February 8th, 2018 at 3:19 PM ^

This is 100% true. I'm always amazed by the people on this board who somehow think that "recruiting violations" means a free dinner at Red Robin and a birthday card from Sarah with $5 in it. These are probably the same people who were somewhat surprised by the basketball recruiting scandal last summer. 

The truth is kids are getting well into the six figures in compensation, one way or another, and the teams that play into that have an advantage in recruiting. M doesn't play that game to the extent that many other schools do, therefore we are laboring with a disadvantage in recruiting.



February 8th, 2018 at 6:36 PM ^

So let's just assume that all schools are paying in some form. Since they're all offering some sort of financial incentive, then we're back to which program is more appealing to recruits. I'd wager that championships and NFL production is high on their lists. So if (hypothetical) Michigan and Alabama each offer a top recruit a similar payment and the kid has no prior allegiance to either school, which one does he choose? There's more to it than "bagmen". That's like screaming"fake news" every time you hear a story you don't agree with.

Also, not every big time recruit pans out and makes it to the NFL. It must be a huge scale conspiracies to keep the people silent on their six figure recruiting payments after they flame out of football. Is Alex Jones involved in this?


February 8th, 2018 at 9:25 PM ^

This is an awful take

Not every school is offering the same incentives. You think ole miss randomly winning recruiting battles was because they were offering the same dodge chargers Alabama was? No, they stepped their shit up in that department

You think everyone was offering Reggie Bush’s family a nice condo on the beach for 3 years? No but usc was.

Your insinuating the recruiting playing field is even with illegal incentives. Every school throws different incentives and steps their shit up depending on the recruit.


February 9th, 2018 at 12:17 PM ^

You can duckduckgo it yourself, but sure.

Sam Webb said that Rashan was offered into the six figures by a school that everyone assumed to be Clemson. I believe Hackett alluded to it at one time as well.



I mean I've personally seen kids in basketball get total compensation - tuition, use of car, tickets, meals, etc. - that easily totalled over $25,000 just to switch high schools, and those weren't even D1 or major D1 kids. 

Colleges are, or were, hiring kids' parents left and right to get money into recruits' hands.


February 9th, 2018 at 1:01 PM ^

The denial is ridiculous in the absolute sense. Louisville utilized organized hooker events for years before it was exposed - but schools cannot keep less salacious benefits under wraps?

The denial might be explainable in the relative sense. If fans acknowledge that recruiting results are affected by dirty tactics, then everyone is assumed dirty to varying degrees.

It’s the blatant and persistent violations that get schools in trouble. It took years for SMU to get nailed. Ole Miss snuck by for a few years. It’s not in the NCAAs best interest to expose these issues, but they will when a top draft pick has blatant violations in texts tweeted to the world on draft night.


February 8th, 2018 at 10:29 PM ^

Did you throw in the consistently part to avoid implicating UM? The previous two years we recruited at a high level. Were we bending the rules or is it possible that ther are only handful of recruits that require something extra?


February 8th, 2018 at 6:51 PM ^

and elite education schools cannot compete. It is a fact now and going forward. MIchigan can make inroads but at the end of the day, the benefits for coming to Michigan is a superior education, a successful alumni organization and outstanding networking contacts. Football is secondary. With AL. Clemson, OSU, Georgia and others it all about football and only football.

When Saban recruits, he shows the recruits a check which represents what Al players in the NFL are making as a total of the group. This is the attraction. Not that MIchigan has a great business or engineering school.

You will not see a top 20 college in academics win a national championship. Accept it.Enjoy the good football but it will never be like the football factories.


February 8th, 2018 at 2:15 PM ^

Get the top Michigan players every year.

Get 2-3 players from Ohio that are 4* plus.

Get 2-3 players from NJ and or Penn 4* plus.

Get TWO 5* players from the South or West.

Fill the rest with 3* to 4* character guys.

1 5* OL and or DL every class.

That's how and you pay the coaches who can recruit more money and fire the ones who can't!

kevin holt

February 8th, 2018 at 3:53 PM ^

Or because they asked every recruit to pretend they had offers from everybody. They don't need to actually be honest though, and probably have a negative perception if they WEREN'T recruited by Bama. In other words the #700 recruit is going to have a lot better perception of MSU than Bama because Bama ignored them.

BG Wolverine

February 8th, 2018 at 2:20 PM ^

I was going to complain about the Brand Rankings, but then I remembered that these recruits only know about 10 years of history in college sports, and then they made more sense.

Arb lover

February 8th, 2018 at 4:35 PM ^

Some of those don't pass the smell test, even if it was administered to 224 high school kids (I would hope nationwide, but that's way too dificult I'm sure). I'm guessing bias from recruits who had not been offered by top tier schools. Wisconsin and Michigan state often send out mass recruits to 3 stars to see what sticks. Then you see here that Michigan State, Wisconsin and UCLA are significantly higher than Alabama??? Okay. There isn't a year in performance or recruiting in the past ten years that would put them above or even close to Alabama... who is also located below Michigan. 

A plain reading and I can tell they messed up the brand ranking and athletic department revenue relationship, it looks like so they could show a more clean line. For example, Stanford is listed down around 35 for brand ranking on the revenue relationship plot, when based on the simple brand ranking results, between Oklahoma and LSU, it should be WAY out in no-mans land up at the 10. Once I see one obvious alteration like that to paint a story, combined by an obviously skewed study to be sure, I don't know if I can actually have meaningful takeaways from this "study".


February 8th, 2018 at 3:44 PM ^

Lol what a dumb article. Net takeway is that program branding is highly correlated with winning recruits! 

"Stadium size, uniforms, program prestige, coach prestige, coach persona, location, media exposure, fan sentiment, playing style, and academics are only a handful of the endless factors that play a role in an athlete’s decision.  The net sum of all these influences becomes the program’s brand."

So you're telling me if you do everything well you're more likely to get better recruits? No shit.  


February 8th, 2018 at 2:24 PM ^

The whole premise of the article is flawed. If the brand is what creates recruiting success, then there's no way Michigan state is 11 and Michigan is 17, and even more ridiculous Alabama is 19. Wisconsin shouldn't be above them either. They state right in there that they didn't ask the top tier recruits, so it seems to me the recruits would naturally have favored the schools that have actually recruited them.


February 8th, 2018 at 2:26 PM ^

There needs to be a stronger push by non-athletic department persons to get money to the families of the players. I don't care if money is placed into trust accounts, a family member's house is paid off, cash in a bag, whatever. If the school is not involved with the shenanigans, then I don't see the problem. Kids choose schools based on what benefits them the most anyway.

We all strongly suspect that's what is happening at our peer schools and if we're already doing it too, we need to get better at it.


February 8th, 2018 at 2:25 PM ^

How is Bama so low, that's the big miss on this to me.  And MSU being that high means it was before Nassar they asked these kids.

I would expect our brand to be 15-20 based on the last decade or more of whatwe've seen.  We should be top 5 soon.