The Considerable Attrition of Stanford's 2010 Recruiting Class Comment Count

Ace

Tony Jefferson (L) and Kain Colter (R) left Stanford's class for very different reasons.

I swear I'll be posting a full recruiting mailbag this week, but when looking at Michael Spath's article on Jim Harbaugh's recruiting style, this merited a closer examination:

At Stanford, The Cardinal produced a slew of decommitments during Harbaugh's tenure (18 alone in 2010), and we've been told that when Harbaugh accepts a commitment, it is often the early stages of the vetting process, and that over the next few months both coaching staff and recruit could come to the conclusion it is not the right fit. 

If such were to happen at Michigan, fans would have to ask themselves if they are OK with a recruiting strategy in which players are recruited and offered a scholarship but ultimately told prior to Signing Day that it would be best for all involved to part ways. 

Stanford's elite admissions turned away a few prospects, and one could argue it was the school not Harbaugh that had final say, but a staff should have a pretty good feel from the onset which players have the grades to be admitted and those that do not. At Stanford, Harbaugh was willing to accept pledges from an abundance of borderline prospects.

18 decommitments in one class! On its face, that's alarming, especially in the context of Michigan taking this many early commitments. To get a clearer picture of what happened at Stanford and what we can expect from Harbaugh at Michigan, I took a look at the decommitment stories of every one-time 2010 Stanford commit I could find to see what really occurred.

The good news: Harbaugh didn't just kick 18 players out of his class to make room for better players. In fact, a good number of these decommits were players Harbaugh didn't want to lose. There was no Elliott Porter situation. The bad news: while Harbaugh didn't seem to go so far as to yank anyone's scholarship outright, a couple of the tactics he used probably won't sit well with Michigan fans, and understandably so.

I've separated out the 2010 decommits into categories. I believe Spath's source for the 18 decommits figure is this Bleacher Report article. There's only one player on the list (Tyler Brosius) whom I couldn't verify was ever a Stanford commit in the first place; neither Rivals nor Scout even listed him as holding an offer. Here's the rest:

Prospect Chose A Better Opportunity

Several of Stanford's 2010 commits had one of the more common reasons for a commitment flip: they got what they found to be a better offer from another program and made the switch.

  • Four-star CA S/LB Tony Jefferson, now on the Arizona Cardinals, committed to Stanford in September of his junior season. He backed off the following January, saying he wanted to keep his options open while citing concerns over Stanford's strict admissions, and ended up at Oklahoma.
  • Four-star CA LB Jordan Zumwalt fielded heavy interest from both Los Angeles schools while he was a Stanford commit, and on Signing Day he switched to UCLA, in part because it was closer to home.
  • Four-star MD CB Louis Young committed to Stanford without taking a visit, had second thoughts, recommitted, had second thoughts again, and eventually wound up at Georgia Tech.
  • Three one-time Stanford commits—four-star GA WR TJ Jones, three-star UT S Chris Badger, and three-star KY OL Tate Nichols—flipped to Notre Dame during the process. Jones switched after an official visit to South Bend, while the other two made their decisions shortly after receiving Irish offers.
  • Three-star OH CB Courtney Avery changed his commitment to Michigan after earning a camp offer in the spring.
  • Three-star TX DT Will Hampton started fielding increased interest, decided he wanted to take visits, narrowed his choices to Notre Dame and Northwestern, and eventually chose the Wildcats.

That's eight of the 18 who simply decided to pursue what they found to be a better opportunity elsewhere.

Standard Recruitment Issues

For one reason or another, something came up during the course of these players' recruitments that led them to end up elsewhere:

  • Four-star FL OL Torrian Wilson changed his commitment to Louisville when his primary recruiter at Stanford, Willie Taggart, took the head coaching job at Western Kentucky. He also said his mom wanted him closer to home. There's good evidence that was the driving factor—he'd later flip his commitment again, this time to UCF.
  • Four-star TE Blake Barker, who hailed from Cambridge, MA, changed his commitment to Harvard, telling Rivals he wanted the right combination of academics and proximity to home.
  • Four-star MO RB Brandon Bourbon also decided he wanted to play close to home, swiching to Kansas just days before NSD after being committed to Stanford for six months.

Senior Year Injury

This is where things start getting uncomfortable. In two documented cases, Stanford stopped contacting recruits after they suffered injuries during their season season. That's how Kain Colter, a three-star athlete, wound up at Northwestern instead of heading to Palo Alto:

During his first game that fall, Colter heard a "pop" after throwing a post route. An MRI revealed a torn labrum and biceps, but he kept playing as a running back and receiver while rehabbing a shoulder that eventually needed surgery.

Stanford originally stuck by him, but then their correspondences dwindled. They wanted his MRI results and claimed he would have to wait for clearance from the admissions office. Interesting for a kid who carried a 4.2 grade-point average.

Finally, Spencer said, "They just stopped calling. It was a bad situation. I wanted them to man up and talk to Kain."

Colter decommitted in late December. Three-star FL OG Joe McNamara had a similar experience:

The 6-foot-2, 270-pound McNamara, a three-star prospect rated the 28th-best offensive guard in the country by Scout.com, was excited to become a Cardinal. That's when his recruitment started taking a turn for the worse.

Tearing his ACL roughly a week before the season started, forcing McNamara to sit out his entire senior season, McNamara wanted to be sure Stanford was still behind him. After no returned calls or emails, McNamara had to start from scratch.

"The thing that took the longest was finding out if Stanford was in or out," McNamara told Badger Nation Monday. "They never came out and said I was out of the picture but at the same time, there was no communication. I would say probably November was when I re-opened the recruiting process."

McNamara wound up at Wisconsin. If there's a positive to be found in these two cases, it's that Harbaugh never formally pulled either player's scholarship, and both opened up their recruitments with enough time left in the process to find suitable landing spots. It's tough to sugarcoat the complete lack of communication from Stanford's end, however.

Stanford Ceased Contact

Somewhat related to the above, the main way it seems Harbaugh indicated to recruits it was best for both parties to go their separate ways was to stop talking to them.

  • Three-star GA S Daunte Carr opened up his recruitment because he hadn't heard back from the admissions department with less than a month to go before Signing Day. He later committed to Arkansas.
  • Three-star NV LB Evan Palelei committed in the spring of his junior year, then decommitted in early September of his senior year because he "lost contact with them over the summer." Palelei eventually signed with Navy.

The Late Grayshirt

  • In arguably the most concerning situation of them all, the Stanford staff informed three-star TX TE Zachary Swanson that he'd have to take a grayshirt with about a month to go before Signing Day. He chose instead to sign with Virginia.

I can't find anywhere what happened in the case of three-star OG Harris Williams, who flipped to Boston College in July after originally pledging to the Cardinal in late April.

So?

A lot of the attrition in this class occurred for reasons outside Harbaugh's control, but there are definitely red flags that come up. Falling out of contact with recruits as a way of not-so-subtly pushing them out the door isn't a great look, especially in the case of injury; even worse is blindsiding a prospect with a late grayshirt.

We'll see if Harbaugh operates in a different way at Michigan, where he won't have to worry as much about potential attrition within his classes due to problems with admissions. While this stuff doesn't quite rise to the SEC level of recruiting malfeasance, it's not going to go over well in Ann Arbor if Harbaugh isn't more open with recruits about their place in the class as the process moves along.

Comments

buckeyejonross

June 24th, 2015 at 8:38 AM ^

Isn't that supposed to be how it works? Petty theft of $50 is a slap on the wrist, but stealing $50 million from Enron is 30 years. Why would the NCAA be different? Oh right, the NCAA :(

On the scale of bad things an NCAA player can do, trading their cleats for a tattoo is a lot less bad than whoring your family out to the highest bidding agent for the nicest house and fanciest car, imo.

Smoothitron

June 24th, 2015 at 10:06 AM ^

I don't have a problem with either of them to be honest, but a dumb rule is a rule as they say, just ask any UM fan about the letter of the law on countable hours. I'm no NCAA apologist, I'm not sure if there are any left. 

The OSU and USC penalties weren't for the benefits received per se, but for using players the coaching staff knew were inelegible.  You don't get more inelegible by taking more benefits. USC got hit way harder, about 3 times harder(3 year bowl ban, 30 scholarships), for a scandal that only involved one player and significantly less evidence of lack of oversight. USC was an egregious witchhunt.

 

I've wasted a lot of words on a topic that isn't really relevant to the topic of discussion.  My bad.

west2

June 23rd, 2015 at 8:44 PM ^

those that want to win have to accept the ...distasteful fact that this is how the game is played today.   Only the very young or those with their heads in the sand or obliterated elsewhere believe that having a blueblood pedigree entitles you to a NC.  Urban Meyer has baggage but he wins and C-bus gets it, the question is does the AA elite get it.   Put me in the camp that says play the game in all its facets and win.   18 decommitments in one year?   So what, it's what good coaches do, get players that fit your program and dump the rest. 

AlwaysBlue

June 23rd, 2015 at 9:57 PM ^

that's the way a group of coaches that everybody here rushes to condemn play the game. If that's what Harbaugh and Michigan aspire to then fine...but let's also drop the BS about caring about the kids, the Michigan difference and all the rest.

Reader71

June 24th, 2015 at 12:34 PM ^

"Urban Meyer has baggage but he wins and C-bus gets it, the question is does the AA elite get it." The AA elite do not get it. Because the AA elite formed their understanding of M football and what it means through the prism of Bo. They "get it" is a concept -- doing bad things might help you win -- but they do not, and hopefully will not, ever accept it. You also seem to want M fans to be the same as OSU fans, which is stupid. They celebrate a coach who punched an opposing player. They celebrate Tressel. We would have run those guys out on a rail. They give gold pants when they beat M. We just go about our business when we beat them. They are different fanbases with different values. OSU was always going to be more comfortable with Meyer than we would be. And that shouldn't change. I dont even begrudge them that.

SharkBuck

June 24th, 2015 at 1:07 PM ^

Before you seize the moral high ground for Michigan, don't forget the Michigan Kicker incident.  He allegedly raped a girl before his freshman year; he was kicked off the team for the incident at the end of his senior year.  People in the know who did nothing at Michigan include: the Coach, the AD, the President and the Board.  Other than PSU/Sandusky, can you name any conduct by a program, ever, involving college football that is worse?  Can you name any incident involving college football that the Board knew about, and did nothing, that is worse?

Edit:  To be clear, I think pretty highly of the Michigan program, and think that it is run pretty ethically.  And I think the same is true for most college football teams, including OSU.  I am just responding to the notion that Michigan ethics are somehow superior.

justingoblue

June 24th, 2015 at 1:41 PM ^

It went through the criminal system. It is in no way anything like what happened at Penn State. Gibbons was expelled (not charged and not suddenly kicked off the team) in 2013 because there was enough evidence to show he had violated the code of conduct.

If you want to say he should have been kicked off in 2009, that's fine, but there wasn't some conspiracy to keep an alleged rape hidden.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigan-student-arrested-af…

 

 

SharkBuck

June 24th, 2015 at 1:48 PM ^

Penn State is certainly a lot worse.  I agree.  But on degrees of bad conduct by an institution, is this No. 2?  (I am not aware of anything that looks worse, but there may be something worse that I cannot think of.)

And in terms of institutional knowledge, the Michigan Kicker incident goes all the way up to the Board; something that is not true in Penn State.

justingoblue

June 24th, 2015 at 1:57 PM ^

What are you talking about? There was an arrest in 2009. The arrest made the news multiple times between 2009-2013. The "knowledge" was disseminated to anyone with an internet connection or a newspaper subscription, in addition to the local prosecutors office and police department.

You're confusing not kicking him off the team with a coverup of facts, and they're not even remotely the same thing.

SharkBuck

June 24th, 2015 at 2:08 PM ^

Yes, the arrest was public.  In fact, as an OSU fan, I had seen rumors about it well before he was kicked off the team.  There was no cover up that I am aware of.

The problem is the what you identify -- he was allowed to stay on the team for three years after the incident, and was not kicked off until late 2013, after his football eligibility was used up (save a couple games).  The Board knew about it at least by 2011, but let him play.

And don't forget that the OT allegedly threatened the alleged victim that he would rape her if she pursued charges; if I recall correctly, he was eventually made a team captain.

DarkWolverine

June 24th, 2015 at 2:29 PM ^

SharkBuck
Can you provide any information on the OSU football player who appeared to commit suicide due to depression? Seems he had multiple concussions and complained to team mates and family about them. How does such a player continue to practice after multiple concussions and symptoms under OSU coaches and medical staff.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

SharkBuck

June 24th, 2015 at 3:00 PM ^

I do not know all the facts, but he was a walk-on who was formerly on the wrestling team.  There are accepted medical protocols for dealing with players with concussions.  I have never seen any claim that OSU did not follow those protocols.  If you have seen a credible claim, then that would certainly be a significant concern.

DarkWolverine

June 24th, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^

Concern Levels?
A kid who dies while in full monitoring by medical and coaching staff is significant concern. As a minimum, processes in place would need to be evaluated. The wrestling coach said the kid had no concussions while wrestling, so it appears his problems were on the football team. Your low level of concern here does not match your concern level for the Gibbons case.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

SharkBuck

June 24th, 2015 at 4:19 PM ^

Yes, his death was tragic.  That does not mean that the OSU coaches or medical staff failed to follow accepted medical practices.  There are players on every team that have had concussions.  If you have credible cites showing that the OSU coaches or staff failed to follow such practices. then please share.  I have never seen any, and a non-thorough Google search did not turn up any.  The coronor's report reflected that he had suffered concussions, but did not have CTE; but I do not really know what that means.  http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/03/06/Karageorge-did-not-suffer-chronic-brain-damage.html

Again, if you have credible sources showing that OSU's doctors or coaches failed to follow accepted medical procedures, then, yes, that would be a significant issue.

Reader71

June 24th, 2015 at 5:35 PM ^

Its not really about a moral high ground. Conceptually, Michigan values doing things a certain way. We call it the right way because we do it. No doubt Ohio considers their way the right way. I am not really making a moral judgment. But each program and the respective sets of fans believe in certain values, just like they believe that either blue or scarlett are the best color in the world. It doesn't make sense to try to impose my beliefs on you. It makes even less sense for an M fan to try to impose OSU values on other M fans. Ohio will always value winning, and beating M, ahead of ethics. Michigan fans have always been different. I hope it never changes.

Dawkins

June 23rd, 2015 at 9:42 PM ^

If more kids verbal than you have spots for, what are you supposed to do? You can't take them all, and its absurd to think college athletics should abide by a "first in time, first in right" standard. Its a major decision and kids shouldn't be punished for taking their time, going on visits, and deciding what's best for them.

AlwaysBlue

June 23rd, 2015 at 10:04 PM ^

their decisions quickly should be punished? It seems a lot of people here were pissed that Battle ate up an offer just to buy himself some time but you are suggesting that it's okay for coaches to use kids that way? What about Weber and all of the ranting that caused...they hid a coaching change not a plan to pull an offer.

Dawkins

June 23rd, 2015 at 10:49 PM ^

Im saying the scholarship should go to the most deserving player irrespective of when they verbal or when they were offered. The more deserving player shouldnt be punished because they took their visits, or because they were offered later in the cycle. A who wasnt discovered until the CA camp shouldn't be screwed over simply because the coaches decided to hold a camp in Indiana first. And if the first 25 offer letters that go out all result in verbals, that shouldn't stop a program from recruiting for the rest of the cycle and discovering other players. It needs to be (and is) based on merit. You're not entitled to a job simply because you interviewed before the other guy.

might and main

June 24th, 2015 at 7:36 AM ^

This is on the coaches to manage their offers. They can tell a kid when he's allowed to actually commit or when he needs to wait. If there is a mutual agreement on a commitment then it should be treated at least like a gentleman's agreement, and UM later backing out of the deal is not "the Michigan way."

mastodon

June 24th, 2015 at 12:43 AM ^

"Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive."

Remember that tweet?  Harbaugh must have known that he set his own moral high bar when he directed that toward our rival.  If he violates his own "principle" on the recruiting trail, his hypocrisy will be trumpeted far and wide.  I'll trust that whatever tactics he may employ will at least be free of deception. 

Blue Durham

June 24th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^

Harbaugh followed for this recruiting class (particularly the late greyshirt, and the 4 that the coaching staff chose not to respond to the recruit's inquiries), or if this was just a 1 off thing that happened during Harbaugh's initial class at a major program. I also find it interesting that, for a guy who quotes Bo Schembechler, would follow such a cowardly practice as to stop contact in the hopes that the recruit would get the message and go elsewhere. I have great difficulty seeing a man like Bo act this way. In reading the comments, I am amazed at the number of people who essentially said that they don't have a problem with this kind of stuff, and that if it results in a winning program, this is OK. That it is OK if we adopt practices that universities like Alabama have. You cannot have an internationally acclaimed university that, at the same time, has one of its most visible, public extensions, acting in such an unethical manner. The top universities are all research ones, and thus ethics is always a paramount concern, particularly how data is collected and analyzed, and that what is presented as being done was actually done. You cannot have tenured professors (and have no doubt, they are the ones who run the show, who make up the committees, are promoted into the administration, etc.) appear at conferences, or as invited speakers and lecture on the law, medicine, public policy, etc. while at the same time tolerate a cesspool within their very own institution. They will be called out on it. It is not coincidence that the rogue programs of the past were at SMU, Oklahoma, and Miami and not at Northwestern, Cal-Berkeley and UVa. There was also a reason why the Ivy League schools pursued the course they did around 70 years ago. If Michigan is going to truly be a "Public Ivy" it is going to have to behave as such and not tolerate Alabama-like policies as they are completely incompatible. To this point they have, and with Hackett as AD, I am sure they will continue to do so.

Blue Durham

June 24th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^

A couple other things I could have added to my already tl;dr post above. I have always been impressed that the MGoBlog community has always been quick to discuss, shed light and question policies of both the University of Michigan at large as well as those of the Athletic Department. It is important that the university and all of its departments conduct themselves properly and be called out if they fail to do so. This blog (and its readership) does this. Also, with regard to employing troublesome recruiting practices, I wonder what percentage for/against are students/alum and non-affiliated.

might and main

June 24th, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^

I'm really disappointed to see how many people don't give a damn about ethics and integrity and only care about winning football games.  This site has attracted a much wider membership over the years, and I suspect a lot of people who don't have any real affiliation with UM outside of being sports fans.  That's fine in and of itself, but not when they want to promote an unravelling of UM's way of doing things.  The institution is much larger than just its athletics, and the core values of the University need to be the foundation of all its activities.  To hell with those who would sell UM's soul just to win games.  They don't have a real clue what Michigan is about.

AmayzNblue

June 26th, 2015 at 1:01 AM ^

You can get into a moral high ground position, but it will inevitably unravel. It's false to pretend that Michigan has always conducted manners of university functions with high levels of integrity. I agree that athletics don't mean everything, but is it best use of university money to send no down to Florida to wade through a swamp to get Anthony Carter's signature? Could that money have been out to better use rather than blow if it on a player who wouId help win football games? I wouId argue there are much more important matters that UM could have used that money for....but very few would ever criticize Bo for being extravagant. Think about it.

Archibald Meatpants

June 24th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^

I agree that if a coach makes a commitment to a kid he should keep his word.  Over offering is bad business.  That said, didn't everyone want Harbaugh because he could compete with Meyer & Saban?  On December 30th we all lost our shit when it was official that Harbaugh was a done deal.  Now, doing business like them is raising red flags.  Pick a side guy's.  Again, I don't like over offering.  But, if everyone wants to be above the current recruiting tactics then don't complain when we go through 6-6 season after 6-6 season.  We aren't going to be above it all and be competitive.  Recruiting is a dirty business.

I would never take Dirty Calipari over John Beilein but I'm also happy with a team who's season will end most years in the sweet 16.     

AmayzNblue

June 26th, 2015 at 12:53 AM ^

Collin Cowherd made a similar point about Meyer blowing up the "gentlemen's agreement" in the B1G to stop recruiting a player verbally committed to another school.....then Meyer won the NC.

Like the practices, don't like the recruiting practices, I don't really care but we wouId all be better off not scrutinizing Harbaugh if we enjoy winning.

o0MaizeNBlue0o

June 24th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^

On another note...many people have been concerned by the low star players Harbaugh's been offering. Some 3 stars certainly pan out-- (Jake Ryan, 3 star), but I never knew he recruited Kain Colter, 3 star, who was quite the player at Northwestern.  Richard Sherman... etc.   I know it's been said before, but maybe alot of these 3 star players (or lower) are really not adequatly evaluated/ranked by the ranking services.  More evidence that Harbaugh knows what he's doing...

LSA Superstar

June 24th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^

I'm okay if the recruits are told that their committment can be unilaterally voided by the coach.  But I'm not okay if we're literally just ignoring commits in hopes that they go away.  That's simply not ethical.

And you know who's managed to win without similar shenanegans?  Mark Dantonio.

Sorry.  I hate saying it, but it has to be said.

greensborohill1

December 22nd, 2015 at 10:12 AM ^

This may become relevant again. Just to track things so far:

 

David Reese: By all accounts, he was kept in the loop & decide to decommit based on information he was given.

Matt Falcon: Was told well in advance that he would be getting medicaled and decided to look to play elsewhere.

Dele Harding: Not a fit. Not sure how much contact he and staff had.

Rashad Weaver: Is currently looking around, what does it mean?

Antwuan Richardson: Is hurt, recently took an official, was going to early enroll, now isn't. .  to be continued.

Sir Patrick Thomas: Says he hasn't had contact w/ staff in some time, but he's still solid. 

Kiante Enis: Minimal contact, currently looking around

Chris Evans: ???

mvpmich

January 25th, 2016 at 10:08 PM ^

Let's understand that a university's offer and a student athlete's commitment are non-binding. They are similar to letters of intent and are expressions of interest. Many factors come into play until the deal is done or voided. Until national signing day there is no legal agreement. There's nothing illegal or morally wrong with the process. The problem stems with the amount of attention that social media has given to the process.

mvpmich

January 25th, 2016 at 10:08 PM ^

Let's understand that a university's offer and a student athlete's commitment are non-binding. They are similar to letters of intent and are expressions of interest. Many factors come into play until the deal is done or voided. Until national signing day there is no legal agreement. There's nothing illegal or morally wrong with the process. The problem stems with the amount of attention that social media has given to the process.