Arnett to transfer

Submitted by Dr.Jay on December 28th, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Just read on Rivals mainboard DeAnthony Arnett is leaving Tenessee because of fathers declining health. Anyone hear anything on our front, Sparty is claiming he is a MSU lock

Comments

Pete99

December 28th, 2011 at 8:26 PM ^

The staff might be done with WR recruiting for this class. Arnett may transfer because of his father, but, I doubt it will be to UM. Before he comitted to Tennessee, he was higher on MSU than he was on Michigan.

Space Coyote

December 28th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^

He pretty much confused everybody with his recruitment, so it's hard to really saying MSU was higher than Michigan.  I think the only thing that can be taken from his original recruitment is that Tenn. was number 1, and now that the person that recruited him was forced out he doesn't really want to be there anymore.

I wouldn't be surprised if neither Michigan or MSU get him at this point, both have met their numbers or have solid options going towards signing day.  I also wouldn't be surprised if either picked him up.  I think it will be much like his original recruitment again, where no one really knows for sure but 1000 insiders will tell you that they know.

bing24

December 28th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^

Our old recruiting buddy has brought Arnett's name up numerous times. Actually threw out this possibility weeks ago. I'm guessing there was an inside track...Arnett really liked Michigan, but HATED the spread.
<br>
<br>From what was said - he wouldn't count against recruiting numbers, just against 85 scholarship numbers. Also, I believe he would get a hardship waiver and e able to play right away because of moving closer to his ill Dad.
<br>
<br>UM is also still having receivers visit, so good have they're not done (Mondaris)

Gobluegr

December 28th, 2011 at 7:32 PM ^

This is not official, it's still just rumors. And if he were to transfer it would be to Michigan. FWIW he's been tweeting with Shane Morris this evening.

dayooper63

December 28th, 2011 at 8:08 PM ^

What baggage?  Just because he made fake commitment videos?  I thought those were funny and on point with the whole recruiting culture (one which I somewhat follow, I might add).  He's a UM guy at heart and I hope he does come to UM.

BTW - The Scout tweet from last week was a two parter: An announcement and a decision undone.  I assume the announcement was the Big10/Pac12 collaboration.  The other?  I thought it ment a transfer coming in of someone we missed on.  Arnett would fit the bill.

Bodogblog

December 28th, 2011 at 10:27 PM ^

goes both ways. Denard is the easy example: he wouldn't be here under a pro style regime. Jake Fisher is someone we lost to Oregon last year, in part because he wanted to play in a spread.

I agree with that logic under the 3-3-5 though. While the spread has been around for a while and has wide acceptance, a lot of recruits (and their HS coaches) didn't know what the hell a 3-3-5 was. I think that hurt us (Zettel's coach apparently didn't like it. Ironic that Hoke ran this at SDSU, and probably would have kept it had Rocky Long come with him to M.

snarling wolverine

December 29th, 2011 at 12:44 AM ^

I'm not arguing for or against any particular scheme; I just think it's dangerous to be overly inflexible about any of them.  If your system is too rigid to adapt to players who aren't a perfect fit, you're going to miss out on a lot of talented guys. 

Regardless of why Denard first came to Michigan, a big reason he's still here (when lots of people assumed he'd transfer) is because Hoke isn't so married to a pro-style that he can't adapt.  If Fisher knew what kind of offense we'd run in 2011, he may have stayed.  And while a lot of wideouts weren't interested in us under the previous staff, Hoke can tell them, "When you get here, we'll get you the ball."  What we run now may or may not be what we run two years down the road.  We'll adapt.  I'm excited to see how we change to fit the personnel in the future. 

 

 

Gobluegr

December 28th, 2011 at 7:34 PM ^

I believe that there will be room for Michigan, as I talked about in today's "A few minor recuiting notes" Michigan was still showing interest in adding another reciever.

Space Coyote

December 28th, 2011 at 9:59 PM ^

Though Arnett is no slouch, I think the possibility of Diggs being great out weighs what has been seen out of Arnett thusfar.  Arnett looks like someone who could be good (on a Hemingway to Arrington level), but has probably taken himself out of the likelihood of being really really good, which Diggs still has as he hasn't played a down of college ball yet.

Space Coyote

December 29th, 2011 at 1:55 AM ^

But I said he has the potential to be that.  He may not be that good.  The Michigan coaches may think they already have someone to that degree in the mix with the WR recruits they are bringing in.  It may be an absolute stud or bust for them in this case, in which case Arnett doesn't appear to fit the mold, but Diggs might.

Again, not saying Arnett is bad or that he doesn't have the potential to be a very good player, just his upside is less, and the coaches at this point may be looking for something more.

BrownJuggernaut

December 29th, 2011 at 3:58 AM ^

Even if his upside isn't as high as Diggs, he's a player that, if what is rumored is true, wants to be back in the State of Michigan to be closer to his family. For me, there are only a few options here for him and Michigan is one of them. Meanwhile, it appears that Michigan isn't recruiting Diggs that hard and that he is probably going to end up somewhere else. I know what you're saying about upside, but you also have to weigh the guy's chances of coming to Michigan. 

denardogasm

December 28th, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^

Wasn't it between us and Tennessee for him though? We don't really know how Hoke would handle transfers at this stage of his tenure but it seems to me like he would prefer to get his own guys that really want to be at Michigan.

Does a transfer go into that year's recruiting class even though he has to sit out a year or do they just count against the total scholarship count without affecting the 25 a year limit?