UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[Jeff Buchanan]

This is Brian's take on recruiting:

The MGo Recruitin' Plan

1. You can sign a pre-NLI any time.
2. The pre-NLI guarantees you a scholarship at the school you sign with, allows them to contact you whenever and prohibits other coaches from doing so. You can only take an official visit to the school you sign with.
3. You can withdraw the pre-NLI at any time.
4. On Signing Day everyone makes it official.
5. (Optional but highly desirable) NCAA does away with 85-player cap and allows everyone to sign up to 22-25 players a year, no exceptions. Transfers and JUCOs count.

Changing the cap from a roster limit to a yearly limit instantly does away with any oversigning mutterings since your motivation is to keep players instead of cut them.

I believe it was talent that noted this kind of thing adversely affects the coaches in pursuit of high value targets. i.e, it puts them at a disadvantage and gives recruits most of the leverage. I think lifting the roster limit may tilt it back a ways to the program. Thoughts?

[WM Wolverine]

Yaaa.

[lineygoblue]

That actually makes sense.

Which, is why the NCAA would never allow it.

[iam416]

Credit to Brian for actually putting something forward. As I recall, however, his biggest soapbox bitch was LOIs and how unfair they are to kids. Nothing in what he proposes really changes any of that. I mean, the pre-NLI eliminates the rare Petrino shithead move, but you can already do that by allowing kids to sign a financial aid package/promise earlier in the recruiting season. I think 4 or 5 OSU kids locked in their spots by doing that.

Otherwise, it doesn't really change much EXCEPT it prevents kids from getting recruited over. That, in turn, would intensify the recruiting process earlier. You need to be sure of a kid if you're going to let him "pre-NLI" his spot. Conversely, kids upgrading would still continue -- kids verbal to safe schools; better schools are more cautious in accepting verbals; the better schools miss out on a big fish and come for Plan B kids who flip.

The best part of the proposal -- and the only thing I would adopt -- is the annual scholarship limits. A hard and fast rule. 25 would be my number. That would put rosters in the 90-100 area with a max of 125 (no attrition + everyone redshirts!).

The one disadvantage of that proposal is that walk-ons probably wouldn't get the occasional year-long scholarship because the schools would almost certainly fill their max limit, which is annual. With the overall limit, you can award those types of scholarships when you drop under the number. That's a minor issue, but it does affect kids who are actually true student-athletes.

[Hannibal]

I have decided that I don't give a shit if the kids have any leverage after signing day. I have had about as much as I can take of hearing about kids who are getting a free college education and room and board as "victims". The overwhelming majority of them probably wouldn't get into their universities without sports. I'd be fine with relaxing the restraints on payola since that genie is pretty much out of the bottle anyways. But -- fucks sakes -- when Joe linebacker gets pulled out of the ghetto with a 2.5 GPA to go to a university that would cost me somewhere between $20,000 and $50,000 a year to send my kid to -- you'll have to forgive me for not wanting to accomodate the poor kid if his position coach leaves or his coach hurts his feelings. Or if he actually has to spend his own money to take his girlfriend on a date. Boo fucking hoo.

A free education at a university that you probably otherwise wouldn't get into. Adulation and attention that 99.9% of the population can only dream of. Where can I sign up my kid to be "exploited" like that?

[iam416]

Preach on!

[hack]

Credit to Brian for actually putting something forward. As I recall, however, his biggest soapbox bitch was LOIs and how unfair they are to kids. Nothing in what he proposes really changes any of that.

Agreed.

[WM Wolverine]

The hard limit (currently 85) needs to be set on signing day, whatever that number may be. Other than the SEC, I believe the B10, ACC, Pac 12 and Big XII are offering 4-year scholarships.

[iam416]

I'm ambivalent about a hard limit on signing day -- I'm certainly against it without raising that limit. But the biggest point is that, to paraphrase Mike Tomlin, the standards need to be the standards. You can't have conferences with different approaches, IMO. So the Power-5, at least, need to reach an agreement on it.

The B10's rule is 88. So if you do run off players in the offseason you're going to actually run off numbers. You'll end up down under 80 if you're systematically eliminating non-contributors. The margin of 3 is actually probably a little low given typical attrition. M, e.g., was more than willing to go up to 88 because JH probably already has an idea of who will leave. A coach in the program for years will have a very good idea.

Anywho....standardize it. Whatever the standard is, it should apply to all.

[WM Wolverine]

Agree, you'd need to raise the limit as you're taking scholarships away...

B10's rule isn't just +3 over the limit (85), at least what I read you had to know exactly where the attrition was going to come, even if you are 1 over on signing day.

[iam416]

Correct. Yeah, it's not so much a guess.

[The Oracle]

Lotta scuttlebut on Rivals that Costello is making a visit with his family in the next couple weeks. Supposedly wants to make a spring decision to help recruit the class. Not saying he'll commit then, but I think M is the favorite. Would be pretty huge piece.

[Hannibal]

Smith is supposedly announcing today.

[Hannibal]

And it's Georgia. No surprise there.

[iam416]

I thought Smith was Georgia. Well, soon enough if he hasn't already.

Costello seems like JH's most viable big-time QB target -- very viable, at that.