UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[Jeff Buchanan]

........ I agree that maybe the NCAA should just remove the restrictions. Allow schools to offer jobs to parents, houses, cars, etc. After all, what's wrong with providing someone with a new home, car, or cash to help them thru a difficult time. If their son's talent can bring them a few extra bucks or perks, get him a college education, and a passport to the NFL, what's the problem?

With all the money on the line for the schools, I think something along those lines is going to eventually take place.

No.

If that's the way CFB is heading (and I don't think it is), I'd rather Michigan not be a part of it. It's like legalizing marijuana in Colorado. Sounds great at first glance but it raises a huge number of complex regulatory and enforcement issues into play. CFB would turn one set of stupifyingly complex rules into another set ten times as complex and stupid.

[Mike]

I don't see the NCAA addressing these issues anytime soon either. Plus they got to flex their muscle in response to the PSU mess so they'll be in a holding pattern for a decade or so. Probably a good time to start cheating, actually.

[hack]

Well, if it's 9-3 with RichRod's players and Denard confounding Borges, it's gotta be at least 10-2 and the occasional elite season when they're getting the 4-stars but not the top 5-star skill positions.

[DennisT]

sucking hind tit on recruiting

I admit to rubbing SPF 30 cream all over my bunghole from time to time due to all the sunshine blowing up my ass but I would hardly characterize the 2012 class and the 2013 verbals this way.

[Mike]

Recruiting seems to be going pretty well as far as I know. I just expect us to be in the "best of the rest" camp going forward. Hopefully we can take advantage of the weak Big Ten and at least lose some more Rose Bowls.

[hack]

That they moneyed teams (Yankees and maybe no one else) were gonna dominate. They haven't, necessarily. Do lessons there apply to CFB?

Depends on your definition of "dominate". Since 1996 the Yankees have won 5 World Series, been to another 2 or 3, and have made the playoffs every year but once which in baseball is unheard of. The Tigers have been to the playoffs 3 times in that span. Obviously, you need to spend the money wisely like Auburn did. The NHL's NY Rangers used to always be at or near the top of the payroll scale and didn't even make the playoffs. You can't simply spend your way to greatness as the Yankees are proving the last few years. Still, that they are considered a trainwreck after leading the AL with 96 wins and making the ALCS should tell you about the level of excellence to which they have grown accustomed.

On one hand you have the Oakland A's who have had success with a very small payroll by utilizing saber-metrics. OTOH, you have the 2012 Marlins who thought they could just throw a bunch of money at players and they would suddenly become great. Neither approach gets you a championship because at the end of the day, the A's simply don't have the talent and the Marlins were a collection of individuals. When you combine the money and the math, you get the Boston Red Sox and St. Louis Cardinals.

I would imagine that in CFB, sheer talent can overcome a lot of other weaknesses. It's more about the Jimmys and Joes. If you give Nick Saban and his opponent exactly the same level of talent, Saban will win 60% of the time. Give him greater talent than his opponent and he'll beat them damn near every time.

Yah, fair enough. I guess I'm happy with sneaking in there once a decade for a shot at the championship. The intrinsic satisfaction of getting there without being a part of the sleazefest will be nice.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Mike's got a good take on recruiting. The Saban analogy is accurate.

Here's mine:

You need break out skill players - the 5* - at QB, RB and WR on offense and at LB and DB on defense. Most teams, even the ones that have effective mechanisms to give benefits for players are not going to get break out players at all the positions. You just need a few consistent play makers on defense and offense to make the difference between also ran and top dog. If you don't get them, your chances of risinig to the top of the heap on the national scene - the top 5 or so - go down.

You can still play good football, like Michigan will but also like Michigan, and its becoming clearer by the season why this is the case, they'll find themselves out of the national championship picture as November roles around.

Woodson was an anomaly for Michigan. There were others. But he is a good example of a difference maker that puts your team in the national championship hunt. Cam Newton is another and there is no doubt, he was bought.

As the stakes get higher for playing with the top dogs, a payola system will thrive and ultimately produce elite teams who are willing to use that mechanism to get to where the culture of their athletic programs takes them. Michigan won't go there and I'm sure I don't want them to.

I think its fun to talk about M football having great recuriting classes under Hoke and seemingly having a chance therefore to compete on the national scene but its unrealistic to think that they will. Without those difference makers - a couple in those positions I mention - sure things, M is not going to be there. That is because of M's culture and character. There will be no dealing in gray areas. None. The sure thing players - the 5*s - unless they have other motivations, and there will be some of those that come M's way, once in a decade maybe - are going to go where the money is.

[Pasadena Blue]

well so far, Hoke and co have shown on an inability to close the deal with the real top shelf skilled talent. Sorry to hear Treadwell's ship is sailing. I really don't understand it. Gardner looks to be a good thrower and Shane-O is no slouch ... what is changing is mind? Is it the feeling that Jeff/Hanni have that we will just have a middling team with the current regime?

[iam416]

If what WM says is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, Treadwell is down to M and ND. Say what you will about ND, but they ain't buying players either. Green, eh...who knows. Wait and see where he goes.

It could just be that M, like every other school, misses out on 5* players waaaaay more often than not. Then again, I'd hate to get in the way of you boys shoveling your hapless woe is me, how can we ever compete when we have so much integrity bullshit.

[Jeff Buchanan]

It could just be that M, like every other school, misses out on 5* players waaaaay more often than not. Then again, I'd hate to get in the way of you boys shoveling your hapless woe is me, how can we ever compete when we have so much integrity bullshit.

Look, it's not shoveling shit. It's the circumstance of the fab 5 era that haunts Michigan and has created an environment of extreme caution. If the information is correct about DG's red shirt situation - that M won't seek it because they think RR contrived the injury - it just solidifies, in my mind, why M won't play the gray areas at all.

I'm not being sanctimonious. I'm not suggesting osu, for example, does play in the gray areas to its advantage over other teams. I'm only describing what I think is the culture of M athletics post the fab 5 era.

[drok]

Jeff, pull yourself together.

[Detroit Dan]

Well said, Talent.

Everyone seems to agree that Michigan is doing what it should. We're good and there's no evidence that we're cheating. So there's no excuse for not supporting the team whole-heartedly, or else turning your entertainment attention elsewhere (away from college football). If the cheating is too much for you to enjoy the sport (understandable), then give it up. Otherwise, support your team and forgive them an occasional mistake. It's a game.

Go Blue!

[The Oracle]

Well said drok.

[iam416]

I understand, Buchanan, but I *think* the reality is that M can recruit as well as anyone. Hoke, barring improbable defections, has put together two straight consensus top 10 classes. I will leave it to M fans to sort out whether he can coach it or not, but think.they'll be fine.

Obviously, I hope I'm wrong and M goes the way you think. But I rate that as considerably less likely than the alternative.

Finally, re national titles, M has always been about conference titles and the Rose Bowl. And ol' no titles will get you there.

[lineygoblue]

Jordan Diamond.