Bo Pelini had the solution to the recruiting ethics problem

[ArrowheadBlue]

his idea would end the madness of recruiting. His suggestion?

Once a kid commits to a school he signs scholarship. Done! Both sides are now locked in.

Bo said it would end the random handing out 50 scholarship offers, and get the early commitments settled in allowing the coaches to do more coaching.

 

[detroitjohn]

his idea would end the madness of recruiting. His suggestion?

Once a kid commits to a school he signs scholarship. Done! Both sides are now locked in.

Bo said it would end the random handing out 50 scholarship offers, and get the early commitments settled in allowing the coaches to do more coaching.

The current setup only needs fixing when it doesn't favor you.

 

[eric2015]

his idea would end the madness of recruiting. His suggestion?

Once a kid commits to a school he signs scholarship. Done! Both sides are now locked in.

Bo said it would end the random handing out 50 scholarship offers, and get the early commitments settled in allowing the coaches to do more coaching.

Makes sense. Or at the minimum, an early signing date like they have in basketball.

 

[ArrowheadBlue]

DJ, Pelini's main reasoning was that it would prevent the major colleges from issuing multiple scholarship "offers" with little or no ability to follow through. He said it was like casting a huge net in the water.

 

[detroitjohn]

DJ, Pelini's main reasoning was that it would prevent the major colleges from issuing multiple scholarship "offers" with little or no ability to follow through. He said it was like casting a huge net in the water.

No, I get it and in some ways I agree. It would be cool to have an early signing day for football, anything to stop some of the unrelenting madness. My point is that teams and players work the present system until another one is in place, then they work that one. If we had an early signing period, you'd see similar drama, just in September or whenever. And, to Pelini's particular suggestion, I think the players would be the most vociferously opposed to commit and signing. Imagine doing that and then blowing up your senior season but being stuck with Ball State when you could have gone to the big leagues.

 

[tarun262]

I am not and early singing day or sign as you commit solves the problem. These are kids and they should be allowed to explore all their options. I think perhaps limiting when a kid can be offered a scholarship is probably the right thing to do maybe? For instance you can only offer kids scholarships in their senior year versus Junior year? I would be curious - how many kids that commit as Jrs end up going to the school they committed to? I bet it's 5%.

 

[Reality Man]

Fair point Tarun. These kids (many of them) and their families are a huge part of the problem. It doesn't excuse what Harbaugh and staff are likely doing with some of these guys. I hope they find viable alternatives but it's a joke when everyone says he 'committed'.


Another part of the problem are these recruiting sites (rivals) who benefit from all of this stuff. Like a brokerage churning stocks.

Lot of people are abusing this system and making money. Sounds like America.



RM

 

[michigangoblue999]

his idea would end the madness of recruiting. His suggestion?

Once a kid commits to a school he signs scholarship. Done! Both sides are now locked in.

Bo said it would end the random handing out 50 scholarship offers, and get the early commitments settled in allowing the coaches to do more coaching.

Why can't people change their mind? Why is that so distressing to people? I don't get it.

I can just about guarantee that any changes made would be bad for the athletes. Who has the power and money? Who is most likely to benefit from rules changes?

 

[ThatsMrSpartan2U]

Anybody who has a kid looking to get into the college of their choice has been through this. Most top colleges have an "early acceptance" process where a HS senior can be accepted early...usually in the Fall of their senior year. The deal, however, is that if the student applies for early acceptance they agree to accept the offer in that year's freshman class, if offered, and agrees to forego accepting any other college's offer.
It helps the student because he/she knows early and can avoid all the drama of waiting until Spring to find out if they got in, wherever...and
It helps the college because they know they have a core of top students coming in and don't have to scramble around in the Spring offering tons of kids (some marginal) in hopes of filling their quota for the freshman year.

This process works for top students and top colleges. It works for marginal students who want to go to a specific place and they can find out early if they get in. It's imperative that the college do their due diligence and vet these kids early. If the kid does not get an offer he wants he can wait. A college is not obligated to offer anybody early. However, if an offer is made and accepted....that's it.

I don't know why college sports can't do the same thing. Let these kids choose before their senior year of HS. Lock the school and the student in. Obviously there can be contingencies. Injury to the kid. Coach being fired or switching jobs. Personal circumstances like a death or illness in the family.

This would work for the top players....and the middle of the pack guys. It works for the schools too. A college can hold out a certain number of scholies for the kids that don't commit elsewhere or for those who don't get an offer they want.
It will get rid of most of these inane "hat picks" in the HS gym on signing day. It would make the process more "business like", avoid drama, it would be transparent...period.

 

[ArrowheadBlue]

Agree Mr. Spartan. Bo's suggestions: a) limit the unhealthy flow of scholarships to hundreds of "potential" players knowing full and well the school can only accept 20. It locks the school into these decisions because the scholarship already is accepted; b) it locks the kids into their decision. Let's take Hoke's classes which were pretty much filled up by September. Then the coaches can coach and not worry about losing committed kids. I think Bo's thoughts would eliminate a lot of the recruiting problems.

 

[dick selvala]

his idea would end the madness of recruiting. His suggestion?

Once a kid commits to a school he signs scholarship. Done! Both sides are now locked in.

Bo said it would end the random handing out 50 scholarship offers, and get the early commitments settled in allowing the coaches to do more coaching.

 

[michnittlion]

I can just about guarantee that any changes made would be bad for the athletes. Who has the power and money? Who is most likely to benefit from rules changes?

How about the converse of your bolded statement? .............. Any changes that are being talked about and NOT being made would be GOOD for the athletes.

People have talked about and proposed an early signing period for --- literally --- decades. Yet, it never happens. When the issue comes up at coaches/conference meetings, the issue nearly always gets "tabled for future discussion." Happened most recently in June 2015. SEC and B1G were opposed.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...rly-signing-period-vote-gets-delayed-one-year

An early signing period would be a good thing for the athletes and a good thing for college football as a whole. But there are a number of powerful people (SEC and B1G were opposed last June) who have no interest in it.

Thus, it never happens.

 

[detroitjohn]

How about the converse of your bolded statement? .............. Any changes that are being talked about and NOT being made would be GOOD for the athletes.

People have talked about and proposed an early signing period for --- literally --- decades. Yet, it never happens. When the issue comes up at coaches/conference meetings, the issue nearly always gets "tabled for future discussion." Happened most recently in June 2015. SEC and B1G were opposed.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...rly-signing-period-vote-gets-delayed-one-year

An early signing period would be a good thing for the athletes and a good thing for college football as a whole. But there are a number of powerful people (SEC and B1G were opposed last June) who have no interest in it.

Thus, it never happens.

It might be a good thing, as we've found in the last number of years, good things foisted on a system have lots of unintended consequences, some really not so good.

 

[tarun262]

Here's the deal - I got into Michigan on September 1 my Senior year in HS (I was living abroad) and I knew then that I had gotten into the school I wanted to be in since I wanted an Engineering degree. However, I did get told that I had to make sure I maintained a certain level of grades, etc - basically I could not just slack off my entire Senior year, get a 2.0 GPA and coast. I had to provide my transcripts and diploma upon arrival. Think of the parallel with college athletes.

At the end of the day as a parent you want your kid to go to a school for academics first. A lot could happen - injuries, etc and you could be left for broke if all you care about is sports. Michigan, like all other universities, is a SCHOOL first and foremost, not a sports business and every school should act that way. Kids don't get accepted into Michigan their sophomore year in HS for being awesome at biology or chemistry, or being a great orator or leader of your debate team, or any of that stuff...so why should a kid that just happens to be good at Football or Basketball be able to have a scholarship his Soph or Jr year? Why are they treated differently? It's a really slippery slope. I look at how kids are now getting offers their Freshman year in HS - think about what it does to the kid. 1) It inflates their ego. 2) They think they are untouchable and above all studying. And all of a sudden if the kid has a poor year or anything, he has likely just been doing the bare minimum in education to make sure he can meet whatever bar he needs to and now he is neither here nor there.

I strongly believe an early signing period is dumb and I think the solution at the end of the day is to not allow any schools to dole our offers until kids are actually Seniors in HS - just because someone is good at football or basketball, you should not forget that your first and foremost obligation is to provide an education and if you don't offer regular students admissions before they are seniors, then why the bending of the rule for sports - simple, because there is money involved. It's shameful really.

Anybody who has a kid looking to get into the college of their choice has been through this. Most top colleges have an "early acceptance" process where a HS senior can be accepted early...usually in the Fall of their senior year. The deal, however, is that if the student applies for early acceptance they agree to accept the offer in that year's freshman class, if offered, and agrees to forego accepting any other college's offer.
It helps the student because he/she knows early and can avoid all the drama of waiting until Spring to find out if they got in, wherever...and
It helps the college because they know they have a core of top students coming in and don't have to scramble around in the Spring offering tons of kids (some marginal) in hopes of filling their quota for the freshman year.

This process works for top students and top colleges. It works for marginal students who want to go to a specific place and they can find out early if they get in. It's imperative that the college do their due diligence and vet these kids early. If the kid does not get an offer he wants he can wait. A college is not obligated to offer anybody early. However, if an offer is made and accepted....that's it.

I don't know why college sports can't do the same thing. Let these kids choose before their senior year of HS. Lock the school and the student in. Obviously there can be contingencies. Injury to the kid. Coach being fired or switching jobs. Personal circumstances like a death or illness in the family.

This would work for the top players....and the middle of the pack guys. It works for the schools too. A college can hold out a certain number of scholies for the kids that don't commit elsewhere or for those who don't get an offer they want.
It will get rid of most of these inane "hat picks" in the HS gym on signing day. It would make the process more "business like", avoid drama, it would be transparent...period.

 

[michnittlion]

Here's the deal - I got into Michigan on September 1 my Senior year in HS (I was living abroad) and I knew then that I had gotten into the school I wanted to be in since I wanted an Engineering degree. However, I did get told that I had to make sure I maintained a certain level of grades, etc - basically I could not just slack off my entire Senior year, get a 2.0 GPA and coast. I had to provide my transcripts and diploma upon arrival. Think of the parallel with college athletes.

Yes, some contingencies on an offer make absolute sense.

(1) Must graduate from secondary school prior? Of course, That's also an easy metric to quantify: yes/no binary.

(2) Maintaining a grade-point average? Yep, that makes sense. GPA is a number, easy to set standards here.

(3) Have to have completed some core classes. Another intuitive one, another easy to quantify metric.

(4) A football player suffers a devastating injury during his senior year of high school? Sure, offer is no longer valid. This is another metric that is fairly easy to quantify (though slightly trickier than the former 3).

(5) Criminal activity. Yes, if this happens, it's completely fair to pull the offer. Another easy thing to quantify: there's either a police report or there is not.

Now, the question: how do you easily quantify (quantify!) performance of a football player?

It is what it is: I do feel a football player, once he verbally commits, should be offered some protections. One of those protections being guarding against the coach saying "well, I can't quantify it or anything, but you were good enough for me before but you're not good enough for me anymore."

IMO, the risk in this situation should go to the coach/adult (if you fear he's going to slip off in his senior year, don't offer him!) as opposed to the player (the risk that the Coach is going to flake out on you).

That is THE reason why many coaches do NOT want the early signing period. It exposes THEM more. Why expose yourself to risk when you can transfer that risk elsewhere?

 

[tarun262]

If a player's verbal commitments are not binding then why should a schools be? That's not really fair now is it? A player can verbally commit and then change their mind depriving someone deserving of a chance for a Michigan education. In the case of Swenson, he was asked to be reassessed at camps, etc and he refused. That's grounds for removal and I think JH did absolutely the right thing. They asked him to come visit this past summer for an evaluation and he said no thanks - so yeah, JH had every right because he told him that in that case his SR year film will be the evidence and the evidence was crappy.

Yes, some contingencies on an offer make absolute sense.

(1) Must graduate from secondary school prior? Of course, That's also an easy metric to quantify: yes/no binary.

(2) Maintaining a grade-point average? Yep, that makes sense. GPA is a number, easy to set standards here.

(3) Have to have completed some core classes. Another intuitive one, another easy to quantify metric.

(4) A football player suffers a devastating injury during his senior year of high school? Sure, offer is no longer valid. This is another metric that is fairly easy to quantify (though slightly trickier than the former 3).

(5) Criminal activity. Yes, if this happens, it's completely fair to pull the offer. Another easy thing to quantify: there's either a police report or there are not.

Now, the question: how do you easily quantify (quantify!) performance of a football player?

It is what it is: I do feel a football player, once he verbally commits, should be offered SOME protections. One of those protections being guarding against the coach saying "well, I can't quantify it or anything, but you were good enough for me before but you're not good enough for me anymore."

IMO, the risk in this situation should go to the coach/adult (if you fear he's going to slip off in his senior year, don't offer him!) as opposed to the player (the risk that the Coach is going to flake out on you).

 

[michnittlion]

If a player's verbal commitments are not binding then why should a schools be? That's not really fair now is it? A player can verbally commit and then change their mind depriving someone deserving of a chance for a Michigan education. In the case of Swenson, he was asked to be reassessed at camps, etc and he refused. That's grounds for removal and I think JH did absolutely the right thing. They asked him to come visit this past summer for an evaluation and he said no thanks - so yeah, JH had every right because he told him that in that case his SR year film will be the evidence and the evidence was crappy.

1st part of the bold:

Because the schools/coaches are the adults. I DO think they should be held to a higher standard.

If one has been a hiring manager (and college football coaches are "hiring managers" of sorts), it's inevitable to eventually get a verbal commitment from someone who then flakes out and changes his mind. You'll even get a few folk who sign all the paperwork than simply don't show up on the supposed Day 1!!! This happens. It's part of the job.

However, it's basically never acceptable in the real world for the hiring manager to rescind a job offer after a candidate says "yes" when the hiring manager's reason is "oh, I found somebody else."

------------------------------

2nd part of the bold:

But Swenson got a written offer (he tweeted it) from JH in September 2015. That doesn't fit the narrative of "refused to come visit this past summer."

 

[michnittlion]

It might be a good thing, as we've found in the last number of years, good things foisted on a system have lots of unintended consequences, some really not so good.

In other words: "If we change things, some bad things MIGHT happen. Thus, don't change."

 

[tarun262]

1st part of the bold:

Because the schools/coaches are the adults. I DO think they should be held to a higher standard.

If one has been a hiring manager (and college football coaches are "hiring managers" of sorts), it's inevitable to eventually get a verbal commitment from someone who then flakes out and changes his mind. You'll even get a few folk who sign all the paperwork than simply don't show up on the supposed Day 1!!! This happens. It's part of the job.

However, it's basically never acceptable in the real world for the hiring manager to rescind a job offer after a candidate says "yes" when the hiring manager's reason is "oh, I found somebody else."

------------------------------

2nd part of the bold:

But Swenson got a written offer (he tweeted it) from JH in September 2015. That doesn't fit the narrative of "refused to come visit this past summer."

2 sides to every story. By all accounts he underperformed his Sr year - even opposing coaches that hey played with are saying that exact narrative. This was a classic case of a kid that just relaxed and wanted to coast once he got in. Very typical Hoke recruit - all hype, no show! You don't know all the things that went into the assessment - tons of things could have happened. Sure an 18 year old uses Twitter to play victim and you are chastizing the entire staff.

As far as your "adult" comment - verbal and written are 2 different things. I am not going to ascertain your hiring comments, etc - there are all sort of circumstances where that happens. You don't know that they found a "better" recruit - heck they downgraded from Swenson. You have to have faith in a coach and their system versus what Social Media wants you to believe. That's your call - eventually the real reasons will surface up.

 

[michigangoblue999]

Isn't a player better off at a school where he will actually play?

How in the world would it be better for a player like Swenson to come to UM and have to transfer after two years to get playing time? All that does is lessen the chance a player will graduate.

 

[michnittlion]

Isn't a player better off at a school where he will actually play?

How in the world would it be better for a player like Swenson to come to UM and have to transfer after two years to get playing time?

As I'm sure JH himself knows ----- it's has been shown many times that offensive linemen have the WORST correlation of any position in terms of "high school stars" and "success at the collegiate level."

Nobody has any idea that he "wouldn't be able to actually play" at Michigan. That's just spin. Besides, 18-year-olds are still very coach-able. They can be molded into better. U-M, of course, has plenty of coaches with proven success in coaching players up.

 

[detroitjohn]

In other words: "If we change things, some bad things MIGHT happen. Thus, don't change."

No, not necessarily, I'm just not convinced that it solves all problems, and will almost certainly create others. So persuade away at why it answers what ever is perceived as a problem here. The players love this set up, it allows them all kinds of maneuvering and even on your own site where they quote players that Harbaugh allegedly screwed over, those players landed in fine gigs.

College football is not a damn entitlement with innocent, starving children waiting on the benevolence of powerful schools. It is a mutual arrangement between self-interested parties, why don't we get that and stop pretending otherwise. If you get into Penn State or Michigan, you're guaranteed a fantastic education (okay, at least at UM -jk) and a chance to tie into a network that lasts the rest of your life and may well guarantee you a fantastic career inside or outside football. If those schools get great players, they make all kinds of fame, fortune, and future opportunities for their schools and programs.

 

[JRforUM]

As I'm sure JH himself knows ----- it's has been shown many times that offensive linemen have the WORST correlation of any position in terms of "high school stars" and "success at the collegiate level."

Nobody has any idea that he "wouldn't be able to actually play" at Michigan. That's just spin. Besides, 18-year-olds are still very coach-able. They can be molded into better. U-M, of course, has plenty of coaches with proven success in coaching players up.

I'm sure that JH also knows that a kid that is soft & coasts through his senior season because he already held an offer & didn't want to get hurt is probably not the kind of character he wants on his team. You can't coach character.

Go Blue!

 

[michigangoblue999]

As I'm sure JH himself knows ----- it's has been shown many times that offensive linemen have the WORST correlation of any position in terms of "high school stars" and "success at the collegiate level."

Nobody has any idea that he "wouldn't be able to actually play" at Michigan. That's just spin. Besides, 18-year-olds are still very coach-able. They can be molded into better. U-M, of course, has plenty of coaches with proven success in coaching players up.

Okay, then I guess Harbaugh cut ties because he doesn't like the kid personally, or something.

Why would they cut ties with a player they thought would be good?

Harbaugh probably has a pretty good idea that Swenson wasn't going to play or else why would they not bring him in? You're the one who is looking at stars. Harbaugh is looking at the game film.

 

[tarun262]

As I'm sure JH himself knows ----- it's has been shown many times that offensive linemen have the WORST correlation of any position in terms of "high school stars" and "success at the collegiate level."

Nobody has any idea that he "wouldn't be able to actually play" at Michigan. That's just spin. Besides, 18-year-olds are still very coach-able. They can be molded into better. U-M, of course, has plenty of coaches with proven success in coaching players up.

Dude, I know you think you are the world's best hiring manager - so let me throw something your way especially since I have made tons of hires. If you give someone an offer as a manager and that person verbally says "yes" and then he tells you "oh but I am still going to look around" - what do you do? YOU YANK THE OFFER. Perhaps you don't, but most companies would. Just like getting an offer to a student is important they need to keep their commitments. Recruiting is a game because of the rules - I personally don't like it. But it;s a fluid situation where loyalty to each other is very low on the list - it's become a business transaction. As I said, you have no idea how much of what ES said is true or not - you read what he is willing to go to the media with. You remember that case where some lady at Duke said 2 lacrosse players raped her and those kids basically were chastized because she spoke so loudly to the media, etc? Well, what happened there - media never tried to get to the bottom of the story but rather were focused on painting a stereotype on athletes because it jived with what they had been saying.
Same with JH - media either hates or loves him because he is different, quirky, but not unethical. Of course they are all over the story - this is what sells their sites/publications.

 

[michnittlion]

Dude, I know you think you are the world's best hiring manager - so let me throw something your way especially since I have made tons of hires. If you give someone an offer as a manager and that person verbally says "yes" and then he tells you "oh but I am still going to look around" - what do you do? YOU YANK THE OFFER. Perhaps you don't, but most companies would. Just like getting an offer to a student is important they need to keep their commitments. Recruiting is a game because of the rules - I personally don't like it. But it;s a fluid situation where loyalty to each other is very low on the list - it's become a business transaction. As I said, you have no idea how much of what ES said is true or not - you read what he is willing to go to the media with. You remember that case where some lady at Duke said 2 lacrosse players raped her and those kids basically were chastized because she spoke so loudly to the media, etc? Well, what happened there - media never tried to get to the bottom of the story but rather were focused on painting a stereotype on athletes because it jived with what they had been saying.
Same with JH - media either hates or loves him because he is different, quirky, but not unethical. Of course they are all over the story - this is what sells their sites/publications.

I've had a position open on my team for 6 months now and still looking. I suck.

(interviewing someone next weeek though, cross the fingers)

I don't agree with your analogy. Yes, I'd yank an offer if a candidate said something so brazenly stupid. But Swenson was most definitely NOT "still looking around." Guy was about as loyal a verbal commit as you could get.

I don't hate Harbaugh and I don't hate Michigan football. Never have, never will (short of JH pulling a JoePa). But IMO this is a "scuff mark" on Harbaugh. He could have done better here. Just learn and do better going forward.

 

[michnittlion]

No, not necessarily, I'm just not convinced that it solves all problems, and will almost certainly create others. So persuade away at why it answers what ever is perceived as a problem here. The players love this set up, it allows them all kinds of maneuvering and even on your own site where they quote players that Harbaugh allegedly screwed over, those players landed in fine gigs.

College football is not a damn entitlement with innocent, starving children waiting on the benevolence of powerful schools. It is a mutual arrangement between self-interested parties, why don't we get that and stop pretending otherwise. If you get into Penn State or Michigan, you're guaranteed a fantastic education (okay, at least at UM -jk) and a chance to tie into a network that lasts the rest of your life and may well guarantee you a fantastic career inside or outside football. If those schools get great players, they make all kinds of fame, fortune, and future opportunities for their schools and programs.

Yes, college football is not an entitlement. That extends to me. I am not entitled to see my school play well-coached, intelligent, exciting, Championship winning football. Lord knows that isn't happening for me. All I am "entitled" to see --- short of my school being banned from playing football by the NCAA or B1G --- is football of SOME form.

I know, I know, it's a business. And there are positives-and-negatives. As you said, in one respect: 17-year-old young men get a gigantic prize: a free education that sets them up well for later life. In another respect: 17-year-old young men are used as pawns as the powers that be scheme to ensure "Penn State Inc." outperforms "Ohio State Inc." on the playing field, thus increasing "Penn State Inc."'s share price.

Maybe I've settled. Maybe it's because of the absurdity that occurred at my school 5 years ago. But PSU was a thoroughly mediocre 7-6 this year, and I attended 5 games, 3 of them requiring airplane tickets, overall spent some 4-digit-amount of $$$ on my hobby, and I saw zero victories. Was it worth it? 100% absolutely! I still had fun, and the experience of a Saturday afternoon on ANY campus is 1,000,000x better than the NFL game occurring the next afternoon.

But I don't want that 1,000,000x number to get lower either. I do think it is creeping lower.

OK, "old man on front porch of his house rant" over.

 

[Reality Man]

Anybody who has a kid looking to get into the college of their choice has been through this. Most top colleges have an "early acceptance" process where a HS senior can be accepted early...usually in the Fall of their senior year. The deal, however, is that if the student applies for early acceptance they agree to accept the offer in that year's freshman class, if offered, and agrees to forego accepting any other college's offer.
It helps the student because he/she knows early and can avoid all the drama of waiting until Spring to find out if they got in, wherever...and
It helps the college because they know they have a core of top students coming in and don't have to scramble around in the Spring offering tons of kids (some marginal) in hopes of filling their quota for the freshman year.

This process works for top students and top colleges. It works for marginal students who want to go to a specific place and they can find out early if they get in. It's imperative that the college do their due diligence and vet these kids early. If the kid does not get an offer he wants he can wait. A college is not obligated to offer anybody early. However, if an offer is made and accepted....that's it.

I don't know why college sports can't do the same thing. Let these kids choose before their senior year of HS. Lock the school and the student in. Obviously there can be contingencies. Injury to the kid. Coach being fired or switching jobs. Personal circumstances like a death or illness in the family.
Good post.


This would work for the top players....and the middle of the pack guys. It works for the schools too. A college can hold out a certain number of scholies for the kids that don't commit elsewhere or for those who don't get an offer they want.
It will get rid of most of these inane "hat picks" in the HS gym on signing day. It would make the process more "business like", avoid drama, it would be transparent...period.

Good post

 

[Reality Man]

Yes, college football is not an entitlement. That extends to me. I am not entitled to see my school play well-coached, intelligent, exciting, Championship winning football. Lord knows that isn't happening for me. All I am "entitled" to see --- short of my school being banned from playing football by the NCAA or B1G --- is football of SOME form.

I know, I know, it's a business. And there are positives-and-negatives. As you said, in one respect: 17-year-old young men get a gigantic prize: a free education that sets them up well for later life. In another respect: 17-year-old young men are used as pawns as the powers that be scheme to ensure "Penn State Inc." outperforms "Ohio State Inc." on the playing field, thus increasing "Penn State Inc."'s share price.

Maybe I've settled. Maybe it's because of the absurdity that occurred at my school 5 years ago. But PSU was a thoroughly mediocre 7-6 this year, and I attended 5 games, 3 of them requiring airplane tickets, overall spent some 4-digit-amount of $$$ on my hobby, and I saw zero victories. Was it worth it? 100% absolutely! I still had fun, and the experience of a Saturday afternoon on ANY campus is 1,000,000x better than the NFL game occurring the next afternoon.

But I don't want that 1,000,000x number to get lower either. I do think it is creeping lower.

OK, "old man on front porch of his house rant" over.

Another great post. I think UM can win and win big with Harbaugh. I want to see that but I don't want to see some shady stuff that is NOT required. Just be up front with these guys sooner and don't take firm commitments.

Easy to solve.


RM

 

[Reality Man]

I've had a position open on my team for 6 months now and still looking. I suck.

(interviewing someone next weeek though, cross the fingers)

I don't agree with your analogy. Yes, I'd yank an offer if a candidate said something so brazenly stupid. But Swenson was most definitely NOT "still looking around." Guy was about as loyal a verbal commit as you could get.

I don't hate Harbaugh and I don't hate Michigan football. Never have, never will (short of JH pulling a JoePa). But IMO this is a "scuff mark" on Harbaugh. He could have done better here. Just learn and do better going forward.

Yep. That is spot on. UM and Harbaugh could definitely have done better and all this criticism is deserved and earned. I don't want to see this type of Swenson thing happen to any kid. If UM gets the lion share of the abuse for this type of recruiting approach and it helps prevent this from happening in the future then it will be worth it.



RM

 

[eric2015]

Fair point Tarun. These kids (many of them) and their families are a huge part of the problem. It doesn't excuse what Harbaugh and staff are likely doing with some of these guys. I hope they find viable alternatives but it's a joke when everyone says he 'committed'.


Another part of the problem are these recruiting sites (rivals) who benefit from all of this stuff. Like a brokerage churning stocks.

Lot of people are abusing this system and making money. Sounds like America.



RM

Point taken, but shouldn't teams be that much more loyal to kids who committed early and stuck to their commitment through good and bad?

According to Swenson, he spent a lot of time helping to recruit several guys currently in UM's class.

I've watched the game films of Swenson and UM's new OL commit from Maryland. They both are playing against inferior talent, so it's hard to tell exactly how good they are, but IMO, they look like pretty similar talents. Big, lumberilng, and seem to play with an edge. I can't see where this is a swap up for UM. Very strange recruiting strategy.

 

[ThatsMrSpartan2U]

Agree Mr. Spartan. Bo's suggestions: a) limit the unhealthy flow of scholarships to hundreds of "potential" players knowing full and well the school can only accept 20. It locks the school into these decisions because the scholarship already is accepted; b) it locks the kids into their decision. Let's take Hoke's classes which were pretty much filled up by September. Then the coaches can coach and not worry about losing committed kids. I think Bo's thoughts would eliminate a lot of the recruiting problems.

the schools and the coaches are the adults. They must act like it.
The recruits are kids and acting like a kid should be expected.
The kids have parents who are usually adults. It's sad, but they sometimes don't.
This Swenson thing has not been good for the University of Michigan. I'm not a fan of Harbaugh or the sports teams but I am an admirer of the university. I'm not trying to kick dirt on anybody but really, the university shouldn't have to put up with this. I expect this will not be repeated......I think.

 

[scfanblue]

I have been saying on here all along that recruiting is a joke and the money behind it like RIVALS and its stars has turned into a circus. Rivals makes the money and the players and their families love the limelight. A high school kid should not be allowed to commit until November of his senior year. Recruiting is ruthless and these teenagers are hounded by the reps of schools some as early as 14. Now what Harbaugh did to Swenson is nothing new. Obviously the UM staff did not like Swenson's progression and development as a player and if he refused to come to AA and workout then he sealed his own fate. Also, he was offered by Brady Hoke and this is Jim Harbaugh's team and he has a right to stock it full of players that can win a NC. All schools have done this and will continue.

 

[detroitjohn]

Honestly, when I first saw the title of this post, I was expecting something along the lines of Bo Pelini suggesting we get into a player's grill, shout expletives and spray spittle, and see if he's still committed the next day.