Standifer back on the market

Submitted by 7NK7 on December 8th, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Saw it on twitter via Alan Trieu. Anyone know what's up with him being called a "former" commit??


Doctor Wolverine

December 8th, 2011 at 11:23 PM ^

Based on everything the coaches have said and (more importantly) done, I think it is very unlikely that they would drop a kid who is committed just because someone else rated higher is coming to visit. This is a mutual parting of ways. Armani and Yuri are visiting because the spot is now available, and not the other way around.


December 9th, 2011 at 8:35 AM ^

I am going to trust the coaching staff.  I think it can be reasonably stated that the coaches know more about the recruits and how they will fit into the program better than any of us do.  They also know more about whether or not the recruits are doing the things that will translate into success at Michigan, both on and off the field, than we do.  

This is going to be a very good recruiting class.  As for the reasons on individual recruits, I don't care if I ever know or not.  If they make the cut, they make it.  If they don't, they don't.  I care about the ones who do.  


December 8th, 2011 at 11:26 PM ^

If the kid wants to come he come. Same with any of our recruits. If they want to go on a visit then they can. Just don't expect there to be an offer sitting when you get back. When you commit to some where. YOUR COMMITTED! if your visiting, all your doing is saving your spot. In hokes system, you either have a spot or you don't. You know your place. Stop this two way street crap. Reeves isn't committed to psu if he's shopping around.


December 9th, 2011 at 12:35 AM ^

The two way street comment wasn't directed towards Reeves visiting us. If Hoke expects our players to be committed to playing at the UofM, then he should be committed to them also and not tell a kid there actually won't be room in the class now that options 1 and 2 are back in the picture. I am not saying that Hoke is doing this; from what I know of Hoke, he would not seem to be a guy who won't be as committed to the kid as the kid is committed to him and UofM. I am just saying it seems odd that Standifer will no longer be joining the class so late in the game, considering I have never heard anything about his grades and it happens to coincide with the moment when two of our higher rated prospects want to come visit. I think I might be delving too deeply into this because coaches obviously do not put stock into the star rankings like we fans do; sometimes we see a prospect and his scouting reports and wonder why our coaches think so highly of him, when they clearly see something they like and have significantly more experience than we do. Just saying it seems odd.

Sometimes grades seem to be a de facto reason for any red flags. Obviously we won't know much about the inner works of recruiting and when there are as many variables in something like there is in recruiting, it is easy to see how grades can come up as a reason to stop pursuing a kid. We all know the risks entailed from pursuing kids that might not qualify (our abysmal secondary the last few years, etc.). "Grades" were the reasons we stopped pursuing Pittman and Burbridge and it seems they are going to be fine. It seems odd we don't pursue kids with grade issues that other schools are pursuing heavily, since I believe we accept at the minimum NCAA standards (normally, if there are suspicious circumstances to kids radical improvements in grades and ACT/SAT scores). I don't think Hoke would give Standifer the hook, since he has been playing well apparently, but the fact that spots are tight and higher ranked prospects are visting raises suspicions. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to things like this if they occur at UofM. We can't just criticize the SEC and TSIO and not hold ourselves to higher standards.


December 9th, 2011 at 1:24 AM ^

Yes, the irony of it all. We are left wondering about such things when we can't legally ask and even if coaches/reporters/insiders wanted to provide us info about recruiting, they can't because it is illegal. Not saying that I want coaches to reveal us the grades of our recruits. My comment "I haven't heard" wasn't indicating that I would have such knowledge but that I would suspect if this was coming we would have heard a bit more about it through the rumor mill. Not necessarily true, since maybe no one wanted to leak anything until it was more certain that he wouldn't  be able to qualify. It is just suspicious. That is all.


December 9th, 2011 at 8:58 AM ^

Let's try out your possible theory, that it is not grades.  You think any coaching staff is not smart enough to dump a kid, whose hs teammate is a major recruit for next year, to possibly get some other guys. 

Coach and staff have shown that they can't take border line guys no matter what, if they did, Burbridge would be in this class.  I am sure they see the APR and know they have to get some solid classes before they can take chances with kids with possible grade issues. 


turd ferguson

December 9th, 2011 at 1:49 AM ^

I think it's very likely that you have the direction reversed.  Rather than parting ways with Standifer because Wright and Reeves are visiting, I suspect that Wright and Reeves are visiting because the coaches knew/suspected that we would be parting ways with Standifer.  (Plus, we might have taken one of those guys regardless of the numbers.)

As fans, we know very little about the timing of this stuff.  When Michigan turned away Tommy Schutt, people freaked out about it, but we didn't know that a Pipkins commitment was imminent.  The coaches know a lot more about these kids' situations than we do (thank God), and when we find out about something, it's often long after the coaches knew it.

turd ferguson

December 9th, 2011 at 2:01 AM ^

Two more things about Standifer that make me think this is hardly suspicious, if at all:

(1) If Michigan actually pulled something funny here (i.e. if his grades are fine), Standifer and his HS coaches would have every reason to have a public fit about it to protect Standifer's name and college options.  Maybe that's coming, but I seriously doubt it.

(2) I hadn't heard anything about Standifer's grades before, but he has had moments that caused people to raise eyebrows (more than for our other commits).  For example, he said some pretty terrible and unnecessary things about his teammates at Nike's "The Opening" camp over the summer.  Does this mean that his grades are bad?  Absolutely not.  At the same time, I can't say I was surprised to hear that he was the one having problems in school (whereas I would have been shocked if it had been Ross, Bolden, Kalis, Wilson, or almost any other commit in the class).


December 9th, 2011 at 7:45 AM ^

Ya, I tend to speculate too much or read into things too much. More evidence that nothing is amiss on Michigan's part is that hasn't affected Treadwell, and if Michigan had done something suspect, Treadwell's coach would not be pleased. Also, someone mentioned above that the coaches seemed to be planning on saving a spot for Wright anyways, regardless of the corners we have committed. I don't actually believe Hoke is doing anything questionable, as I have not seen anything from him but character and class, but just don't want to blindly turn an eye to morally apprehensible behavior by our coaches if it were occuring. Then we would be the SEC or TSIO.

Also, I don't think I got this across well, but the whole "grades" theme always seems to be a way for state that there is some red flag that might lead to trouble.


December 9th, 2011 at 7:53 AM ^

With all due respect, I am not sure how you are coming to your conclusions.  AFAIK, Hoke has not released a commit to get someone better. If your theory were true, he would have already done this a while back when Standifer first committed (Reeves was rated higher).

Unless the recruit specifically says "They dumped me and I have no reason why" then I'd assume it was a mutual parting of ways. Hoke seems to have been fairly consistent in the "if you commit you have a spot".  The committment, though, does not mean Hoke won't recruit other players at your same position (a la Drew Henson).

My guess is Standifer didn't like the competition developing at "his" spot and wanted to explore his options. Per Hoke's rules, that means you are no longer committed. My guess is if Standifer looks around and likes U of M better, and there is still a spot left, that he will be welcomed back.


December 9th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^

Indignant ALL CAPS should also include proper grammar:  *YOU'RE

...You can't have one without the other.  :-)

If the kid wants to come he come. Same with any of our recruits. If they want to go on a visit then they can. Just don't expect there to be an offer sitting when you get back. When you commit to some where. YOUR COMMITTED! if your visiting, all your doing is saving your spot. In hokes system, you either have a spot or you don't. You know your place. Stop this two way street crap. Reeves isn't committed to psu if he's shopping around

Frank Drebin

December 9th, 2011 at 7:55 AM ^

Most reports I hear about Wright say that you can't deny his talent, but that he needs to be coached up. This includes first hand reports of people who say that he is just a better athlete than everyone else on the field and makes plays based on talent instead of fundamentals. He almost sounds like a Dorsey, where his talent can't be ignored, and his high rating is based on his ceiling instead of college readiness.


December 8th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^

Could mean he knows something about other DB's coming and is exploring his options.

He may be concerned about future playing time.

Just a guess.