UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[WM Wolverine]

Certainly, Hack. Hoke can make the phone call personally, committed players sometimes are 'recruited' just like an uncommitted recruited.

[SeattleLionsFan]

David Dawson has now added State to his top "5." Any idea why he is acting like such a jilted girlfriend??

[Hannibal]

I wonder what happened there. If it were just as simple as "David, if you take visits, we are going to invite some other guys in, because we take that as meaning you aren't 100% committed to us", then I don't see why it would cause such a drastic rift.

[iam416]

I think he's been all Croc for awhile now. I can't imagine them not taking him, so I'm almost certain he ends up there. Michigan State -- Ohio State -- whoever else he lists --they're just window-dressing.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Hanni- I guess the story is that the Dawson sitch was different than Pharoah Brown. Brown didn't have his offer pulled, but Dawson did.

There is plenty of interesting story there, but I don't think we will ever hear it.

[Hannibal]

Even with Brown, it sounded like the parting was immediate and permanent. There is merit to Hoke's strategy, but I wish that he could execute it in a manner where a guy isn't permanently gone if he has serious second thoughts. Imagine if OSU took that approach with Brionte Dunn.

[Rocky Bleier]

Recruiting article on Cass Tech and Farmington Harrison:

http://www.freep.com/article/2012101...State-Michigan-

[iam416]

Hoke gets a ton of early commitments, or at least that's been the case in a relatively small 2-yr sample size. So, I'm not sure why he wouldn't let commits visit. He may open up the scholarship, but I don't get dropping them entirely, if that's what he is doing. They're HS kids. It seems pretty natural to me that at least some of them may get the urge to look around.

I dunno. It's working for him, I guess, so no need to be critical.

[Chuck Mallory]

I guess its based on the whole idea that, "we want true blue through and through Michigan Men." Kids that are 100% committed to playing for UofM. Not sure I totally agree with this no visit policy or not. I'll have to wait a few more years to decide on that.

[SeattleLionsFan]

I'm fine with our commitments are committed and if you are looking elsewhere you aren't committed.

I think it's a mistake to drop them, why recruit a kid that is committed to USC but not one that was committed to your school a few days ago.

That said, this whole thing smells fishy to me. There is more going on behind the scenes than is being let on. I also think, with no support at all, that his dads death is playing into this somehow.

[Pasadena Blue]

I don't like Hoke's policy ... I think if a guy starts looking around they should say they can no longer reserve the spot for him and look at other people, but there is no reason to close the door. I think it's shortsighted. I think Meyer will use this to his advantage.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I guess its based on the whole idea that, "we want true blue through and through Michigan Men." Kids that are 100% committed to playing for UofM. Not sure I totally agree with this no visit policy or not. I'll have to wait a few more years to decide on that.

I'm with Chuck but I also agree with PB's, comment above. Think well have to wait and see.

Talent, WM ....... what's your view of the NCAA recruiting rules as they apply to these situations and, if anything needs to be changed to avoid this sort of stuff, what is it?

[SeattleLionsFan]

I wouldn't want my committed recruits taking visits anymore than I'd want my committed girlfriend to take dates.

[iam416]

The issue can be addressed with an early signing period. The NCAA could, e.g., allow kids to sign an LOI on June 1st or something, and they would then be bound by those terms. They have two signing periods for hoops, I think, so it's not a stretch, exactly.

I think it works better with basketball b/c the colleges know what a kid is well before he ever comes close to signing day. No one is ever evaluating HS seniors -- they have the book on everyone, usually by the end of their sophomore AAU season.

But, in football it's much harder. Coaches want to see kids in-person, so they want to have them camp. They then want to do OVs during or after the football season so they've seen how they progress as a senior. I guess it's a long way of saying that the longer the process goes on, the more full the information for coaches and, IMO, the more likely a kid is to get more competitive offers. Allowing an early signing day could open the door up to coaches poaching relative "unknowns" in their own backyard by pressuring them to sign when there's few offers on the table.

I guess that's the con argument. Not really sure where I stand. It would be a huge disadvantage, IMO, for new coaches. I've seen it firsthand with UFM -- it's hard to get a complete handle on a class without seeing them camp at the end of their sophomore year, e.g. That said, it may also further level the playing field. If, e.g., Dantonio is really good at early evaluation, he can pressure a kid with no offers (but, say, interest from M and OSU) into an early commitment. Like I said, I'm indifferent.

[lineygoblue]

I wouldn't want my committed recruits taking visits anymore than I'd want my committed girlfriend to take dates.

Post of the week.

I think a good early signing period for football would be somewhere around October 1. That way, a kid who has fully made up his mind, can sign the LOI and get it over with. Suitors would have to back off. Kids who are still undecided could continue to take official visits up until the final signing day in Feb as normal, if they preferred.