UM Football Recruiting - by WM Wolverine

[Jeff Buchanan]

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?

Here's where I see a problem width that argument, which, BTW, I don't totally disagree with.

These kids being recruited by the Power 5, the best of them, have a good shot at multimillion dollar contracts with NFL teams at some point following their college playing time. That's an added benefit to the COA but it is extended on the basis of programs riding that kid to produce millions of dollars in revenue annually, much more than that over the course of the kid's playing time at college.

Bringing on these kinds of athletes then is like making a capital investment in your football program at a relatively low cost to benefit ratio. IMO, if the resource (the kid being recruited) has the potential of boosting the bottom line of the football program, he ought to have some kind of leverage regarding what that program is going to give him to do that.

Certainly, part of the cost to the U is the scholarship + COA. But I've read some good accounting of this cost to the U as being marginal at best. i.e., the actual cost in brining a scholarship player inot the program is a bargain when compared to the millions that will be generated for the athletic department with a winning, post season playing football program.

That kind of value, IMO, deserves the attendant leverage that goes along with it in any other business environment.

[iam416]

I think you're analysis changes, Buchanan, if you say adding to the bottom line of the ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT as opposed to Football Program. And I think that's more accurate. Football (and to a lesser extent, hoops) funds non-revenue sports at big-time Universities. Adding costs to that program will (a) reduce non-revenue scholarship opportunities; (b) force the University to directly account for/fund non-revenue sports; and/or (c) some combination of both.

Ohio State football may net $20M, but it's athletic department is a break even proposition.

I haven't really thought through this "greater good" argument, but I think significantly increasing the costs of football bring it into play.

[froot loops]

Mick McCabe really upping the "get off my grass" quotient in talking recruiting.

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/high-school/mick-mccabe/2015/02/12/underwear-olympics-recruiting/23325505/

[hack]

Good heavens. Practically written in the voice of Kim Jong Un's press secretary.

[iam416]

Wow. That's a dreadfully written, dreadfully reasoned piece.

[Optimus Prime]

Mick McCabe really upping the "get off my grass" quotient in talking recruiting.

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/hi...ting/23325505/

Couldn't agree more.

Reminds of the countless Kentucky Thoroughbred buyers that spend millions pursuing that elusive "5-Star" stallion!

[froot loops]

McCabe is a noted crank, most of the time he is complaining about some high school press box or some girl basketball player transferring to Bay City. But every once in a while he cranks out a gem like this. And it is amazing the influence he has outstate with his football picks. These teams get really angry.

He's not wrong about the traveling 7 on 7 nonsense though.

[Optimus Prime]

California Chrome won the Kentucky Derby & Preakness Stakes in 2014, with a mere 2k stud fee.

Fortunately for him, the stallion was incapable of reading any rating services but instead trusted his trainers and managed to avoid an unfortunate trip to the Purina factory in the process.

[lineygoblue]

That's what separates the Tom Brady's from the Ron Powlus's of the world.

Brady had to fight for playing time in college.

Powlus was supposed to win four (4) Heismans.

Coaches who make the distinction are the successful ones.

[hack]

Excellent point.

[Optimus Prime]

That's what separates the Tom Brady's from the Ron Powlus's of the world.

Brady had to fight for playing time in college.

Powlus was supposed to win four (4) Heismans.

Coaches who make the distinction are the successful ones.

Another Smarty Jones!

[froot loops]

There was a method to Lloyd's madness. When he was foolishly playing wunderkind 5 star recruit Drew Henson over Brady he was doing it to develop Tom for the NFL.

[The Oracle]

McCabe is a noted crank, most of the time he is complaining about some high school press box or some girl basketball player transferring to Bay City. But every once in a while he cranks out a gem like this. And it is amazing the influence he has outstate with his football picks. These teams get really angry.

He's not wrong about the traveling 7 on 7 nonsense though.

I was just about to say that.

[froot loops]

7 on 7 is great for helping out a Quarterback with their throws. In the last 15 years I've been working in high school games it's noticeable how much better QBs can throw. We toil in Division 7 and rarely play against a true FBS recruit at any position but nowadays most of the opposing QBs we face can wing it. When I started you'd face a couple who could.

Those 7 on 7 leagues are great for that stuff but it shouldn't trump full contact games for evaluation. You need to see how the QB deals with contact.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Speaking of QBs, some interesting developments on that front for 2016.

M has targeted the #4 ranked pro-style (247) QB in the class, K.J. Costello. Offers went out to two other 4* guys last week, Brandon Peters and Dwayne Haskins. You can read about these two at mgoblog.

What's interesting to me is Harbaugh's apparent approach here. It's certainly not unique but it is so starkly different from what RR and Hoke did it's worth mentioning.

Neither of these previous coaches put much emphasis on recruiting QBs at all, let alone the top guys. Now Harbaugh clearly has name recognition and is going to go after these kinds of guys.

If you think about, M's suck over the last 7 seasons has had a lot to do with QB play. In RR's case, he pretty much destroyed Denard physically; by the time his career was ending, he could not pass at all due to injury. In Deven's case, (a) I don't think he was ever going to be as good as his star rankings and (b) what he did have was squandered by poor coaching and coaching decisions about how he fit into whatever confusing offense M was running at the time.

On comes Harbaugh ...... his approach isn't so much about running a pro-style offense at M and getting it back to doing that well (something Brady understood but couldn't execute it), it is about finding highly regarded QBs nationally that he thinks he can develop and can run his offense at a championship level. Morevoer, he has no qualms about leveraging these guys. Offering Peters and Haskins right over the top of Costello, who most regarded as M's top QB target, smacks of that ..... and not in a bad way.

Peters jumped at the offer and scheduled an un-official for the spring game, Costello jumped right in, if reports are accurate, and said he was coming to visit in 2 weeks. When was the last time M was in the mix for difference makers and when was the last time it has become pretty clear that Harbaugh thinks the most important difference makers are his QBs (and to a lesser extent WRs)? In my recollection, it's been a long, long time and the net result has been poor on field performance for a longer stretch than M has experienced in my time watching it and that is since 1967 or there abouts.

Good sign.