4* Dan Samuelson #26 OT Nebraska commit

Per MGOBLOG

"The Wolverines hosted a surprise visitor last weekend in IN OL Dan Samuelson, a Nebraska commit who recently received a Michigan offer, per Allen Trieu. While Samuelson played it coy about his interest in Michigan, a Scout article from last week indicates that he took a big step by making this visit"

Per Samuelson

“I truly didn’t go and look for another offer though. [Michigan] came to me. There is very little interest from me to Michigan. I really don’t think that I will take a visit there. Nebraska said that they would view that as a decommitment. I don’t want to do that. I believe that is where that will stay.”

then this happened.....

I doubt the situation changed from Nebraska's end in the span of a few days; it seems likely that Samuelson has given up his spot in their class to see Ann Arbor. And now, 247's Todd Worly reported today that Samuelson's situation could be resolved imminently.

Looks like the Wolverines have made an impression and Samuelson plans on having everything figured out by Monday evening.

"I'm going to start calling everyone around 5 (p.m. EST), after I talk to Nebraska and figure things out with them," Samuelson said.

Could this be another possible snake-oil comment in the works?

so it looks like Hoke and Co. are going to fill our class by poaching from other schools. In the case of safety Marcus Ball I can understand because the Wisconsin staff has all left and the kid is thinking about other schools.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Samuelson news because I thought Hoke and the rest of the Big Ten coaches have a "gentleman's agreement" that committed players are hands off within the conference. Clearly UM offered while Samuelson was committed.

I don't know... it just bothers me.

this tweet from Samuelson 21 mins ago....

Dan Samuelson ‏@dansamuelson74
All this is too much. Stressed beyond my limits. I honestly dont know what to do

It seems like he wants to be blue but doesn't want to let down the guys he's committed to.

I know the gentlemens agreement thing has been mentioned but it seems like it is not widely observed. It's like we have all been saying-these are 18 year old kids and they are not truly committed until they sign on the dotted line. It's ugly but that's recruiting.

Gentlemens agreement is all bullshit. There is no such thing. You recruit right up until signing day. Then you start again.

If a school offers a "committed" recruit, and he listens and visits, he was never "committed" in the first place. It is exactly how Hoke looks at it. If a recruit "commits" to UM and then goes on another visit he isn't committed. If a recruit "commits" to Nebraska and then visits UM, was he ever really committed to Nebraska?

No one can have a "gentleman's agreement" if even one of those "gentlemen" refuses to abide by it. For it then becomes a matter, among the other n-1 gents, of simply being able to compete.

And we can all think of one B10 coach who would hardly operate in a "gentlemanly" fashion...

I'm not sure about this either. I know the gentleman's agreement is bs, but Hoke is contradicting himself when he expects his kids to honor their commitments, and then he goes out and gets a kid to break a commitment. It doesn't look good. I agree w/Sandy that Wisconsin is different though.

Tell ya what 93, we could have a "discussion" for days on here about whether it's a contradiction or hypocrisy or whatever.

I say you recruit to the end. You have your recruiting rules. If a recruit does not like or abide by your rules then a spot is no longer held for certain. He is the just like all other recruits, free to sign with other teams and free to re-sign with Michigan.

Again, if our recruit doesn't like it,they can leave. I mean, really, how many kids have decommitted from Hoke? Not many.

mgoblue93 wrote:

I'm not sure about this either. I know the gentleman's agreement is bs, but Hoke is contradicting himself when he expects his kids to honor their commitments, and then he goes out and gets a kid to break a commitment. It doesn't look good. I agree w/Sandy that Wisconsin is different though.

He absolutely is not contradicting himself. If the kid really is "committed" and UM offers, the kid should say "I'm committed to school X and I'm not changing my mind". End of story. But, if the kid says "I'm listening", then he was never really committed.

As for UM recruits that look around, they were never really committed to UM if they are listening to other offers.

All Hoke's policy does is tell a recruit to not "commit" unless you are really committed to UM. In other words, if you are not 100% sure and you are looking around, don't commit.

mgoblue93 wrote:

I'm not sure about this either. I know the gentleman's agreement is bs, but Hoke is contradicting himself when he expects his kids to honor their commitments, and then he goes out and gets a kid to break a commitment. It doesn't look good. I agree w/Sandy that Wisconsin is different though.

I disagree. The agreement is between the Coach/University and the player. Other schools will continue to offer these kids. It's the nature of recruiting. It is up to the player and Coach to uphold their end of the deal. If player decides to take other visits, then the agreement has been broken. Hoke does expect kids to honor their word, but that does not keep him from offering kids committed to other schools. It is then up to the player to decide if they want to look at Michigan or they can stay put. He certainly can't force them to de-commit.

The gentlemans' agreement has always been BS. I remember that right before Tiller hit RR with the snake oil comments, he had just poached a kid from another program. There is a lot of hypocrisy among college coaches. They want kids to be totally committed to them, but want to be able to jump from program to program whenever they want.

I think Hoke's policy is the opposite of hypocrisy. It's honest. I've heard him state more than once that it's fair game until the LOI is signed, which is in keeping with him offering kids who are committing to other programs. OTOH, we are all aware of his policy regarding kids already committed to Michigan. To me that policy basically says, you are welcome to visit other schools, but if you do, you take the risk of losing your spot. Seems fair to me, if you want the benefit of continuing to shop your services, you should have to assume the risks that come with that (losing your spot).

I think David Dawson's recruitment confirms the legitimacy of Hoke's policy. He visited another school and lost his spot. However, Hoke didn't say good riddance, he just said your spot is not secure until you're ready to recommit and stop visiting other schools. Which he did and now he's secured his spot.

That pretty much sums it up jj

Maybe used to have agentlemens agrrement but when Urban Liar came into ythe conference that all changed , now it everyman for himself..

fishgoblue22 wrote:

Gentlemens agreement is all bullshit. There is no such thing. You recruit right up until signing day. Then you start again.

If a school offers a "committed" recruit, and he listens and visits, he was never "committed" in the first place. It is exactly how Hoke looks at it. If a recruit "commits" to UM and then goes on another visit he isn't committed. If a recruit "commits" to Nebraska and then visits UM, was he ever really committed to Nebraska?

Couldn't say it any better myself.

And even if there was a 'gentelman's agreement' amongst B10 coaches, that went out the window when Meyer strolled into Cbus. And as michmike says, you can have a 'gentleman's agreement' all you want, but if even just a single person doesn't abide by it, it's hogwash.

I'm not saying Meyer is the only one, just making a point.

And tbh, it doesn't bother me at all if/when we poach from other schools.

All I care about is winning. And it takes the best players to do just that.

the artist formally known wrote:

Maybe used to have agentlemens agrrement but when Urban Liar came into ythe conference that all changed , now it everyman for himself..

IMO...a recruit is fair game until signing day. It's up to that kid to tell other school "no." Not to mention, it's the biggest decision a 17yr old will make, so there's always going to be indecision.

I'm not sure it's totally "Urban Liars'" fault. He, and his staff are monster recruiters. I think this may be why coaches in the B1G are now going after recruits like chicks at a 4 for $20 sweater sale at Fashion Bug Plus. Just because someone has their hands on it, doesn't mean they're walking out with it.

DerekVineyardsCurbStomp wrote:

IMO...a recruit is fair game until signing day. It's up to that kid to tell other school "no." Not to mention, it's the biggest decision a 17yr old will make, so there's always going to be indecision.

I'm not sure it's totally "Urban Liars'" fault. He, and his staff are monster recruiters. I think this may be why coaches in the B1G are now going after recruits like chicks at a 4 for $20 sweater sale at Fashion Bug Plus. Just because someone has their hands on it, doesn't mean they're walking out with it.

I was glad that Hoke wasn't one of the coaches who was bashing Meyer for his recruiting last year. It kind of smacked of fear to me.

Times have changed. A gentleman's agreement used to be in place (although they still skewered it all the time) but the new age of collegiate sports is upon us. It's all about the money. If you want UM to become elite again, and still abide by the same rules that applied 30 years ago, you are in for a long wait. The SEC has been dominant for so long not because of the better athletes, but because of the loopholes they created in the "rules".

I say screw it. You fight fire with fire. There was a time when Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc. were the elite. They did not change with the times and we see where they are at regarding sports.

UM has a fine tradition and for the most part those upstanding traditions have been held. But you don't bring a knife to a gun fight and you don't throw a poodle into the ring with a pit-bull (for the Mike Vick lovers).

If the NCAA is not going to enforce standard policies, than why should we abide by them? If you want to become elite, you have to follow the same rules of those who are elite.