given a fair shot. Three years is not enough when there is little to no contributions from the upperclass players left by the previous coaching staff.
If Rich Rod wins big at another school and goes on to win a national title will dumb Michigan fans still think he couldn't win here or in the Big Ten? I mean really?? Hopefully people acknowledge the fact that he was rebuilding this program and didn't have the time to do so. If not, then I for one look forward to excuses as to why RR succeeded at every stop of his coaching career other than Michigan.
It's going to be funny listening to fans and media in Michigan rationalize why RR was successful everywhere but here without admitting the most obvious fact of RR's tenure as coach. He was given a shit roster and was never accepted from day 1 when he was the coach at Michigan. He was given a situation that would cause any coach to fail and yet he was still turning the corner despite all of the problems he faced.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||Add a little depth into your||
Add a little depth into your thinking GWU. The win-loss record was a result of the terrible depth that RR was given when taking over. It takes time to rebuild an ENTIRE football team.
RR isn't pouting and doesn't need to pout because he knows the truth about the situation. Your reasons for RR being fired are laughable when you aren't even taking into consideration the depth chart he was given. Most coaches who take over a team actually have decent juniors and seniors by their 3rd season.
RR was given a roster devoid of depth and talent and had to rebuild both sides of the ball. Name a coach who would have succeeded with the talent that RR was given. Name a coach who wins with a team full of sophomores and freshman starting throughout the roster. Good luck on that because you won't find one. Keep on believing that the record is all that matters, it makes you look completely asinine.
|3 years 32 weeks ago||Oh did Tulsa and Rice also||
Oh did Tulsa and Rice also start a ton of freshman on defense too? Yeah maybe RR can jump on that train then so he can actually see a finished product on the field. Imagine that! RR coaching a team that actually has time to develop depth and experience on both sides of the ball.
Anyone else going to laugh when RR wins big at his next school and exposes these dumb fans for their lack of football acumen?
|3 years 32 weeks ago||Bogeyman?||
So it is all imaginary when people point out the issues that Rich Rod faced? He was given a depleted depth chart. That's a fact. Sure that might sound like an excuse to you because you are biased. It's simply the truth. If you don't acknowledge the lack of talent inherited by Rich Rod then you are lying to yourself. That's ok, whatever helps you feel better but you're wrong.
Did his teams regress as you stated? Not at all. They got better as evidenced by their record and production. Did the defense regress? Yeah because he was playing more freshman on that side of the ball than any other team in college football. His teams continued to improve at a steady rate based on what he was working with. Did you expect him to rebuild the entire offense AND defense in three years? Wait why am I asking someone who doesn't look at more than the win-loss record.
Sure we will have fans like Mackbru who sing the praises of Hoke when the defense improves. Just remember Michigan fans, Hoke will actually have a very deep defensive roster, with loads of young players to develop. RR had no such luxury. Sure RR won't enjoy the fruit of the labor he put into rebuilding this thing from scratch but Michigan will enjoy success in large part to the roster put together by RR. Remember that when these young players are actually juniors and seniors. This is why it's very important to look at more than win-loss record when judging a coach.
To all the rational fans that do not have a bias against RR just remember this. RR will be rehired very quickly by another college? Why? Because he is a HIGHLY respected coach by people with actual football knowledge. When RR wins big again at some other school, even these Michigan fans with blinders on will acknowledge the disastrous situation he inherited at our great university. Until then we will have people with zero knowledge of football carrying on about how terrible of a football coach RR is. I for one smile at them and will have a big chuckle at their expense when RR wins big at another program.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||Wrong. My first paragraph was||
Wrong. My first paragraph was explaining how Rich did not fail at recruiting defensive backs. You stated in your paragraph that he didn't place the same amount of care recruiting defensive backs as he did quarterbacks. To me that is placing blame on Rich for the secondary issues. My first paragraph was explaining that I don't believe Rich was at fault or in other words I believe he did put care into recruiting defensive backs. He simply had a lot of bad luck with defensive backs but I don't believe had he taken extra care he could have changed the circumstances. I shifted the blame to what I beleive was a problem created by the previous coaching staff.
My point in the second paragraph is that you can only recruit so many positions at once. Sure he could have oversigned defensive backs but that would have depleted the depth at other positions. I find it hard to say he took little care in improving the secondary, he was just given a very poor depth chart and little time to improve it. Add to that injuries and I see "RR caring about the secondary issue" as one of the least of his concerns on being fired. There was just little patience by DB and Michigan to allow RR to let his players mature and develop.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||More like this RR: "Give me||
More like this
RR: "Give me more time"
DB: "For what?"
RR: "Well Dave since I was handed a bunch of players that couldn't start by their junior and senior years, I still have rebuilding to do. Have you noticed how young our team is compared to other teams in college football that are successful?"
DB: "But shouldn't you have a good team by year 3? I mean that gives you a chance to have your own true seniors and redshirt juniors playin, right?"
RR: "Dave you do know that not every recruit pans out. This should have been evident by the roster I was left from the previous coaching regime. Do you see how many players from the previous coaching staff are contributing at this time? So you expect me to rebuild the team by year 3 when I am relying on mostly freshman and sophomores. Do you not realize how crazy that is?"
DB: "But Jim Harbaugh had 8 wins in his 3rd year at Stanford! Stanford! They do not have the prestige that Michigan has, Rich!"
RR: "Harbaugh had a roster loaded with upperclassmen by his 3rd year. Prestige doesn't win games anymore Mr. Brandon, join the new age of college football and realize that you need experience and depth to win. Harbaugh had experience and depth at Stanford because his previous coaches produced players who could contrubute and had talent. Do you want to name the players that Mr Carr left to help make this program a winner by year 3?
DB: ".... well umm you should just win you're at Michigan! Who cares if you are starting mostly freshman and sophomores. It's all about results, there is no such thing as valid reasons why this team isn't in the top 25, you are at Michigan!"
|3 years 37 weeks ago||No Rich Rodriguez is not the||
No Rich Rodriguez is not the sole reason that Michigan has bad defensive talent or even the biggest reason why. Rich Rod can only rebuild so many positions at once. He has started to establish depth through his 2 and a half recruiting classes. He was left with so many holes to fill that when he lost a few of his recruits it made the situation a disaster.
Why was it such a disaster since most programs do experience player loss? Well take a look at the two deep that RR inherited at Michigan. Sure he had some older players that were talented but the probelm was the depth. RR was left with a very, very big problem. He had to reestablish depth at every position on the team and that task takes a very long time. By year 3 there was very little help from the previous coaching regime. No other college coach has to deal with that. Most coaches in America get to rely heavily upon their seniors and juniors but RR never had the ability to rely on upperclass players. This is an enormous fault of the previous coaching staff.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||If you look at the whole||
If you look at the whole context then you also have to consider what each coach was working with. Stanford in year three was lead by a roster that fielded most of its players from the previous coaching regime. Michigan did not haver that luxury.
The previous coaching regime at Michigan failed to produce the kind of players that could contribute by their junior and senior years. This is the most telling stat of all but no one mentions this. The rosters of the two teams are different so if you don't acknowledge this then you miss the reason why Michigan was not as competitive with the higher ranked teams. The higher ranked teams had a huge advantage over Michigan. Both have talented players but Michigan's players were too young. No team wins with the kind of youth that Michigan was fielding this year.
I believe RR did a much better rebuilding job than Harbuagh. Stanford had the players that Michigan did not. RR had to rebuild both the offense AND the defense. Stanford was throwing out players in year 3 that would have started whether Harbaugh was the coach or not. RR will show what a big mistake Michigan made, so I say hold off the judgement of RR coached teams until he has a team that has more upperclassmen than underclassmen. The future will be very telling, watch how successful he will be. Don't give me the bullshit that he couldn't do it at Michigan because he would have if he was given the oppurtunity to improve on the mistakes of the previous coaching regime.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||Stanford had a better roster||
Stanford had a better roster than Michigan when the two coaches took over. Don't even try and say Michigan was set up to win. Just because Stanford had a losing record before Harbaugh got there does not mean his team's roster was worse. He had young talent on his team. In year 3 Harbaugh had the luxury of playing upperclass players who contributed heavily. RR did not have this luxury.
Purple is one of the only people who continually tries to use reason on this issue. Most Michigan people cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears and say "but, but it's Stanford versus Michigan". That's bullshit. Being Michigan or Stanford does not change the circumstances that the two coaches were faced with. The rosters tell the whole story. Stanford was left with a better football team than Michigan.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||Try explaining that to TCU||
Try explaining that to TCU right now or Boise State last year. The BCS is a mess.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||I think Harbaugh made the||
I think Harbaugh made the right hire for his defensive coordinator position. Last year Stanford had an atrocious defense but watching them last night it looked like they were very, very good. Vic Fangio should be given a lot of the credit for the job he has done. This was Stanford's 3rd defensive coordinator in Harbaugh's time as coach at Stanford. Think they found the right one this time. Hopefully when RR is retained he can find his own version of Vic Fangio for the defense in year 4.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||When evaluating a coaches||
When evaluating a coaches future, these things matter. Why? Because when Brandon evaluates RR and sees that he was left with a terrible roster, with little to no depth in the freshman and sophomore classes, this helps RR explain why the results are how they are. Just looking at the results and not seeing the reasons behind them is foolish. RR is a great coach and if he has reasons why the results are what they are, it's still important information to share.
How was RR inflexible? He can't force people to stay here when they did not want to be here. He did the best with the roster he aquired. RR explained from day 1 that Mallett could fit into his offense as a passer. Yes RR prefers the running spread style but he said over and over he would tailor the spread to the passing game if Mallett stayed. Even if he did that and changed his philosophy, I don't think Mallett would have been the savior in the first year that everyone thinks. The offense as a whole was bad and you can see why when you look at the roster RR inherited.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||But why is it inexcusable?||
But why is it inexcusable? Are you saying that just because we are Michigan and we "deserve" to be better? The whole point of showing the depth chart on defense is to explain why we are so bad. When any other team starts as many freshman and sophomores as Michigan, they will not be a good defense either. Most teams that start freshman or sophomores do so because they are simply better players than the juniors and seniors on the team. Michigan is playing forced to play freshman and sophomores because the juniors and seniors that the previous coaching staff should have had waiting aren't there.
|3 years 37 weeks ago||Why do you assume he only||
Why do you assume he only recruited two? It's not as easy as saying come to Michigan because we want you and we need secondary help. RR was left with an entirely bare roster. How could he address the glaring holes in the defense and offense all at the same time? You can only recruit so many playuers at once and even when you get them the players are still young.
This is why the previous coaching regime failed more than anything else. They left the whole team with poor depth. The offense was atrocious in every way, the defense had some players but they were all upperclassmen. There were no good, young players to develop and eventually have in the starting lineup by year 2 or 3. This is all on the previous coaching staff. You have to leave the team with depth so that when players leave either as seniors or to the draft, you can plug new players in.
You can't just say well RR didn't restock the cupboard! Well if he restocked it all in the first year and a half recruiting he would be an absolute genius. No coach can rely on an entire team of freshman and sophomores and expect to be successful. It's ridiculous to assume the blame when you are forced to play all of the kids you just signed out of high school. Do you think Saban, Tressel, Harbaugh, Miles, Meyer, Carroll etc picked up the program they took over and were successful right away with a bunch of kids they recruited? No they didn't, they relied on the previous coaching staff having players to develop. Michigan did not have that luxury.