UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[Mike]

Has the student section been that bad this year? It's always been a little sparse at the top when we play tomato cans in shoddy weather.

[Mike]

But, yes. It's a golden goose they seem determined to kill.

Says people of a different generation. I figure if Michigan still managed to sell out every game of the RichRod era than that bodes well for the future.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

There's no doubt some schools pay for recruits. There's no doubt far more schools provide extra benefits to players when on campus. There's also no doubt it's been going on forever.

Presumably, in your world, M has always been a bastion of integrity. Ergo, there is no reason M can't have the type of success it had under Schembechler because of its massive integrity. Broadly, there is no reason to believe CFB will decline and rot. It hasn't for the past century when things have largely been as they are today in terms of improper benefits.

If M fandom drops off, it's because they stink. There is precedent for that. Photos from any given game in the the 60s certainly verify unmitigated apathy. Because they stunk.

Now, you're equating "stink" with recruiting. But that narrow focus is belied by M's past successes. The variables in the equation are demographics and NCAA scholarship reductions. Both points are neatly illustrated by the OSU-M game. I *know* that in one year in the 1970s, MORE than half of M's roster were Ohio kids. Ohio was equivalent of modern day Florida. Ohio, though, has remained static while southern demographics have exploded. So, far more really good players are outside of the B10's footprint. In its prime, the B10 footprint dominated.

The absolute 100% fact is that it's harder to recruit outside of your footprint. Period. And you see that in recruiting big-time. The advantage has shifted to the tradition-rich powers in the Southeast.

Oregon was mentioned, and it should at least be pointed out that they generally rate low in recruiting. I'm sure M will almost always rate higher than them under Hoke. But, look, Chip Kelly is really good.

Anyway, I hope you're right. I hope M is pitifully mediocre and its support withers. I'd enjoy that. I don't see it happening, but I would be well-pleased if it did.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Fair .......

Here's what I take issue with. You're saying that payola does not shape outcomes on the national stage to the extent I believe it does. You're saying the shift in the football performance of the SEC schools away from the Big Ten in a historical context (you could say from the northern tier states as well) is primarily a result of demographics. Right?

Hard to separate the impact of these two circumstances. Certainly, population change has weakended the former hot beds of HS recruiting in the mid-west (and I'm way out of my league here in making that statement but in general, I think it's true). Its decreased the potential talent pool. But what has also happened is that the talent load is higher in the Southern and Southwestern states (I include SOCAL in that group) making the pickings easier for interested parties who might want to further the interests of the particular football program they might favor.

IOW, payola contributes to on field success in signficant ways, its impact possibly masked by demographics which provides an easy scapegoat, then and one I think you are using.

I also believe payola has exploded as the stakes have gotten higher in CFB. So, you take a shift in demographics, making the pickings easier and an everyone is doing it attitude within a regulatory environment that is pretty much ineffective and you can see where CFB is headed. There are those who want to merrily continue to enjoy the show and take positions that it is part of the game so, deal wiith it. There are also individuals who care about collegiate athletics and the part they play in building good citizens as part of the university experience.

[hack]

Not sure for every team the cash disbursements are of same impact. Auburn would never have sniffed contention without buying Cam Newton. Alabama right now, on the other hand -- paying players is one part of a very well-executed strategy that also relies on oversigning and extremely good coaching in addition to the demographics. If they aren't paying players, the other two things they are doing plus geography are going to keep that program near the top certainly.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

We disagree, I think, on the extent to which buying recruits has occured. You, I think, view it as a variable that has seen a significant uptick. I view it as, more or less, fixed over the past, well, forever. We disagree on a number of other things, but that's fine.

There are also individuals who care about collegiate athletics and the part they play in building good citizens as part of the university experience.

I do want to add something to this. For the vast majority of student-athletes, this absolutely 100% the case. For a vast majority of collegiate football players, this is 100% the case. The vast majority of college football players are at programs of zero significance with zero prospects for NFL livelihood. They're still treated favorably, but more in line with HSFB players.

At "big-time" schools, the vast majority of athletes embody this ideal. Ohio State has gads upon gads of scholarship teams that absolutely embody the student-athlete ideal. They are, in part, supported by the goliath that is football. And therein lies the rub. At most schools, football players are student-athletes. But at OSU and M and a few dozen other programs, they're major celebrities. And honestly, even those kids that aren't superstars probably fit the student-athlete mold. In other words, it's a very limited, very small group of athletes that well and truly aren't student-athletes. Denard Robinson -- and he may be a great student, but he's a giant celebrity. Braxton Miller. Every starter on Alabama. Heh. But you know what I mean.

Anyway, I respect your opinion. I just disagree with it, strongly. Good discussion, though.

[Hannibal]

Fair .......
I also believe payola has exploded as the stakes have gotten higher in CFB.

This is where I'm coming from. The amount of money in all sports, even ones that have lost a lot of cultural relevance, has been skyrocketing throughout our lifetimes, and so has the pressure on coaches and the fans' impatience.

[Jeff Buchanan]

About the student athletes .......

Those are good points you make. And in a hurry I closed my post not really making the point I wanted to make which is that the game of CFB is being corrupted by Payola. We do disagree to what extent.

I can't help but feel that some programs are being marginalized by creeping corruption to an extent that is much greater than it was 100 years ago or even 40 years ago. The stakes are higher as well for those marginalized programs who will lose out on the huge payouts that are going to be generated going forward if they can't buy the impact players they need to get into that system.

I've made my case for the marginalization of M football. Posters here can agree or disagree and in varying degree how much that will affect M athletics going forward. Obviously, and as I see it, there are more factors than just payola affecting the aspirations of M football and its fans to play on the national stage. Nevertheless, payola and M's unwillingness to go there, is a big part of the marginalization I see coming.

[Hannibal]

I perceive the cheating to be a cyclical thing, and right now, we are at the peak of the cycle, which is where we were back in the late '70s and early '80s, with the Pony Express and the days of Barry Switzer and Bear Bryant making sure that they didn't overpay for guys. After that, you had a relative down period for a while, but in the past decade, it has ramped up again, especially in the past five or six years. I don't remember USC, Oregon, and the SEC mysteriously pulling guys out of the Midwest like Trey Depriest, Aundrey Walker, Jordan Diamond, and Shariff Floyd (to name but a few) until recently. People talk as if SEC dominance in the recruiting rankings is a long term trend. It isn't. Meanwhile, the inappropriate level of success of Oregon is reminiscent of SMU's, and their sudden uncanny ability to pull recruits like Dior Mathis, Jake Fisher, and Lache Seastrunk at the national level is pretty suspicious. Actually, Lache Seastrunk isn't just suspicious. It was dirty, period.

I mentioned the increased amount of money in the sport and the increased pressure on coaches. Another huge factor, IMHO, is that the athletes have figured out how valuable they are. The sheer amount of money in the sport is now a well publicized fact, and they are cashing in on it.

[hack]

It only stands to reason that as the money increases in areas like ticket receipts and apparel and TV revenue, it will for buying players too. No reason to assume that slice of the pie is getting smaller.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Cyclical? Perhaps ........

But it's cyclical nature would seem to associate with the willingness of CFB's governing body to kick some ass. Like the death penalty SMU received that ended it all for them. Maybe that kind of approach should return ......

Oh, it did. Schools will be sure to not hire coaches that molest kids, that's for sure!

Duh. Seriously, we all agree the NCAA is worthless when it comes to the problem we're discussing. It's not an easy thing to grapple with but grappling with it is something that absolutely needs to happen.

[WM Wolverine]

We've seen many times that the reward of cheating is much greater than the cost of getting caught. Penalties for blatant rules violations like Cam Newton need to be on the scale of PSU instead of the slap on the wrist or looking the other way as the NCAA seems to have done.

[Hannibal]

Cyclical? Perhaps ........

But it's cyclical nature would seem to associate with the willingness of CFB's governing body to kick some ass.

Exactly. There have been no landmark punishments lately, other than the Penn State case. On top of that, I think that the cheaters have adapted to make their activities unpunishable. They have sort of learned their lessons from before. Not to cheat, but to not put the program in the position of getting punished.

[Da Geezer]

Well put, WM. When the penalty is remotely equal to the violation, this nonsense will stop.

I would suggest an NCAA division that allows pay-for-play. At least, when Miichigan plays Florida, we will know who pays their players.

[hack]

Well put, WM. When the penalty is remotely equal to the violation, this nonsense will stop.

I would suggest an NCAA division that allows pay-for-play. At least, when Miichigan plays Florida, we will know who pays their players.

But we already have that! And we already do!