November 16th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^
Damn. Hopefully we can steal Jefferson. Why is UCLA getting these recruits? They are 5-5, 2-5.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:59 PM ^
Um, we're 5-6, 1-6.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^
If I were in the top 10 at my position, I wouldn't go to either.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:15 PM ^
So your recruitment would basically consist of checking the standings each week?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:16 PM ^
If you visited UCLA you would know. That campus is amazing. Plus the girls, weather, etc.
A better question would be...how have they managed to suck for this long?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:23 PM ^
Over some of their more overhyped competitors. All that, and smart too.
How have they sucked? Well, they are the distant second sport at their school. And recently, they've been crosstown from the best college football team in the country for the last decade. But before that? Well, they were better...but you got me.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:55 PM ^
That's one area they have sucked. Not really their fault but the team has been plagued with QB injuries and just poor playing even when healthy. Like UM, UCLA is in transition and will need a few seasons to put the Bruin back together.
But to agree with above poster, UCLA is a fantastic campus (though Westwood is not a TRUE college town like A2 is) with a bevy of beautiful co eds that UM can not even compare to.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
I think he is talking historically, not just recently. Because if you have Troy Aikman, you should be able to recruit some other QB's after him....just sayin'...
November 16th, 2009 at 5:56 PM ^
At least you're honest.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:03 PM ^
I figured we were on the outside looking in following his rave reviews out west, but I was hoping we signed him. Hamburgers.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:04 PM ^
Very bizarre.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:12 PM ^
so bizarre???
November 16th, 2009 at 6:20 PM ^
We impressed him enough to get him to publically decommit from Duke when he visited, and a couple months later we're not even in line for a December visit like before and he's committed elsewhere. Curious to know what went wrong here.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:12 PM ^
...In the Big Ten is what went wrong. When he visited we were looking pretty good as a program and had a very promising season ahead of us. Since then all he's read and seen about Michigan is how much is wrong with our program. Being Michigan, we're gonna get a lot of bad press when we're doing bad. UCLA may be 5-5 but people don't care about them enough to denounce their program on every media outlet every time college football is mentioned, as happens with Michigan.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:08 PM ^
His visit was for Notre Dame. He was taken in by it all.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:08 AM ^
He named UCLA his leader middle of last week, I wasn't really expecting him to actually decide that quickly though. He did sound pretty blown away by the visit.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:05 PM ^
Let's hope we can get Tony Jefferson from them then.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:05 PM ^
Arrrrggh. Hopefully we can still get another big time DLine commitment.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:12 PM ^
I think he was a LB recruit. Doesn't matter now though but we need LB more than Dline. Furman, come on down.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:12 PM ^
You must have been thinking about CJ Olaniyan who is headed to PSU.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:16 PM ^
if we wouldnt have gone into a tailspin this season, i think we had him. but we did.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:18 PM ^
NEUHEISAL'D
November 16th, 2009 at 7:19 PM ^
Another linebacker prospect off the board. Damn UCLA.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:22 PM ^
Dear Tony Jefferson, come on down.
Thank you.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:24 PM ^
I don't think losing out on Aramide is a huge deal. He's an undersized OLB prospect with good speed, but he's not a difference maker in the mold of Josh Furman. Furman is elite and I'll be very disappointed if we lose out on him to VaTech.
Michigan has plenty of solid OLB types in Isaiah Bell, Brandin Hawthorne, Mike Jones, Craig Roh, and Marvin Robinson. What we need is ILB's and at least 1 more top DL prospect.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:32 PM ^
dont see furman coming here....
November 16th, 2009 at 9:37 PM ^
because....
November 17th, 2009 at 6:09 AM ^
again, because what!? he has sounded extremely positive about the chance to play early here.
also...how is he only a 3-star prospect. A linebacker that has reportedly run in the 4.2's. drool.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:30 AM ^
I can virtually guarantee you that Josh Furman has not run a 4.2 40...because it's practically impossible.
His "confirmed" time is 4.37, which is still probably a little too fast to be believable. I don't know where you get the 4.2 number, but don't believe everything you read on the internet.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:42 PM ^
The whole, "We didn't get him, he sucks" thing is, in a word, dumb.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:30 PM ^
Put words in people's mouths much?
That's not what the man said at all.
He just said Furman looks better. I don't know if that's true or not, do you? With HS seniors it's debatable. Who knows. He didn't say Olaniyan sucks though, and pointed out reasons why Furman could be a better fit for us than Olaniyan.
Is that a cardinal sin of some sort?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:29 PM ^
Olaniyan is better than Furman. Flat-out. Furman is pretty raw. And how is Olaniyan undersized? Furman is about 6'2", 194 and Olaniyan is 6'2", 202.
I wasn't confident about Olaniyan, even after he said he really liked us. But he's a better prospect than Furman.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:01 PM ^
Ive heard Olaniyan doesn't have the best frame for putting on college muscle (in different articals that i've read). i think thats what he meant by undersized.
although i think Olaniyan is a freak athlete who i am very disappointed we didnt land.
oh well lets push forward and finish strong.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:54 AM ^
I think they are both undersized but what sets Furman apart from Olaniyan IMO is his elite speed. Furman is also a hell of an offensive player as well.
I'd just prefer to take a versatile OLB/S/RB prospect with elite speed over an OLB whose skill set is built for one position. Michigan is pretty solid on OLB depth, but Furman just brings another dimension to any position he decides to play.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:02 AM ^
Furman is too stiff to play safety, and we aren't even considering him as a running back. And he really wants to play running back, so if there was any chance we wanted him to play there, we would have told him that already. He basically plays OLB in a 50 defense as a high schooler, so there's virtually no way they would move him back in the defense to safety.
You're not the only one, but I think a lot of people are in love with his speed and don't consider some of his weaknesses.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:02 PM ^
Him not committing to Michigan is his loss, not ours. Oh wait. Check that, it is a big loss to Michigan.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:45 PM ^
wears a funny hat and is a master snake oil salesman. He's been slimy every stop along the way.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:01 PM ^
I'm reserving a special +1 for somebody who can actually spell the last name of UCLA's head coach.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:07 PM ^
Newcastle
November 17th, 2009 at 12:40 AM ^
I didn't ask what you drink to forget blowout losses.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:18 PM ^
Neuheisel.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:44 AM ^
That was a very special +1 because I clicked it with a rabbit's foot.
You will have good luck for 5 days, at the end of which you will get H1N1 and be punched in the dong.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^
I laughed out loud at that, Magnus. Thanks for the midday humor.