Recruiting Juco OL players
November 14th, 2013 at 9:28 PM ^
November 14th, 2013 at 11:01 PM ^
November 14th, 2013 at 9:33 PM ^
How about get Chris Bryant to develop since he has been healthy (mostly) all year and will be the same age, or older, than any JUCO next year. I know - it's crazy. It would plug at least one hole if that miracle happened.
November 14th, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^
November 15th, 2013 at 8:37 AM ^
November 14th, 2013 at 9:34 PM ^
And how would adding more players (with probably less talent) without any experience help us?
November 14th, 2013 at 9:44 PM ^
To be fair though a JuCo player hasn't won a Heisman. Well not since 2010.
November 15th, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^
You know that Newton was at Florida for 2 years BEFORE he went to a JuCo school, right? And only went to one so he could transfer without sitting out a year. Different circumstances than most JuCo players certainly.
November 15th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^
Perhaps different than most but let's not pretend that JuCo players do not come into systems and are named All Americans every year. No one is suggesting that Michigan just grab a random JuCo player but pick out the ones that UCLA, Oregon, Alabama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, FSU, and Arkansas go after.
November 15th, 2013 at 12:59 PM ^
Who are the JUCO All-Americans? Can you name any, other than Cam Newton? Any offensive linemen in that group?
I googled juco transfers, and found this link to this article (admittedly from 2011, so the numbers aren't super-recent):
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/01/which_football_teams_sign_the.html
It breaks down how many JUCO's each team had from 2007-2010 (numbers are total for the four years). Of note:
Michigan - 1
MSU - 2
OSU - 0
Alabama - 5
LSU - 4
Florida - 4
Georgia - 6
FSU - 8
Oregon - 17
Other than Oregon, where are all of these super-talented JUCO's that everyone wants to bring in? Don't forget that for every JUCO we sign, that is one less scholarship for the recruiting trail.
November 15th, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^
Alabama had Terrance Cody, Jesse Williams, Deion Blue, Quinton Dial, and James Carpenter.
They are there if you are willing to go get them. You just have to keep in mind you only have them two years so that position frees up much faster than a freshman that may bust. JuCo are a known producer or non-producer.
November 15th, 2013 at 6:24 AM ^
Quite a few, perhaps most of players go the JUCO route because of academics. And they have playing experience. So you get a guy who's a junior with one or two years of college game experience. As others have pointed out, it's one of the primary ways Snyder's been able to assemble competitive teams at KState year after year.
November 14th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
November 14th, 2013 at 11:04 PM ^
November 14th, 2013 at 9:56 PM ^
November 14th, 2013 at 10:26 PM ^
There are probably not JuCo kids who could get in academically, and realistically the players on the roster are better than those in JC but just need to be coached up/improve. The pieces are there in terms of players, but perhaps the guys at the top need to see some transitions.
November 14th, 2013 at 10:27 PM ^
Come next season, we should start to see the talent and depth begin to emerge (unless Funk is just that bad). If there was a time to get JuCOs it would've been when Hoke arrived and saw that he had little young O-line talent, potentially foreseeing the interior O-line debacle we've stumbled upon now. I don't think JuCOs would help at this point
November 14th, 2013 at 10:28 PM ^
There has been copious amounts written (less since Nebraska) excusing this year's OL play b/c "they're young" and "we didn't recruit in 2009-2011". While both are true, Hoke has known this would happen for 3 years (and think how bad off we would be if Lewan didn't unexpectedly come back), so if he was concerned that the OL play would be this bad in 2013, the way to fix it was through Jucos. But he didn't do that, so he must have thought UM could take young guys and "coach 'em up" - which obviously hasn't happened and is on him & his staff.
There's nothing in the rules against recruiting Jucos when you need to get some big guys with experience. Go look at the top Juco OT and OG's -- schools like Alabama, Texas A&M, FSU, OSU, Texas etc are getting these players. If we are going to compete with these programs, we can't dismiss a class of players for no good reason (and please, don't give the "transfer credits" academics nonsense -- I guarantee we let in plenty of HS seniors who would not get into UM except for the fact they play football).
http://247sports.com/Season/2013-Football/RecruitRankings?InstitutionGr…
http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/RecruitRankings?InstitutionGr…
http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/RecruitRankings?InstitutionGr…
November 14th, 2013 at 10:45 PM ^
Your opposition to facts notwithstanding, that's exactly why Michigan doesn't take many JUCOs. UM makes the transfer of credits from junior colleges more difficult than many other universities. Whether that's smart or fair is another question.
November 14th, 2013 at 11:31 PM ^
UM also didn't used to pay for asst coaches. Now we do. Michigan Stadium didn't used to have suites b/c we wanted everyone to have the 'same' experience. Now we do.
Plus, we have had Jucos in the past - Russell Shaw (#2 WR on 1997 team) and Austin Panter (mid-2000s; didn't do much when here, but he got into the school) to name a couple off the top of my head. So it's rare, but it's possible.
Again, look at those schools that are getting the Juco recruits - it includes Texas, which is a school every bit the "Public Ivy" that Michigan is, and Texas A&M is just a step behind.
So, unless someone from the admission department can explain to me how they can let in high school students with ACT scores and GPAs that wouldn't get in without football, and can't figure it out for ANY Jucos, I'll take as the "fact" that UM is still stuck in its ways that we do Jucos as an after-thought/very last resort. And the facts show that this year's OL (and very likely 2014's) deserved some (for Michigan) out-of-the-box thinking. It doesn't look like we're even trying for these recruits.
Meantime, we handicap ourselves for no good reason, and Alabama (home of 2 of the last 3 Academic All-Americans of the Year), FSU, OSU, etc will continue to be far ahead of us in the rankings on a consistent basis.
November 15th, 2013 at 6:12 AM ^
November 15th, 2013 at 12:06 PM ^
November 15th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
I don't see it being an issue that some freshmen are better than some JuCo. Michigan can easily start scooping up those great players in the JuCo system. Michigan goes head to head with other programs for those 4 and 5 star freshmen. They can easily do the same for those top rated JuCo guys.
November 15th, 2013 at 10:39 PM ^
I agree - but it often isn't the case.
The JUCO player would have to transfer with courses that show progression toward a degree ie they can't repeat underclass ciricula. It's complex and situation dependent.
If Michigan is serious about JUCOs they need to develop relationships with schools to lay out a plan for the athletes from the get go. That is work. SEC schools don't have as high a hurdle.
November 15th, 2013 at 12:31 AM ^
There is more to it than that. I don't think the Football program is focused on it. The school supports it - in fact demands it to put butts in classes. Alabama actively farms athletes out to CCs with plans for transfer. Michigan doesn't do this.
Looks to me like it's pretty straight forward to transfer in? It's not easy to get into Michigan but that is true for freshmen as well as transfers. We had 1076 transfer students in Fall of 2013 (5 were admitted to Kinesiology.) Statistically 1-2 players on the team should be transfer students if football were a reflection of the student body at large. It's not I know but there is an even stronger impetus to get JUCO athletes in time of need. We looked at it for QB this year instead of burning Morris' RS.
What is surprising is that a student could take the classes he would need to transfer in if he wanted. Every school in the nation is listed with equivalencies on the U-M website. They just don't. About half of Grand Rapids CC courses transfer with no issue.
http://www.admissions.umich.edu/transfer-credit
The classes are listed by JUCO wherever the student goes or went across the nation. This credit listing has been on the web for a couple years.
I don't think that makes it any harder than freshman admissions.
Granted this isn't for the Engineering school mind you but ...LSA requires a B average - that is doable for a motivated JUCO or goal oriented HS athlete.
I think we need to look deeper than saying the school doesn't allow it. They allow football. JUCO is a part of football. They don't pursue JUCO talent. There is a disconnect here.
November 15th, 2013 at 9:14 AM ^
I appreciate it.
November 14th, 2013 at 10:29 PM ^
November 14th, 2013 at 11:10 PM ^
Its understandable to get a little beat up by the MSUs of the world, especially with a some new guys going against a very tough, aggressive, and experienced defense. But when your O-Line is getting dominated by Nebraska, Akron and UConn, all of whom either have terrible defenses, or are just terrible teams in general, there is a huge problem with the coaching.
There is absolutely no excuse on any plain of existence for a Division 1 offensive line to be this bad. Wyoming gained 600 total yards of offense against Nebraska's D, and Nebraska's D dominated our offensive line. That should tell you all you need to know about our current situation.
November 15th, 2013 at 12:48 AM ^
You are correct, however, this is the time of the week where many on this board go into denial until post game on Saturday.
November 14th, 2013 at 11:42 PM ^
November 14th, 2013 at 11:52 PM ^
Any JUCO Offensive coordinators out there? That would fill a bigger need.
November 15th, 2013 at 1:11 AM ^
Michigan will have no need for JUCO offensive linemen.
November 15th, 2013 at 6:14 AM ^
November 15th, 2013 at 8:03 AM ^
November 15th, 2013 at 8:49 AM ^
Not only do we not ever really go after JuCo players at U of M, a big thing with the recruitment of O-linemen is getting in young raw talent and moldable size/skillset that you can try to form in to the player that you want. I'd imagine a OL on the JuCo level who's done well enough to warrant consideration at the FBS level is fairly set in his blocking ways already and is no longer as malleable. Could be way off, but that's just how I see it.
November 15th, 2013 at 9:17 AM ^
I agree, in an ideal world, you'd have a bunch of talented 4th and 5th year lineman, along with the rare super stud 2nd/3rd year guy, rolling into your OL year after year. You can mold them into the type of blocker that fits your system.
But that's not we're UM is at -- the problem for 2013 and 2014 is that "we're so young." If that's recognized as a problem, there are other ways to fix it than looking at the clock and wishing it were 2015.
November 15th, 2013 at 9:41 AM ^
Also the JuCo players can come in and have the skills and experience. It is not like these guys do not have real world experience.
Worst case your young guys now beat them out as starters. That means you have some older players giving depth in case there are injuries. They have big game experience and can help the young guys understand what to look for.
How did Auburn win 2010? The answer is community colleges. Their QB was a transfer from Blinn. Their defense was built around one Nick Fairley who transfered from Copiah Lincoln.
How did Alabama win?
http://espn.go.com/colleges/alabama/football/story/_/id/8458256/alabama…
Michigan doesn't want JuCo for a reason. It is not academics as they allow for transfer credits pointed out previously. There is more to it. I think it could simply be the same reason so many pushed back against the Fab 5 20 years ago. It is not the face they want for Michigan.
This discussion that the JuCo guys couldn't come in because they are too set in their ways and so can't play at that level is an interesting one. I think Nick Saban and Mario Christobal would disagree. After all they scooped up Dominick Jackson to play for Alabama next year as a starting OT. The problem Alabama currently has is a very young line (among the lowest with starts) but they forgot to tell the young guys to suck.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/alabama/football/recruiting/player-Dominick-Jac…
November 15th, 2013 at 9:58 AM ^
Yep. Young and raw for OLs is what you want on your roster, but not on the field...just yet. But since we're obviously in a situation where our young big guys are seeing ample playing time (and aren't studs right out the gate), our offensive scheme needs to be able to play to their current strengths (whatever in the world those may be) rather than running an offensive that pretends we have a group of guys in the middle that have an average of 20 starts among them.
November 15th, 2013 at 9:55 AM ^
REMEMBER THE AUSTIN PANTER!
November 15th, 2013 at 10:20 AM ^
Is he the local guy who used to disrupt the performers at SXSW by running through the crowd while gasping after every breath?
November 15th, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^
The one and only.
November 15th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^
So does Auburn, so does eveyone in the SEC. I get it. We don't care about national championships only fighting for the Big 10 Championship and maintaining our academic reputation. However, if our academic reputation mattered so much answer this question. Why did I have 20 football / basketball / hockey athletes in my summer Communications 101 class but none in any of my first year engineering classes? Later when I transferred to LSA I did not have any athletes in my statistics classes nor in my economics / 200 level accounting classes. They also did not exist in the 400 level economics classes.
I will tell you why. Athletes in revenue producing sports have almost no extra time to go into Pre Med, Engineering, Pre Law or the BBA programs. Athletics is a full time 8 hour per day job and we are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.
Honestly, we have bigger academic problems if taking 2 or 3 Jucos per year matters academically. Just take the Juco kids and "teach them up" so that they will do well and then go win some damn football games. Our elitism is killing this program.
November 15th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^
November 15th, 2013 at 5:47 PM ^
The time would have been 1 or 2 years ago. We're stuck with what we have now.