Torrian Wilson Visiting Michigan

Submitted by TomVH on November 30th, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Torrian Wilson just sent me a text saying he is visiting Michigan in December.

He said it will be an official visit. He's still committed to Stanford, but open to every school.

Coach Hopson will be visiting him tomorrow.

He said he's probably waiting until signing day to make his final decision.

I think it's safe to say that our commit list could look completely different come February.

Comments

BiSB

November 30th, 2009 at 5:14 PM ^

Oh God, I hope we get him.

Unless we don't get him. In which case, we didn't want him and we are fine and everything is exactly as we planned...

wile_e8

November 30th, 2009 at 5:19 PM ^

Even with the limited number of scholarships left, the desperate need for defense, and the numbers in the last two classes, I still think taking only one o-lineman in a recruiting class is asking for depth problems in the future. Here's hoping for some snake oilz...

maizeblue28

November 30th, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^

Don't know if this is even possible, but could a recruit's parents pay they're way and have them become walk-ons? Maybe Jeremy Jackson to help the team out and free up a scholarship.

david from wyoming

November 30th, 2009 at 7:06 PM ^

No. Unless the Jackson family ASKS to do this without any influence, this is hugely unethical.

And even if the Jackson family wanted to do this, don't you think every school in the nation will use it to negatively recruit? As in "congrats on the offer from Michigan, but don't you know that your family will still have to pay for you to go to school there? Oh wait, you can't afford that...better come to my school"

Magnus

November 30th, 2009 at 7:18 PM ^

I've never thought about this before, but can't the kids of coaches attend U of M for free? I thought I heard something about that several years ago. Is it just for head coaches? Am I making the whole thing up?

Anyway, if I'm not making that whole thing up, maybe Jeremy Jackson can "walk on" to the team without actually taking up a scholarship offer.

(Although I've heard that Fred Jackson may move on to the NFL this year.)

caup

November 30th, 2009 at 7:31 PM ^

if Jackson MAYBE deciding to leave the program has anything to do with MAYBE just maybe RR cooling on Jackson's son? I could see a very, very strong cause and effect linkage there. Because, you know, why in the WORLD would Jackson want to leave just as his pride and joy begins his playing career at the place where he coaches? As a dad myself, that makes no sense to me.

This could be a similar situation as to why Justin Boren left: his little brother Zach wasn't offered by RR so the Borens decided to take their balls and go home.

Magnus

November 30th, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^

I think you're making connections where there aren't any.

I've heard that Fred Jackson has been considering a move to the pros for a while, and that he stuck around to help the transition from Carr to Rodriguez. Now that the transition has been made (albeit not entirely successfully), he might be exploring other horizons.

maizeblue28

November 30th, 2009 at 7:45 PM ^

You're probably right, but I did read late last week (sorry forget which site) that he was asked about that and he responded saying that he would return next year.

TTUwolverine

November 30th, 2009 at 8:05 PM ^

Ok, I know this happens all the time in recruiting and that these kids have yet to sign anything, but why the hell is the word "committed" even used before signing day? To me, when someone says they're committed, that means "I've made up my mind for good and that's what I'm sticking with." Don't get me wrong, I hope we land this guy, but as far as I'm concerned as long as you've left your options open to other schools, you're not committed.

[/minirant]

Brian

November 30th, 2009 at 8:13 PM ^

Michigan might have to make some hard decisions about guys who are committed but unqualified as signing day nears. GBW says there are two, Drake and Kinard.

Magnus

November 30th, 2009 at 8:28 PM ^

Interesting... Thanks for the info.

Drake wouldn't be a huge loss due to the logjam at his position, although I do think he's a good player. The loss of Kinard would be kind of disappointing, though, because he could potentially play MIKE if the whole Quick thing didn't work out.

I wonder if we'll see some more linebacker offers going out, or perhaps that's why we offered Quayshawn Nealy...

bouje

December 1st, 2009 at 11:50 AM ^

We took 5 LBs last year, 2 JRs, 2 SRs, 1 incoming. How many do you want?

We have 5/6 slots right now (6 if you include Roundtree) for 2 spots... How is that too many guys for those spots? If you want to say that we have too many WRs period (slots and outside guys) then yes I'd agree with you but I would say that we actually have too many RBs in this class/in general.

We need more DTs, Ss, CBs. We honestly don't need many more LBs.

Captain Obvious

November 30th, 2009 at 10:48 PM ^

to hand out some ultimatums to these guys. "Get qualified by X date or we are going to have to look elsewhere." Spots are at a premium and we can't afford to have a less than full roster or guys coming in late a la Turner and (worse) Witty.

Further, it wouldn't be the least bit shady or underhanded. We are keeping our commitment and only asking that the recruit do what is necessary to keep that scholarship. Assuming the date given is fair, we are merely protecting our interests and developing contingency plans. The recruit would have time to meet specified criteria and it would leave them with time to pursue a backup plan as well.

lazarre11

November 30th, 2009 at 9:55 PM ^

A jim harbuagh departure would be key for us in this battle.

But I am completley against 'slow-playing" a recruit also. Especially if the kid hasn't been fooling around with any other schools. I hope rich doesn't slow play anyone currently on the commit list. I don't care if its dj williamson for kyle prater. A commitment is a promise.

ahmed.owda (not verified)

November 30th, 2009 at 10:20 PM ^

get one of the smarter players, find some random academic scholarship, get him in for free, get him to walkon

ChalmersE

December 1st, 2009 at 7:40 AM ^

that sometimes the conversation goes like this: "Hi recruit, how are things going. You know we're still looking forward to your coming here, but you should know that the depth chart that we discussed has changed significantly. We've had a lot of other commits at your position and there's a pretty good chance that you won't see the field before your junior or even senior year. As I said, you're still welcome to come, but we don't want you to come thinking you're going to play in the next year or two."

At that point, most recruits getting that spiel will examine their options and go elsewhere.

Is having that conversation -- if the statements are true -- unethical or highly ethical? I work in the ethics field and I'm not sure what the answer is.

Magnus

December 1st, 2009 at 8:33 AM ^

Why would that conversation be unethical? It would be truthful, and it would give the recruit advance warning of what might happen in the next 3 or 4 years. It would only be unethical if any part of that statement were untrue, like if the kid didn't decommit, then the coaches would just refuse to accept his official commitment.

ChalmersE

December 1st, 2009 at 10:36 AM ^

Often in ethics, there's no "right" answer. One could, for example, argue that once the team offers a player or two or three at a position and gets acceptances, then it shouldn't offer any more players at that position. Of course, the problem is that the kids haven't signed their commitment papers so the team that stops offering could be left in the lurch. I lean to saying that the conversation about which I hypothesized is perfectly fine, but reasonable individuals could differ.

Hannibal.

December 1st, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^

I'm with the folks who don't have a problem with gently nudging a recruit with less talent towards a different program. I don't like it, but there's no accountability at all on the recruit's side. Commitments are either commitments, or they aren't. I'm not talking about actively yanking a guy's schollie, but I don't have a problem with signalling to him that he will be buried on the depth chart and he might want to look elsewhere. As someone mentioned earlier, it can be very hard for a coach to adjust to a decommit. Especially if it's really late. And I think that Michigan has been the victim of snake oil and decommits much more often than it has been the beneficiary. At some point, you have to realize that you can't bring a knife to a gun fight.

MGoBlue22

December 1st, 2009 at 11:02 AM ^

Thanks for the post Tom! I'd love to get Wilson in the fold. Let's put on a good show for him when he comes. Anybody know any strippers...er, I mean entertainment specialists?

Magnus

December 1st, 2009 at 11:20 AM ^

If by "14 deep on the Quick position" you mean 3 deep (Roh, Herron, Watson) with a couple commits who could play Quick or DE (Wilkins, Paskorz), then sure. And Kinard could play MIKE, too, so he's a linebacker either way.

Magnus

December 1st, 2009 at 12:00 PM ^

You, sir, are to be commended. It's an excellent idea to take an academic scholarship, take it away from a smart kid, and give it to a talented athlete. Gifted athletes are where all the free money should go, not to the kids who stayed off the street in order to do homework and read books!