Why doesn't M over-recruit?
This is in response to Meeechigan Dan's post from yesterday re: Alabama's over-recruiting...
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/impact-alabamas-oversigning
I read the OP last night, but I came back to read it again today because it was so well written and thought provoking (Great job, btw!). I am wondering why doesn't M do this? I know the OP said over-recruiting is cheating, but I beg to differ. The NCAA rules do not forbid over-recruiting, they actually encourage it with their own rules. If the NCAA has imposed limits of 28 recruits per year, and you want to win, why not give yourself the best opportunity to maximize your recruiting class each and every year? In other words, why would you only recruit 25 players to fill 25 roster spots, when you are allowed to recruit 28 players to fill 25 spots?
We all know that usually 6 - 7 recruits from each class (and sometimes more) don't "make it" (i.e. don't qualify academically, transfer, injury, etc), not to mention how many recruits just are not good enough to play on a consistent basis. Why shouldn't we over-recruit to allow for these "expected" circumstances? If we took the NCAA allowed maximum 28 recruits each year in each class, we would have 112 players over a 4 year period. This would allow us 27 extra players that could be used as replacements when guys get career ending injuries (Bass or Zirbel), decide to transfer (O'Neill or Mallett), when guys are just "busts" or for whatever reason necessary.
I've heard it said many times on this board (and I happen to agree) that when a marginally talented recruit (i.e. Wermers, Feagins) decides to leave the program, it's not that bad of a thing. After all, it does open up a scholarship slot. The same situation occurs when a player that has worked his butt off for 3 or 4 years and is not offered a 5th year with the program, mainly to open up a scholarship slot.
Why don't we just start doing this on a larger scale and let each and every player know that their scholarship is not necessarily "guaranteed" for all 4 or 5 years, especially if they are not meeting the expectations of the program. The influx of additional recruits would not only cause more competition at each and every position each and every year, but it would also ensure that we have only the best 85 players on the roster at all times. This would give us the best possible opportunity at success.
IME, the only downside to this would be the affect it would have on graduation rates and APR, and I know this is a BIG one. I am just not sure how the Alabama's and other big-time programs are doing this, but we cannot. (Brian or someone with a much better knowledge of APR would have to comment on the ramifications of this.)
well...whether it sounds hokey or naive...its because this isn't JUST about winning football games. We do have that whole academics, character building thing going on. Its cold, heartless, and doing NO GOOD for the kids who "don't live up to the standards of the program." Yea, 2 free years of college helps, but not everyone can afford the other two years after that...you're basically saying either: A) "sorry about that career ending injury...I know that's emotionally damaging enough but guess what, we're going to up the stakes by yanking your scholarship" or B) "hey thanks for being our mule and taking a beating for two years and we really like you as a person and wish you'd stick around and graduate from out prestigious university...but you suck at football and we didn't see that coming...so we're not paying for anymore."
NOT cool.
You got it exactly right. It's about more than wins and losses with student-athletes. It is a personal commitment between the school and student. It isn't perfect, as students have tons of leverage to transfer and otherwise leave, but it is what it is.
Over-signing, which causes some students to be thrown into the wilderness when the school no longer has use for them, is a slimy, dirty move. I don't think even winning is worth the reputation and prestige of the school and program. (see USC, Alabama, OSU, etc.)
As for A), there are medical scholarships that remove a player from the scholarship count but allow him to finish his degree. B), on the other hand, is typically shown only when a school needs to open up scholarships for an incoming class. See Saban, Nick and Bowden, Tommy for examples.
I believe the big ten limits all schools to 28 LOIs, somebody else will need to confirm that. Plus as what was posted above, each recruit is a student-athlete, the way certain schools seem to cut students from football teams sets a pretty poor picture to incoming recruits.
In my opinion, part of the responsibility of the coach should be identifying the right players to recruit. Over recruiting, to me, sounds like the coach doesn't want to take the time to coach up, and teach a kid, and also doesn't have confidence in his talent evaluation. I understand that predicting how well a player performs on the college level is hard, and near impossible, but it's also part of his job.
By over recruiting, then letting a couple kids go, you've essentially wasted a whole year of their time. That could've been time spent learning the system, getting experience on what the coaches want, experience and chemistry with their team, and settling in to start their collegiate career.
I just don't think it's fair to offer a kid a scholarship, and say, we think you're good enough....to compete for your scholarship offer, that we just gave you, for a year. After that, who knows. He's essentially a preferred walk on with a temporary scholarship.
Besides that, who knows what the coaches are actually telling the kids. I'm sure it doesn't come up too often, that they might not be on the team soon. It'd be a pretty hard selling point to tell a kid that you're going to oversign, and you hope he makes the team, when there are other teams willing to offer him a full, unconditional, scholarship.
Because Michigan's purpose isn't to just provide fans with a winning football team. It should conduct it's program in an ethical manner focused primarily on what is best for the individuals on the team. The football progam is, primarily, for the players. Treating them like interchangeable chips is something I hope we never stoop to.
Because "DickRod", isn't.
OK I guess I can see your point, if you are looking at college sports from the (ime) purely idealistic student-athlete kind of way.
But what if we only over-recruit to account for the attrition that we all know will happen sooner or later (kids transferring, injuries, kicked off team, etc)? I mean just to cover our buts so we have a full amount of legitimate scholarship players ready to play each year. There is no reason we should ever have to play walk-ons at key positions. It just doesnt seem fair that other schools get to do it, but we are not.
life is fair? Brian Griese was a walk-on.
Then you've put yourself in a position where you need to make room. As has been already discussed, that is not something that UM should be interested in.
we chose not to. Consider it that we are better then you mentality after all we are Michigan.
Excuse me, but are you retarded, or are these joke questions that I'm just not finding funny.
But what if we only over-recruit to account for the attrition that we all know will happen sooner or later
How DO you account for that?
Anyone that uses this as an excuse to oversign is leaving the door open to not giving 110% to each and every recruit you've got. It might be big business, and todays kids might be spoiled by the media and pull a lot of crap; but at the end of the day it's about giving your word, and that word meaning something.
IME, the only downside to this would be the affect it would have on graduation rates and APR
Well Gee, it's just your 192 yr old reputation you're sacrificing.
Nowadays that's easily fixed with a call to a first class PR firm; may I suggest Larry Eiler from AAG&O.
shudder
Not over recruiting helps to. It makes the program sound legit to young kids. If I were an 18 year old football recruit I think I'd find a school that doesn't over recruit comforting.
For some kids it might be comforting, but the majority come to college thinking they will be starters and that it would never happen to them. Most have been stars their whole lives until they hit the major college level.
You said, "We all know that usually 6 - 7 recruits from each class (and sometimes more) don't "make it" (i.e. don't qualify academically, transfer, injury, etc)...".
I think you're being overly influenced by this year's attrition and last year's attrition. I think that most years don't have such a large number of kids transfer, drop out, being academically ineligible, or anything else.
And I agree with what everyone else has said, we're supposed to NOT be an evil place to go. Remember, when a kid is "cut" from Saban's team he'll often go to a DII school since he'd have to sit out a year if he transferred to another DI school. The odds of getting drafted from a DII school are very low, even if you're very good. And that's the goal of 99% of these kids, get drafted. Saban is effectively further reducing the chances that a kid will get drafted because that kid didn't do well enough in his first couple weeks on campus.
Finally, just because teams might be allowed to oversign doesn't mean that they should. Technically I'm allowed to hate everyone and tell them that to their face in a horrible way (as long as I'm not inciting an immediate riot), but I try not to since it's just a bad thing to do [on a human level].
"Why don't we .......let each and every player know that their scholarship is not necessarily "guaranteed" for all 4 or 5 years....."
I am assuming that you have never been in business or sales. The LOI's are already worded so that they can't be legally interpreted as a guarantee of a four or five-year education, anyway, but why on earth would you want to alienate a recruit or his parents by using it as a "selling point?"
Any coach who did this would find himself with Indiana-type talent in a few years, and an assistant's position at a MAC school shortly thereafter.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:23 PM ^
...how does Nick Saban get away with it?
you make me sick
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^
She's hideous looking.
August 1st, 2009 at 11:58 PM ^
Thanks for the kind words about the Alabama post. The obvious has been said, that this is about more than winning games; these kids give a lot, often their health, and we make sure we give them a great education if they will take it.
That said, I understand your point. Surely, going two over the scholarship limit would never mean having to "cut" a kid. But IMO it is the slippery slope that worries most of us. Once you approach recruiting a kid with the idea that the scholarship is not, provided he follows certain sensible rules, his for the keeping, then there will come a day when a kid is struggling with grades or has a very minor rules infraction and some stud is leaning to be the third over or the fourth over the slots you have and suddenly...viola...you're Nick Saban.
Honor is its own reward.
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
I agree with the anti-OP views expressed here, and hate what Saban is doing. I think the most constructive replies will likely educate him about the issue, and as such it's a good thing. One of the things I always love about this board is that the majority are not the homer fan, looking for every advantage, justifying any error in the name of "our team,", that you find most places.
And one point of legitimacy to the post: while "6-7" is not a usual thing in terms of players leaving, 1-2 is. I could see a rationale for taking 1 extra player per year to account for transfers, flunk-outs or rules violators. But to Meeechigan Dan's point, the slippery slope is what the concern lies.
I've appreciated all the responses thus far (even the ones calling me the OP let's see stupid, retarded, and possessing no business or sales knowledge, etc.), and I can kind of see your points, howeva...
If I were a talented HS musician or artist, and I was recruited to the Music or Art school at UM (at any other program), and if at the end of my 2nd year, I was not performing up to the standards that were presented to me when I originally arrived, I would be kindly asked to leave. Let's say that I just could not get the steps down on the Marching Band or I just could not get my still-life painting thing down packed, my scholarship would be revoked and I would be asked to pay for school just like any other student. I wouldn't be kicked out of the university, but I wouldn't get a free ride. When you are given a free ride, there are certain stipulations that accompany that and if you are not living up to the expectations of the program, then you should not allowed to keep your free ride.
This is where I believe over-recruiting should be used for. Its not just about replacing the lower performing players on the roster at all times, but it should be used as an extra kick in the ass incentive to keep everyone motivated and on task at all times. If a player knew that their spot was not guaranteed for all 4 years, you would not have 1/2 the issues/problems that occur college athletics these days.
I know this is a sticky and touchy subject for some, but I think that's because the "hated monsters" in the SEC are doing this now. WHEN, and i emphasize when, over-recruiting becomes more popular around more conferences, it will become a common tool and hopefully, we will be able to use it to our full advantage.
A change is coming my friends, just wait for it...
A change is coming. It has already started in the form of the SEC limiting each signing class to a maximum of 28 players. This was in response to Ol'Miss signing 37 players in February. I expect further changes in the future. Changes that will be more restrictive. So yes, a change is coming. Just not in the direction you anticipate.
I believe the change will be that more schools will start to take "full" recruiting classes each year, regardless of how many open slots they have. I think it will start at the mid-major levels (if it is not happening already), then move to the BCS 6 schools. When OSU, PSU, MSU, and ND start doing it, it will definitely piss everyone around here off. But soon, this will be a tool commonly used just like not offering some 5th year seniors a scholarship for whatever reasons.
"You as a Michigan Man, are part of something that's BIGGER than you are. And if you don't understand that, then you don't understand what it is"
--Lloyd Carr
I find the juxtaposition between what you are advocating and the quote you chose for your signature line to be very interesting.
more important than winning to be accomplished here. Yes, I said MORE important than winning football games. First and foremost, these kids need to be given the opportunity to succeed in life. Whether that is with a shot at the NFL or with a job provided by the degree they earned, that's what it is about. Over-recruiting is unethical because you a f'ing with a kids life by taking away his chance simply because he isn't as good as someone else. But you know what? You gave him the scholarship. HONOR IT. When you cut a kid lose, his choice of other schools has likely become much more limited than it was previously. That's not to mention money. Some of these kids simply don't have the money to go to college. If there is a poor, urban kid playing at Michigan, it's likely that scholarship is the only reason he is in school. To take that away from him is to take away a life opportunity. That is not cool in my book. Therefore, the first thing is to look out for the kids BEFORE you figure out how to win with them. This is EXACTLY why Lloyd Carr is one of my all-time favorites (right behind Bo)
Speaking as a "poor, urban kid" from Detroit, I went to UM for 5 years using Financial Aid (grants and loans), just like the majority of other students on campus at the time. Don't have exact figures, but i'm positive that over 50% of the campus used Financial Aid to pay for college at this time (c/o '99). Scholarships are not the only way poor students can pay for school. Just ask a student on an academic scholarship what they do when their scholarship is revoked because they failed to live up to the requirements of the program. They pay for it out of pocket using Financial Aid or they transfer to a local community college. This is a tough lesson to learn, but their life is not over, by any means.
We are supposed to be the Leaders and the Best.
Also the Champions of the West, but we're East of the Mississippi. So there's that.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:19 AM ^
If a number of boosters stepped up and established an "oversigning scholarship," would the school be able to mention it to potential recruits? For example, say I'm a borderline recruit and don't cut it through 4 years of football. Would the boosters be allowed to offer a scholarship to me to keep me in school, but off the football team to make the scholarship available to a better player?
It seems like a more fair situation for the player, but I'm doubtful the NCAA would allow such a large loophole in their regulations.
(note: I still think that you should not be able to sign more LOIs than you have open scholarships.)