Diamond/Grant/Muller/Henry aside, who else is a realistic recruit target?

Submitted by team126 on January 30th, 2012 at 7:05 AM

I woke up and realized that we have 28 slots for 2012, with 23 verbal commits and 4 target left (Diamond/Grant/Muller/Henry). Assign each target  a possibility factor:

  • Diamond:   0.6
  • Grant:          0.6
  • Muller:         0.5
  • Henry:         0.75

That gives us 2.45 commits. From what I learned on "Super Sunday", I will take 2 out of the 4.

Are we going to bank 3 schollies, or we just rub more snake oil to commits of Purdues? Who else is a realistic target?

Comments

Brayden09

January 30th, 2012 at 7:13 AM ^

and bank the rest. If some of these others chose to commit well then fine. I just think we can use these scholarships next  year and get quality. Unless someone has a revelation ( garnett) and changes their mind we should be happy with the amazing class we already have.

ChicagoBigHouse

January 30th, 2012 at 7:23 AM ^

I would take any of those listed above and bank the 2-3 scholarships.  Our class will be smaller next year and any misses this year at the end will just lead to more slots next year.  Take an OL, TE, and Project DT, and bank the rest.  

umchicago

January 30th, 2012 at 8:35 AM ^

with the massive depth issues at OL, there is no way they bank 3 scholarships, especially when there is natural attrition every year.

if we don't get the four guys listed above, i think we lower our sights to some 3* prospects at OL and CB.

Philbert

January 30th, 2012 at 7:24 AM ^

well if you pay attention to tremendous twitter, the coaches were at good counsel earlier this week and they weren't there for O'daniel or fuller... speculation time??? Diggs again?? trying to keep the purdue pipe line open with ryan watson?? just making good with the coaches? the possibilities..

TrppWlbrnID

January 30th, 2012 at 7:36 AM ^

Since 3 of the 28 come from special B1G conference petitioned allowance over 25, I am not sure we can just bank them. I thought you had to get those through extenuating circumstances and apply for them again next year instead of banking them.
<br>
<br>Experts?

MGoViso

January 30th, 2012 at 7:46 AM ^

There are no extenuating circumstances associated with 25+3. A school may only have 85 at any time, 25 per class, and up to 3 early enrollees may count towards last year's class. If M signs 25 this year, next year would have a hard cap of 25, since no early enrollees  in winter 2013 could count towards this class.

Waveman

January 30th, 2012 at 10:02 AM ^

If Michigan signs 28 this year, 25 would be a hard cap next year.  Because 3 have already enrolled early this year, if UM signs 25, only 22 of them would count towards the 2012 signing period. Therefore we could sign 3 EEs next year.  That said, I believe the 85 number will be the limiting factor next year, not the 25.

joeyb

January 30th, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^

You are allowed 25 per class. The NCAA allows you to count recruits toward the previous year if there is room in the previous class and they recruit enrolls early. The Big Ten limits the number you can count toward the previous class to 3. So, we had 3 enroll early and count toward last year's recruiting class. With 23 recruits, that means 20 will count toward this year. Basically, we have room for 2 more before we start limiting the number of scholarships we can give out next year. If we end up with 26 in the class (23 against this year), then we will only be able to give out 27 scholarships next year. If we fill up, then we will be limited to 25.

True Blue Grit

January 30th, 2012 at 7:38 AM ^

banking scholarships would be fine.   However, getting a TE like Grant would almost be the biggest need for 2012 where we stand today.   In the future, I'd be happy if we have all of our needs filled well before signing day (probably a dream) and the coaches probably would like that too.  Trying to win these last-second battles against the snake-oil salesmen of college football is always going to be difficult.  History has shown that Michigan doesn't usually close strongly in late January/early February.  We HAVE gotten some good players then, but it's been the exception rather than the norm.  It doesn't bother me as long as we kick butt through most of the rest of the season like we did this year.  And going forward, I see us closing successfully on more highly rated players now that the coaches have had more time to build relationships with them.  Go Blue!

njv5352

January 30th, 2012 at 8:53 AM ^

This kid was high on the radar early in the summer before he played his senior year.  I have seen this kid play and would rather we bank the scholarship.  Over the summer he showed up to camps expecting to just be great without putting in the time or effort.  Decided to take plays off and never actually reached his potential. 

 

Off the field he is a mess too.  Should have been suspended during the season for off the field issues and has even more baggage that I am not going to get into.  I am not even sure that MSU would jump at him with what he brings to the table.  Kind of a wasted talent.

LIZARD4141

January 30th, 2012 at 8:03 AM ^

Just listen to me and you'll know.  I predicted yesterday that we wouldn't get Kozan, Grant, Reeves, or Diamond.  I also predicted Garnett to Stanford.  I think Michigan will sign four more kids.  Henry being one of them and probably that Gibbs kid that only has MAC offers.  I have no clue who the other two will be.  Basically I'm A better source than Sam Webb.  ;)

Lionsfan

January 30th, 2012 at 8:59 AM ^

YOU picked Garnett to Stanford?!? Wow that's impressive, out of 120 D1 schools you narrowed it down to Stanford, that takes talent. I mean it's not like Garnett gave out 2 schools and you were just being a contrarian douche who just happened to be right. No, what you did takes serious talent

Lampuki22

January 30th, 2012 at 9:33 AM ^

I thought that Reeves and Garnett were basically less than 50%.  Madaris, who cares.  Therefore thhis is no shocker. 

Stars don't mreasure heart and you don't want a kid who's heart is somehere else. 

You want a prediction:  Russell Bellomy is your starting QB in 2013 as long as he doesn't transfer (of course). 

lunchboxthegoat

January 30th, 2012 at 8:26 AM ^

This place is more insufferable than after a loss in the RR era. Do we need to go into damage control board rules? 

We have a "OMGZ R RECRUITIN SUX. WEZ R DUMED." post more frequently than we had "CC" threads last January. 

Magnus

January 30th, 2012 at 9:07 AM ^

There are so many phrases that get overused around here - buckle up, Ohio, manball, etc.  It gets kind of annoying that people around here latch onto catchphrases and repeat them ad nauseam.  I guess people think they're being clever when they refer to The Ohio State University as "Ohio" instead of the more accurate terms like "Ohio State" or "OSU."

Rescue_Dawn

January 30th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^

.....I could see the "buckle up" thing turning into a rallying cry if we would of actually landed Brionte Dunn (when it was first introduced by Tom VH)...howeva since we did not land him (or any recruit since) I cant see why this has turned into somthing so popular when it has produced 0 results.

tl;dr: I blame "buckle up" for everything.