Who cares where they live? How have we dated the past decade which also happened to coincide with. Drastic reduction I. Ohio player. They KNOW the importance of the game and what it means to them and their families. It's the most important thing to them. It's not to RRs players nor him. When it's a few less it'd have been fine but not when there a vast difference. Unless you want to say this was an astronomical coincidence????

there is a middle ground here. I agree that there has not been a “focus” on recruiting Ohio recently - except possibly the Hoke years. Top kids were always on the radar, but the mid-rated kids seemed to be less on the radar unless M had a relationship or the player expressed interest. I would expect this would change going forward based on the regional strengths of some of the new staff. (Also personal opinion - paring down the number of staff members that were not active/enthusiastic recruiters - read Drevno - will also increase M’s ability to cover local and national prospects better.)

Unlike MSU, Michigan does not have to focus on regional recruiting for most of it’s team, and making inroads in places like TX, FL, GA etc. is valuable going forward.

That said, taking a player from M or Ohio does have the advantage of reducing the talent pool for the regional B1G recruiting teams AND there is at least some value to “knowing the rivalries”.

Going forward - unless there is a benefit in addition to the player (I.e. getting an “in” into Grayson HS in GA) - it is probably better to take an equal talent from MI or OH. The caveat is that coaches need to determine what is “equivalent”. I have seen conflicting arguments that kids tend to be overrated in the talent-rich states due to the increased exposure but also that they can be underrated “since you can’t make them all 4-stars”.

Welcome Zach! You made a great choice both academically and for football.

But there is enough outliers that some can make a case for them not mattering.