Recruiting Character
In all of this discussion of Feagin, some people seemed to suggest that RR should have never brought him aboard. I understand their concern if RR knew of the drug dealing and other arrests.
My question is, what are people looking for in character of their recruits? At what point does a recruit's background outweigh the talent he brings to the field?
Do people believe that any hiccup in a kid's past should disqualify him from UM football? Or is there a certain amount of leeway that is allowed?
Certainly kids with questionable backgrounds have been recruited to UM in the past and RR has shown a willingness to bring certain people aboard at WVU (people talk about PacMan and Chris Henry, but they should really look up Pat Lazear). So this is nothing foreign to either UM and RR.
So where is the line? Or is this just simply a situation that must be looked at on a case by case basis?
August 10th, 2009 at 10:40 AM ^
I think just about everyone should be given a chance. Many young men make mistakes in high school. However, unwavering discipline upon arrival at Michigan is a necessity.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:44 AM ^
Recent violent crimes or heavy drug addiction are one thing, but it's been shown over and over throughout history that people can change given proper guidance and motivation.
Should Feagin have been signed in the first place? I don't know. I don't have the details of his situation before coming to Michigan, so I can't judge that situation. However, as soon as something happens AT Michigan, it becomes the responsibility of the coaching staff to take immediate and appropriate action. Sometimes that will be suspension, sometimes kids will get kicked off the team, but we can't tolerate this kind of misbehavior once these guys are on campus.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:40 AM ^
You want kids that can help you win but you also don't want to compromise your integrity. Do they have people who speak to the kids when they come in about what a great oppurtunity they are afforded now? I know the NFL has a rookie seminar and they have guest speakers such as Michael Irvin to warn them of the pitfalls. Maybe they could get some Michigan greats who have made mistakes off the field and have righted the ship to speak to the incoming classes. Just a thought.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:42 AM ^
Yeah, I mean, you can't hire a PI for all these kids, so unless they were well known in high school as a rapist and a gang member or something, then it's hard to justify NOT recruiting them.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
In my opinion, people who are violent criminals or involved in drug dealing/usage should not be recruited. If a kid stole some candy from a drugstore or got in trouble for taking a bat to a mailbox, that's another thing.
Everyone deserves a second chance - but that second chance doesn't have to come from the University of Michigan.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:05 AM ^
100% agree.
The big unanswered question that RR is going to be asked is whether or not his staff knew of Feagin's arrests. I think it's fair to assume they didn't know about his self-admitted drug activity, but since the arrests are presumably a matter of legal record, why is it they thought he was worth a chance if they knew? And if they didn't know about the arrests, why didn't they know?
And yes, I know that the confidentiality regs may prevent him from answering any of these.
The really maddening thing is that to the outside world it will appear to vindicate Wermers.
August 10th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
Are sealed. If the Feagin arrests happened while he was still a juvy and he was tried/convicted as a juvenile, it's quite likely RR would never have known until Feagin admitted it in interrogation in Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor Police wouldn't have known either.
That's not to say RR didn't know. He may have. We'll find out, I'm sure.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
If looking at the picture, the recruit sees 2 guys standing on the corner, hitting a few blunts. Well, he may be borderline.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
Thumbs up?
August 10th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
I've worked with at-risk teens in residential and school settings for well over a decade and basically some can learn how to make better choices and others can't. The only thing that I could consider to be universal tool in working with all of them (regardless of socio-economic back ground, race, gender, etc) is to provide clear, consistent structure and immediate real life/authentic consequences.
Sadly, it looks like Feagin might have made it to 20 years old before he faced a real life consequence of any magnitude. I wouldn't work with at risk teens if I didn't believe in second chances but at some point you have to draw the line and say "No more." Regardless of if RR made the decision to boot Feagin to cover his own butt or b/c enough was enough, hopefully it woke RR up a little bit too. I hope Feagin can use this as an opportunity to learn from his mistakes. However, given his poor, poor decision making skills up to this point I don't hold much hope.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
RR took a flier on a kid with a questionable background. Given the emphasis placed on winning these days and considering statistics, there will be good eggs and bad eggs if the sample size is large enough. The question I ask myself is, forgetting about all external influences (media, blogs, other's opinions, etc), does this news upset *me* or cause *me* to question RR as a developer of young men? My answer is no. All the other guys RR has recruited or maintained at Michigan thus far seem like good kids (though who outside of the program really knows for sure?). As long as this type of occurrence is the one kid every couple of years "aberration", then I have no issues with it.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:40 AM ^
The "gold standard" for programs recently has been Florida. Last year they had something like 24 arrests involving 18 players. Urban Meyer receives far less criticism about recruiting players with character than RR. People just love to criticize RR (and Michigan for that matter) when every program experiences these bad apples.
August 10th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
I think if a recruit has gotten in trouble in high school and is being recruited by us I think we should give him a chance if he seems willing to change. If he doesn't obviously we shouldn't take him, but if the kid seems like he has moved on and wants to do better we should take him.
August 10th, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^
I may be way off on this, but I vaguely remember RR recruiting this guy for a bit before Feagin, and ending his recruitment as a result of some character issue??? This relates to Feagin only in that - and I may be totally wrong - he settled on Feagin as a result of Daniels' failed recruitment. If in fact RR passed on Daniels due to character issues, I suppose it's difficult to argue that RR gave no deference to character with Feagin's recruitment.
August 10th, 2009 at 2:22 PM ^
because was looking to get paid, allegedly. It's easy to part ways with that attitude because it implicates NCAA violations, whereas Feagin was just criminal activity. SO there is a small difference between the two but definitely an interesting footnote on this whole thing.