Announcement

**UMStan White** · February 11, 2014, 03:31 PM

He already took an "official visit" to FSU. what are they going to show him now that they didn't already show?

**Ghengis Jon** · February 11, 2014, 03:43 PM

I'd wager he's going to become an osu Fighting Maggot. His mother said in an interview she doesn't want her son in state where's he's close to his current friends and haunts. Sounds like she does not approve of his choices in either, perhaps indicating potential character issues or bad influences if he stays in state. I would think mom and dad would much prefer to be within driving distance of their son -even if it means playing for Demon Spawn or the Criminoles.

**Da Geezer** · February 11, 2014, 04:13 PM

Stan:

Mom is not so dumb. What the McDowells mean is "Let the bidding begin!!"

**lineygoblue** · February 12, 2014, 03:18 AM

geezer nails it

**WM Wolverine** · February 12, 2014, 09:27 AM

copied from the Buckeye Bullshit discussion:

M is doing the same; offering kids all over with very few in the Midwest. M banked a couple scholarships from '14 to '15 (hooray walk-ons.) Right now they are at 14 but attrition should take them to 17-to-19 and I'd guess at most 7 of those will be from the Midwest. Despite this being a small class, it'll take quite awhile for M to fill up as there are so few kids in M's backyard that are within driving distance to visit Ann Arbor...

M's Junior day (they have about 1 a month) is coming up in a couple weeks, I think that'll give all of us a better idea who in the '15 class has interested in M and vice versa... After that Junior Day it'll be a good time to FINALLY give a real recruiting update that isn't about MM.

**iam416** · February 12, 2014, 10:27 AM

Related to recruiting out of the footprint, from a Scout article today:

In the Scout 300, 232 kids were from states outside of the B10 (NJ, Maryland, DC count for B10!). B10 schools signed 9 of those 232. Ohio State signed 5 of those 9.

Of the 68 kids from B10 states in the top 300, 32 kids signed outside of the B10 (9 went to ND).

In the top 100, 14 of 20 B10 kids signed with B10 schools (3 went to ND). So not as bad, but that's a more top-heavy metric (OSU, M, MSU).

**WM Wolverine** · February 12, 2014, 11:49 AM

B10 can't even keep their top talent in the conference.

**iam416** · February 12, 2014, 12:07 PM

EFZ.

**Jeff Buchanan** · February 12, 2014, 12:09 PM

Here's another good mgoblog piece (Seth) that does a nice job of identifying a couple of things that expand or contract the capacity of CFB programs to recruit nationally. The programs used for the analysis were M, ND and Alabama. The data is robust, going back to before WWII. I'd think there is a lot of power to the conclusions drawn:

ND is a national recruiter.
When ND inked the contract with NBC, they got a huge bump in national recruiting.
Alabama and Michigan increase their national reach when they are good.

None of this is startling news but it puts hard data behind several hypotheses.

My current one is Michigan is not good which is why they can't recruit (nationally and in state) and won't until this coaching staff can deliver several teams that win the conference and compete for spots in the new BCS/NCG process.

It's all about TV exposure, actually. Gut feeling, M is on the decline here although I'd like to see some data that correlates the number of national TV broadcasts with national/elite level talent recruiting.

As an aside, I think DB understands this. The Alabama/M debacle was a nice try but an abysmal failure ..... which says that while Dave may understand the importance of national exposure, his execution of a reasonable way to do this just sucks donkey balls. Before he jumped out and made arrangements with Jerry and his World, he should have done a better job of assessing the talents of his coaching staff and players. He didn't and M got what they justly deserved ..... negative exposure.

It continues ..... App State? Very poorly conceived. If M should happen to lose that game, the toilet flushing that has occurred under Dave's leadership will continue.

Hokepoints Goes National | mgoblog

http://mgoblog.com/content/hokepoints-goes-national

Last week I started playing with Lemming's recruiting information to see how national recruiting had changed over the last few decades. Too late for that article I realized I could actually take this study back more than a century using lists of historical lettermen published by various teams in their annual media guides. Using the same regional breakdown I tried to get data for the same six I used in the old decimated defense series—Michigan, MSU, Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, and Alabama—but only three had accessible info. These are based on letterwinners, not entire rosters, so scholarship freshmen on the scout team aren't counted. It still gives us a picture: Vestibulum ut maior First the goofy things. The breaks in Alabama's lines are 1919 and 1943, when the Tide didn't field teams because too many players were fighting World Wars I and II, respectively. That big spike for Bama right before WWII is because they were used as an officers training base just prior to the war. Michigan got this same temporary—by 1943 those officers had shipped overseas—bump, but not as many registered since most came from the Midwest (e.g. Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch from Wisconsin). Second the obvious things. Notre Dame's claim to be a "national" program is defended by the data. From the 1920s through the '70s their teams were fielded from between 30% and 60% by players from outside of the Great Lakes States (plus Iowa). Since the '80s about 65% is the new normal. Michigan and Alabama tracked pretty similarly as major state schools who kept to their home regions up until Bo arrived. Beginning in 1969 Michigan began a trend upward that finally settled over 30% of players from outside their region. Alabama remained a predominantly regional program until Nick Saban arrived. I zoomed in on the years since 1964 so we can better appreciate how coaching changes affected the programs: Tangere facere magnum Ewww don't touch me. I trust you know who Michigan's and Alabama's coaches were in 1964. The late '60s were the last time Michigan was as regional as Alabama. That now seems in danger of happening again. Last year Michigan dipped to 25.67% and Bama peaked at 25.33%. Michigan graduated five players from outside the Midwest (Dileo, Gallon, Gibbons, Lewan, and Qwash), and two more (Ash and Furman) aren't returning for fifth years, but they brought in nine this year (Peppers, JBB, Winovich, Pallante, Watson, Speight, Mone, Cole and Canteen) so I expect their total to climb a little for 2014. It's too hard to say what Bama's number will be since they still need to cut 10 or 11 players before fall. Championships win defense. Carr's 1997 championship, Parseghian's 1966 one, and Saban's 2009 title were all followed by steep increases in national recruiting; of the 14 titles in that chart two (Holtz's in 1988 and Stallings's in 1992) were accompanied by drops in the % of roster made up of extra-regional players. Michigan's historical peak is 2000, three years after their only TV-era national championship and one year after their Orange Bowl victory. The great Hoke classes of the last two years were very local. [After the jump, I test another culprit]

**Rob F** · February 12, 2014, 12:32 PM

Jeff---if Michigan loses to App State again, it won't be just toilet flushing going on.
The damage done by such a loss would be cataclysmic, apocalyptic, seismic, catastrophic, and any other bad "-ic" word out there.

It would be so bad that the destruction of Pompeii would look mild in comparison.

WTF was Brand-On thinking by scheduling them again???!!!

**iam416** · February 12, 2014, 12:36 PM

I think M is still in an extremely advantageous position vis-a-vis most other CFB programs.

However, that advantage has shrunk considerably over the past 30 years. Scholarship limits and then the subsequent CFB arms race have produced a very competitive landscape. It's a landscape that chewed up the likes of USC, Oklahoma, Alabama and, yes, Michigan. It's ultra-competitive and your name and history alone won't get the job done. You need a good coach.

USC was resurrected by Carroll. Whatever you think about its fidelity to the rules, the man can coach. Oklahoma resurrected by Stoops. Alabama by The Nick. These types of programs, when combined with a good coach, dominate CFB.

Michigan is still Michigan. It's still has as much potential as any program in the country. But mediocre coaches won't get it done. They can "win" at M, but they can't WIN at M. And therein lies the connudrum that Buchanan (and others) have been preaching forever. Is M really committed to WINNING? If they are, they will most likely have to fire Coach Hoke. And that will be tough because his record will be one that is "winning." IMO, it's a step that has to be taken if M is to ever get back to WINNING.

And OSU certainly isn't immune the new world. They were a cunt hair from the 8-4/9-3 quagmire. I shudder to think about it.

**Mike** · February 12, 2014, 12:54 PM

Re: App State. I don't believe lightning will strike twice and therefore have very little concern about winning the game. The problem is that the four-letter network will be running clips of the 2007 game ad nauseum in the countdown to kickoff which is the exact OPPOSITE of what you want happening when managing your brand. You'd think that would be one thing Brand-On! would get right but he'll probably think, "hey! there sure are a lot of Michigan football clips on the sports shows this week! This is AWESOME".

**Hannibal** · February 12, 2014, 12:57 PM

Yup. Brandon is actually that dumb.

**whodean** · February 12, 2014, 01:31 PM

App State 2014 is not app state of 2007.

Pound them by 40 points and exorcise the demon.

**jaadam4** · February 12, 2014, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by iam416 View Post

I think M is still in an extremely advantageous position vis-a-vis most other CFB programs.

However, that advantage has shrunk considerably over the past 30 years. Scholarship limits and then the subsequent CFB arms race have produced a very competitive landscape. It's a landscape that chewed up the likes of USC, Oklahoma, Alabama and, yes, Michigan. It's ultra-competitive and your name and history alone won't get the job done. You need a good coach.

USC was resurrected by Carroll. Whatever you think about its fidelity to the rules, the man can coach. Oklahoma resurrected by Stoops. Alabama by The Nick. These types of programs, when combined with a good coach, dominate CFB.

Michigan is still Michigan. It's still has as much potential as any program in the country. But mediocre coaches won't get it done. They can "win" at M, but they can't WIN at M. And therein lies the connudrum that Buchanan (and others) have been preaching forever. Is M really committed to WINNING? If they are, they will most likely have to fire Coach Hoke. And that will be tough because his record will be one that is "winning." IMO, it's a step that has to be taken if M is to ever get back to WINNING.

And OSU certainly isn't immune the new world. They were a cunt hair from the 8-4/9-3 quagmire. I shudder to think about it.

Good post. Agreed on just about everything

Announcement

Please support the Forum by using the Amazon Link this Holiday Season

UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment