This is'nt going to happen but what if???
November 20th, 2009 at 5:19 PM ^
That means we probably won the game.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:56 PM ^
Excellent observation. I LOLed so +1 for you.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:23 PM ^
Then we'll probably have to tell some of the slot receivers that they're playing DT; and, if they don't like it, then they can committ somewhere else.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:34 PM ^
This is exactly true. If we were to get "bigger fish" to commit, I think we would give a couple of guys the "Peace/Barnes" treatment. Not sure who, but I doubt it will come to that.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:26 PM ^
we sign them and count early enrolles to last class
November 20th, 2009 at 5:37 PM ^
they changed that rule.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:58 PM ^
I know that someone said that on this board, but it was in the context of Adrian Witty. Is it possible that the rule only changed to say that his recruitment can no longer be part of the previous class since he didn't originally qualify for it?
November 20th, 2009 at 6:31 PM ^
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/ncaa-scholarship-limit-review
This seems to show that nothing has changed.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:27 PM ^
Call up Olanyian and tell him to get to Ann Arbor ASAP, before the magic wears off.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^
I believe, so we take eight. There is always some attrition due to injuries etc and can't we use McGuffie's scholie and Clemons'?
November 20th, 2009 at 5:32 PM ^
Guys...I beg you...look at who we have returning next year and tell me how we have room for 28 incoming freshmen. Everyone just assumes we can sign as many as we want, but we cant. We have 62 players returning next year who have scholarships. I've written this about a half dozen times on this board and people either ignore it, or neg me for writing it. The only way we sign more is if people leave. I dont see 5 5th year seniors getting the boot because we need them for depth, and it will make the 2011 class ultra-small. I think we sign 25 by not offering a 5th year for Cone and Wright. And even if we could sign 28, (for example if DW leaves or someone else transfers) i think it would be in our best interest to save a couple of scholarships for 2011.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
I don't get "saving" scholorships.
Bird in hand > Two in the bush
Normal attrition will get us adequate numbers in every class.
These things have a way of working themselves out.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:29 PM ^
I think people also assume a couple guys in this class will not qualify or something similar. And as the above poster says, I would rather get them now then hope for the future and wanting a bigger class for 2011. In fact, I think it's a good good sign for our depth if only have 11 open spots for 2011.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:32 PM ^
Ask questions later!
November 20th, 2009 at 5:35 PM ^
However,don't worry about this until it is a problem.
We have 5 left, doubt we get more than one or two from this weekend!
November 20th, 2009 at 5:36 PM ^
As "cargo" eluded we take all eight. umhero's diary from a few days ago spells out the NCAA 2009-2010 rules in regards to ee's being able to go towards either class. I'm thinking RR's statement that only 5 are left is to spur some of these higher caliber guys to commit.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:40 PM ^
said that rule was changed. maybe I'm wrong or he is wrong. I know he said in the Big 10 you can only over sign by 2.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:50 PM ^
Yeah I went with what Webb said last week as well... with his sources being the coaches figured it was pretty lock tight, but umhero's diary is hard to argue against being that his source is the NCAA rule book. I myself would like to know one way or the other, but for now I'm leaning towards the rule book.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^
I missed his post on the rules but I'll take his word for it.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:44 PM ^
Again..I'll keep asking until someone answers. How do we sign 28 incoming freshmen and still stay at or below 85 scholarships? Someone lay out the 5 players we "get rid of" and I'll let this go.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:58 PM ^
we only have 70-71 scholarship players right now. We lose around 17 taking us to around 53. we add 25-27 thats around 80 right? Am I counting too many guys leaving or am I wrong about the 70 scholarship players?
November 20th, 2009 at 6:10 PM ^
You are a little off on the number of seniors leaving. Check out the diary post on NCAA scholarship limits, I wrote down every single player that has a scholarship that is returning next year. Its 62.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:22 PM ^
I thought I must have messed up the # of players leaving after this season. Was I right about the # of players on scholarships right now??
November 20th, 2009 at 5:41 PM ^
As far as I am concerned, too many recruits is a good problem to have.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:08 PM ^
they are all smurfs and play the same position
November 20th, 2009 at 8:01 PM ^
The big fish on defense may think, wow, I could start like in my Freshman year at Michigan. Why should I go be a bench warmer at USC, Florida or OSU for two or three years waiting my turn on a talent stacked team!!!
November 20th, 2009 at 8:33 PM ^
well they could be thinking "I'll be a bench warmer.. but we'll probably win a national championship or at least go to BCS games". I think the assertion that people will snap at the opportunity for early playing time and helping bring back a struggling powerhouse is far too rational for a hyped high school athlete to be thinking.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:06 PM ^
I sure hope that being an instant contributor weighs more heavily on their minds than possibly the more rational thought in some minds of joining a program, picking up a redshirt, and growing into the success that awaits you. Patience is a virtue and as much as I would have loved to see JT Turner play this year, I'm even more excited knowing that he has a yr under his belt going into next year with 4 more yrs of eligibility left.