Conley schedules visit to Ohio State

Submitted by ChopBlock on October 30th, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Per 24/7 (LINK), Conley and his mother have spoken to Meyer and decided to take an official to Ohio ($, info in header). Credit jscbus for breaking the info on MGoBoard.

Let's keep it classy here and try to refrain from speculation until more details come out. Nothing but best to Conley as he makes some big life decisions.

EDIT: Reports coming that he's planning on talking to Hoke about it sometime soon; too soon to say that anything is set in stone yet.


Lucky Socks

October 31st, 2012 at 10:23 AM ^

When these kids commit, I'm POSITIVE that the staff says something along the lines of "well, great but we need you to understand that a commitment to Michigan is a firm commitment.  If you intend on taking visits, or have any doubt it would be best if you took your time."

Bottom line is that both sides know the deal.  Nobody forced them to commit in the first place, and 90% of our commits these last two years have had no trouble sticking to their word.  This isn't a post trying to belittle the guys who change their mind, but the "pressure to commit early" is a fallacy.  It's the biggest decision of their lives and many have no trouble taking their time.  


October 31st, 2012 at 11:38 AM ^

This may be why the Michigan "leans" like Treadwell won't committ.  Once they committ, they are locked in.  They can't even go be wined and dined.

When I graduated from the B-School, I'll admit I took interview trips to companies that i did not intend to work for . . . just to get a frre trip and be wined and dined and see parts of the country I had not seen before.  It's a lot of fun.

I would LOVE to go on a recruiting trip to Oregon if I was a high school kid, even if I had no interest in going there.

I wonder how Texas, the king of early recruiting, handles these situations?

Sextus Empiricus

November 1st, 2012 at 8:36 AM ^

and they are going to take the first quality commits. There is pressure both ways. This staff knows football...this sort of thing is going to happen when the staff sees talent others haven't yet. I don't see any evidence the staff is advising the Conleys and Striblings how good they are prior to taking their commit but I do agree the no visit policy is explicit.


October 31st, 2012 at 3:03 PM ^

According to what Sam Webb has said numerous times, your scenario is actually the same as Hoke's: i.e., if a commit takes other visits, then they don't consider him a commit any longer. It doesn't necessarily mean that UM will stop recruiting him, or would refuse to offer him again, but it does mean that the guaranteed spot is no longer there.

From reading/listening between the lines, what will determine whether or not a particular decommit has any chance of getting an offer from UM again is how they go about the process of decommitting. As we've all read by now, there are assertions that a recent decommit was secretly contacting another school while still officially committed to Michigan, and that lack of honesty ruined the relationship. If Conley does things above board and deals with UM's staff directly, all is not lost.

I'll be surprised if he doesn't end up at OSU myself. I think there's going to be more and more of this stuff at all schools because of the early committing process these days.


October 31st, 2012 at 2:59 AM ^

Change your policy Brady. Recruiting has changed, its about showing you are not afraid to go up against anybody. Why have unnecessary negative decommitments when you don't have to. I understand that it's also about making sure you reach specific numbers for certain positions and it's all about the team and not individual players, but for those 5 star studs you have got to make an exception because if you don't you'll see them on the opposite sideline on the last saturday in november.

San Diego Mick

October 31st, 2012 at 4:21 AM ^

You gotta show some back bone and not relent on a policy. Now I agree it can suck in some rare cases, bit mostly it shows integrity and a will that lets a coach look like they're not just going to allow a commit to be wishy-washy.


I love Conley's game and hopes he ends up in Ann Arbor, but he committed and we stopped recruiting other guys because of that, don't commit till you're ready and be loyal to a major program that pursued you early and often and believed in you and not some johnny come lately like Urban has shown to be with many committed recruits.



October 31st, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^

This is what im talking about these kids dont understand that. Urban didnt want him and now that he is killing people on the field now he jumps in. It sucks but what can you do. Ido hope the kid is  still hope we go after him if he does take these trips, but if not good luck young man. BTW im form ohio LOVE MICHIGAN GO im in San Diego!!!!


October 31st, 2012 at 4:23 AM ^

Do we want to establish ourselves as a school that keeps its commitments to our student athletes once made or not?  Because, if we take the path you are recommending, then we will eventually be in a position where we will have to toss a kid who has committed for a kid who waited until the last minute or whatever.

Not saying you are right or wrong, but let's be sure we understand who we are and what we have to offer and how we are going to conduct business.  That appears to me to be the essence of what I would expect as the Michigan way.....


October 31st, 2012 at 9:25 AM ^

At this point you can't change the policy without making yourself look really bad. We've now had 2 recruits go through the whole "I really want to take visits" phase, one stayed and one left. If the policy is changed then it's gonna cause a lot more trouble down the line


October 31st, 2012 at 11:57 PM ^

Ironically, it is not the "5 star studs" that Hoke is having a problem with. It is the kids that they get in on early that think this might be their only big time offer. These kids committ and then find out they have more offers and more opportunities. I like the policy, getting rid of it is very short sighted.

Pulled P

October 31st, 2012 at 7:31 AM ^

I'm having a hard time understanding why some think the No-Visits Policy(NVP) is bad. What is the downside?

  • Would a kid be pressured into committing, and back out later because he wasn't sure at that moment? Yes it happens but it isn't because of the NVP. That kid, 99 times out of 100, wouldn't end up at Michigan anyway. The kid is decommitting because he isn't convinced Michigan is the place for him. Allowing visits to other schools is going to help convince him that it is, how??

On the other hand, I can see two benefits of the NVP.

  • To a degree, it should protect our commits from negative recruiting. Other schools will still do it over phones and stuff, but an NVP will limit the exposure.
  • And most of all, I think it really helps our overall recruiting, time and effort-wise. With limited time and effort to spend on a huge number of targets, the coaches won't have to always be on their toes with an NVP in place. They'll be able to concentrate on a small number of highly rated kids instead of worrying about soft commits decommitting, and ALSO perpetually scouting potential replacements.

Mmmm Hmmm

October 31st, 2012 at 8:37 AM ^

In addition, once the no-visit policy is in place and is applied to excellent talent (Pharoah Brown, David Dawson), it also sets a precedent that when Coach Hoke says something, he means it.  If you want to foster an environment where stars work hard, less touted recruits buy in, and the whole roster competes, it is important that players believe their coaches when they talk.  Obviously it sucks to not have PB and DD (and possibly Gaeron Conley), who all are highly touted and seem like perfectly decent kids, but the kids who are around know that when Hoke says "do X," it does not mean "do X (unless you are really talented)" or "do X (unless you can talk your way out of it)".

Also, due to the fact that by all accounts Hoke is a man of integrity AND he wins, I am that much prouder to be a fan.

Shakey Jake

October 31st, 2012 at 5:45 AM ^

The program isn't dependent on one player, let alone twowho haven't played a down in college. While Michigan had the vision to see that he is a special player before anyone else did doesn't matter. The kid wants to explore so let him. The consequences were explained to him. Now that he has more attention it's only obvious and understandable that he would want to look at other options. He needs to make a decision that is in his best interest. And if he does move on with the other visits, I would hope and expect Michigan will move to cultivate a stronger relationship with others who might fill his place. All is fair in love, war and recruiting.

Captain Obvious signing out.


October 31st, 2012 at 6:12 AM ^

we would have many more decommits without the policy than we do with the policy. IMO, the policy prevents most kids from visiting other schools. you'll always have exceptions. hopefully, he sees through urban's sleaze.

Buck Killer

October 31st, 2012 at 7:03 AM ^

You can't lock in an 17 year old kid in for a year. He has pussy on twitter begging him to visit. A free trip to go nail a hot college girl. Did you change your mind at 17? What if it was your entire future? More kids will follow after Dawson and Conley, and then we don't give them a shot to come back. Dawson can't wait to kick our asses. Great policy! If we didn't lock the kids in more would commit earlier.


October 31st, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^

Your comment makes no sense. Do you really think kids would not take these other visits if we didn't have the policy? If a kid wants to explore other options, he is going to do so regardless of the policy. The policy just gives Hoke an out if a committed kid wants to shop around -- otherwise the kid takes his visits while he is technically still "committed" and Hoke and Michigan look like the assholes if they also want to look elsewhere and later rescind the offer and give the spot to someone else.

The policy does not say once a kid takes other visits he can't come back to Michigan if the spot is still available. If Hoke and co. think Conley is likely to come back, then I imagine they would leave the spot available. I think the policy is a brilliant move -- it allows us to always take the moral high ground, yet still have flexibility if a committed kid wavers.


October 31st, 2012 at 7:02 AM ^


Its not Hokes policy. The policy forces recruits to answer a simple question: "Do you really want to come to Michigan?"

The answer, in Conleys case, is clear: No.

That's not intended to be an assault on his character.

Conley was an overlooked prospect when we offered, and our offer dwarfed any he had. I'm sure accepting it seemed like a no-brainer. Well, now he has a flood of comparable offers, ones he may have never expected to get. Perhaps Michigan was never his first choice - perhaps it was the best of the choices he expected to get. For a kid from the Columbus area, that seems entirely possible.


October 31st, 2012 at 7:53 AM ^

That's the nature of recruiting. There will always be constants and unexpecteds, and if you're ok with a few of these situations, I really do think that Hoke's policy works well. Look at his decommitment numbers compared to other coaches. You'll just have a few of these situations every year.

Side note, I wouldn't call Canton "the Columbus area", unless you just mean that OSU is the closest football giant to him. It's considered the Akron area, and is closer to both Akron and Cleveland.


October 31st, 2012 at 8:38 AM ^

Having once been 17, I remember that decision making wasn't always my strongest trait.

However, once the policy is explained, and you agree to its terms, I just can't shrug my shoulders and say it is completely forgiveable to say it's OK just to change your mind. The process is dynamic and impacts people other than yourself.  It also reflects your personal values.  

Regardless, I wish the kid well.


October 31st, 2012 at 8:55 AM ^

Conley started looking around the second he received more offers which means that his committment to Michigan was not firm.  Hoke's policy is designed to weed out those who are not firm in their committment.  The policy is not to blame here, and neither is Gareon for wanting to look around before making such an important decision.  Some things are just not meant to be, and this is looking like one of those things.


October 31st, 2012 at 8:56 AM ^

Breaking off all ties with the player (see e.g., brown and Dawson). Why not let them recommit later if there is still a spot ala will Campbell?


October 31st, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^

Its pretty simple - because the staff does not want to take a kid that first committed and then decided, "hey, maybe there are better offers so I'll just use Michigan as my fall-back option and see if I can do better."  No one wants to be an afterthought and Hoke cannot play his recruiting class by sitting around and waiting for kids to make up their minds. 

All the people saying that the policy is flawed are interesting to me - I won't rehash it, but applying the policy to some recruits and not blue-chip recruits is like everyone having to abide by a certain law (no speeding) but celebrities not having to worry about it.  Its a silly way to operate.

Bill the Butcher

October 31st, 2012 at 11:40 AM ^

Im not sure it does lead to breaking off all ties.  The two situations you described both involved shadiness on the part of the recruit.  We have yet to see a situation in which a recruit is up front with the staff about decommitting and taking visits.  So there is no way to know if the door is open for a return if there is open communication.


October 31st, 2012 at 11:54 AM ^

The Policy has been stated as if you take visits you no longer have a gauranteed spot. That is different than saying you no longer have an offer which has never been the stated policy but seems to be the way it's being implied. The former seems more reasonable to me


October 31st, 2012 at 2:47 PM ^

You really do have to think of it like a marriage. If you asked a woman to marry you and she says "yes", what does it mean if months before the wedding she suddenly wants to talk to other men "just to be sure"?

It means she doesn't want to marry you. Even if she came begging to come back the day before the wedding, it is only because she didn't find someone better than you in the time allocated, lol.

Would you want a wife like that? You think that wife is going to be 100% committed to you? In recruiting, a school like Michigan has to find the best 25 players they can every year. You prefer that player is 100% sure when they sign that paper. It's morbid but it's just like a wife, only 25 of them. Haha. Sadly, we've found out that 2 really good players want to look around this year. It sucks but in life, doubt or "cold feet" is usually your way of knowing you're not in it 100%. As a coach, I'd rather not have kids I hope come around eventually after they get here. They tend to hurt a program and/or transfer. Some exceptions (you can recite Perry's story all day) but generally the rule.

Sextus Empiricus

November 1st, 2012 at 9:11 AM ^

for most kids and parents this is business. To take your analogy though... if there are no premarital relations...I have no issues with my wife shopping around. The vows are sacred... the courtship is not. Engagements sometimes break. Every recruit is different. A policy is only as good as the relative return you get with respect to other policy in the long run. Ideally the best policy might be to allow a player to take visits if his stock improves by ...IDK...2 stars on the average...this too could be explicit and would allow both sides the honor and flexibility needed in today's twitter screwy recruiting battles. I don't think this staff takes recruiting services that seriously...nor are they looking at this with that kind of savvy. It is what it is...these dogs weren't hired to do what they haven't done before. You dance with the guy who brought you....but ultimately you aren't married to him either.


November 1st, 2012 at 1:36 PM ^

And I get what you're saying, 100%. Also, my analogy was really a very loose one to make the point that when someone says they are going to do something and then the closer it comes to doing tht something they start debating doing it or whatever (I think you get my point), it is often an internal sign that they don't really want to do it. That is all. I think the kid genuinely jumped at an offer from a major program that showed him love VERY early in the process. Now that he has become a genuine national recruit, he is having doubts and wants to weigh his options if not downright go somewhere else. Either case, best to him but I like the stance our staff takes with commits. Dont do it unless you are 100% done. My only question/debate is whether the staff should shut the door on a kid forever for wanting to take visits if he lets the staff know before even setting them up, as many seem to suggest allowing. I agree if it is done behind their back but even I am not sure of the staff's stance on kids who inform them. Is it just no guaranteed spot or goodbye forever? As, if they want to visit I stand by my marriage analogy in that the vast majority of the time it screams "Im gone". But, sometimes it is truly just to look and be wined and dined with all possibility of coming back. Sometimes it's a family think (like GC and Oregon/his Mother). It's tough but I do equate recruiting to courting a woman. Very similar aside from numbers, lol.


October 31st, 2012 at 9:15 AM ^

I am totally in favor of the no visit policy. When players commit to the program the program commits to them and stops recruiting other players at that position. If you decide you no longer want to honor that commitment it puts the program in a bad position.

This situation is a little different. I may be wrong but it really sounds like this is mostly this kids mother hounding him to look at different places. If that's true it really puts him in a bad spot. On one hand you're use to your mother having your best at heart but on the other she may be costing him his best option and the one he really wants.

Regardless I really hope the two of them sit down and talk to the coaching staff before they make any decisions they can't take back.


October 31st, 2012 at 9:19 AM ^

i keep seeing post that reference the no visit policy pressures kids to commit early. that logic is faulty. if anything it should keep u from committing. players need to trust their talent. im almost certain that the coaches could have had another wr but are waiting on treadwell. if treadwell goes else where they still get that receiver if they want them. but if treadwell commits and then starts looking around we can loose that receiver because we stopped recruiting him. it better to recruit two uncommitted prospects.


October 31st, 2012 at 9:54 AM ^

that is also why Treadwell is taking his time...  whether or not he likes all the attention is a different question, but you can never blame a kid for taking his time and thinking things over.  I am very much in favor of Hoke's policy as long as it is made crystal clear to the recruits when they are committing to avoid misunderstandings later. 

Two Hearted Ale

October 31st, 2012 at 2:03 PM ^

Treadwell's choice is to commit to Michigan now and take one official visit to a school he has been to half a dozen times or commit to Michigan later (because they are holding a spot for him) and take five official visits all over the country. of course, I'm assuming he will commit to Michigan but his choice makes a lot of sense to me. If Michigan would have given me a scholarship offer I would have taken it immediately...but I grew up a fan and didn't even play high school football so my situation is slightly different than a five star recruit.


October 31st, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^

People on this blog site want you to believe being 17 is an age where your undecided, slow, dumb childish or whatever the case may be. In my opinion 17-18 is an age where we all began to make life affecting decisions and a lot of kids that age are parents theirselves don't think for one second these kids don't understand the choices they make. O$U is known for paying kids to play ball for them so how do we know what the "real" reason is for this visit? I don't trust those snakes at Ohio as far as I can throw em.


October 31st, 2012 at 10:35 AM ^

Because he has to know that OSU already has verbals from Woodard & Burrows.  But, OSU is still in the mix for a number of good WR recruits.  I don't see him thinking his path to playing is better at OSU than UM.  This decision doesn't make much sense to me.


October 31st, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^

...or someone else who wants to actually look at the data.  The assertion has been made here by defenders of the zero tolerance no visit policy that it actually leads to fewer decommitments.  Wouldn't be interesting to look at the actual numbers?  Comparing schools with zero tolerance policies, and those without... comparing number of decommitments, number of eventual transfers, and examining specifically what happens to those "commits" who do take other visits after commiting.

I suspect the numbers will be pretty similar... if one policy were clearly better than another, than every major program would adopt it. 

Probably a nearly impossible analysis retrospectively, but maybe someone is willing to track this kind of data prospectively so we actually have some factual information to weigh in future years.  This is going to come up every year.