Michigan can take up to 7 more players in this class per Sam Webb

Submitted by Nosce Te Ipsum on December 14th, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I don't know how this is possible considering that would give us 29 players in this class which I thought was not allowed by the B1G. 28 was the reported limit but I trust Sam. The ideal finish to this class would be Green, Treadwell, Dawson, McQuay, Hill, Hunt, and Jaynard Bostwick. 



December 14th, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^

I know the topic will get some pissy reactions on the board, but gotta ask:

Would the attrition of 3-4 more schollies indicate the staff is actively squeezing out the non-performers? Marginal talents like Miller and Hopkins already exited. Schollies are a year-to-year award, although aggressive roster management is ethically questionable.

There are a dozen or so guys that have been bypassed by 2+ younger guys. Seem like a lot of candidates would find more playing time at MAC or Big East schools.


December 14th, 2012 at 1:44 PM ^

1. Hopkins was getting playing time. Why the staff would want to 'squeeze out' someone who was somewhat productive on the field is beyond me.

2. I don't know why, if kids were getting passed on the depth chart and looking to leave, your first reaction is to assume its the staff telling them to haul ass. That would seem to be in the kids' best interest, no? What about that would make you think it's the staff pulling the trigger and not the kids?


December 14th, 2012 at 2:25 PM ^

For 10 months the discussion has been 24-25 spots. Now Webb reports 7 or a new goal of 28-29. Maybe 1-2 boo boos will negate next season.

Our frosh performed very well at numerous spots and some seasoned guys were non-factors, which changes the depth chart and indicates older guys won't see playing time next year.

I guess the question of "squeezing" (ie, brutal honesty of no playing time and helping guys finding a better roster situation) is taboo around here.


December 14th, 2012 at 3:12 PM ^

There's a big difference between "Hey kid, you're not in our plan moving forward, so you won't have a scholarship next year" and "Hey kid, you're not in our plan moving forward, so if you'd like PT you might want to transfer but if you choose to stay you're welcome to finish out your degree." 

The former is taboo around here.  The latter (although I doubt it happens much) is fine, because the choice is up to the kid.  I just don't think it happens much, because I doubt the coaches would try to push away a healthy, eligible football player for a recruit.  Some kids don't do much of anything, and are then needed as juniors and seniors.  


December 14th, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^

FWIW, there were rumors that Rocko Khoury was sort of squeezed out the door last year.  I think this off-season will perhaps give us further evidence of what this coaching staff's approach is to guys who aren't contributing.  Right now it's too early to tell, though.


December 14th, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^

I'm sure it's the players and not the coaches making the decisions to head elsewhere.  Otherwise, guys like Mike Jones and Brandin Hawthorne and probably a handful of other kids would be gone already.  The coaches don't have to give a kid a 5th year, but they'll let a kid stay for four if he wants to.  Guys like Hopkins and Miller felt there was a better situation for them elsewhere, as many kids do at most schools every year.

Some kids (like Jones and Hawthorne) stick it out at Michigan because being there is more important than PT.  Others feel they can get the most out of their college experience by transferring somewhere they can play.  I don't blame them in either instance.


December 15th, 2012 at 10:17 AM ^

Michigan and several other schools just adopted the 4-year guarantee for NSD in Feb. I don't believe UM made it retroactive to prior classes. Freely correct if wrong.

Most schools still offer only 1-year schollies and some schools push out kids (my neighbor's kid here in Atlanta was told to declare his boo boo as career-ending or find a new SEC school).


December 15th, 2012 at 9:58 AM ^

Doesn't it kind of screw up future classes when you take 29 players in one year? Shouldn't they ease their way back to full strength instead of doing it with one class?


December 15th, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^

having these extra scholarships is the coaching staff can bank them if next year looks promising with players/needs or if they have some player/needs in this class they can use them up, good problem to have.


December 15th, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^

All of the offerees are very capable of contributing (ie, we're not signing marginal guys) and 2014 class has minimal traction (ie, 5 stars are not clamoring for a spot). Those unused schollies just go to walk-ons for a year to meet 85 requirement.

There will be attrition before 2014, not to mention guys denied a 5th year, so plenty of spots for elite kids in 2014 and 2013 kids can redshirt

Roster needs bolstering as soon as possible with the thin talent from 2010 and 2011.