Why Brady Hoke Should Reevaluate 'No-Visit' Recruiting Policy.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1564866-michigan-football-why-brady-hoke-should-reevaluate-no-visit-recruiting-policy?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=recruiting

What does everyone think? I know that we have discussed this before but yes, I'm re-opening that can of worms again...

Tell the kid that if he still wnts to take visits that he shouldn't commit to Michigan yet.

Be right up front with them. Tell them if they want a spot we have one. If they aren't ready then don't commit.

Period.

This has absolutely nothing to do with recruiting other teams' recruits right up until the end.

These are 2 separate and different things.

I agree completely with St Joe.

That is my view as well (joe's) but I am thinking about this a little now. Should there be a "verbal day"? Should "signing day" be moved up? Should there be an "early signing period"? Should you not be able to recruit 8th graders (saban)?

Ditto to Joe's point.Tthe word commit means something an 18 year old should begin to understand. In my youth a 15 year old understood that but things have changed sooo much for the better.

I guess I'm in the minority then. I don't like the policy at all because recruiting has become ultra competitive and uber complicated. It's not black and white anymore. It's also hypocritical to expect a kid to honor his commitment while simultaneously trying to get another to break his commitment; so get rid of the policy altogether.

another thought, how is it a teaching moment to learn what a commitment is, when our coaches are trying to get kids to break other promises? Get rid of it. Just teach that there is no such thing as a commitment until they sign on the line.

Another thing to consider is that these people making verbal committments are 16/17 years old (not 18 as previously mentioned). They are Juniors, sometimes earlier, in High School. Heck, for a couple of months my Junior year of High School I was only 15. I'm fairly certain that I'm not the only one on this board because, back in the day, that was not entirely unheard of.

I think that "verbal committment" means something to Head Coaches and Head Coaches only. It's used so that they can see who will be in their incoming class. It's evident that niether the kids nor NCAA give a rats a$$ about it.

mgoblue93, I completely agree with you...I always thought it was stupid that Michigan took away Dawson's scholarship for visiting Florida yet during or close to that period they flipped the kid committed to Iowa.

It can be solved with an early signing period.

I was looking at this wrong. Brady must obviously be wrong because some people don't agree with his policy. I was thinking his policy under current rules was to point out that a verbal "commit" meant something related to the word itself in that UM was "committing" a scholarship in return for a recruits intention to ultimately fulfill a contract.
Kids change their mind for many reasons and renege before signing day for many reasons that both do and don't become public. Denzel Ward wanted to take other visits and told the coaching staff and they wish him well. If he wants to keep looking then there is no commit to hold a scholly for. Maybe Brady should tie up early scholly's that are scarce for next year on people that travel the country singing other teams fight songs but I think that would only make some folks happy they changed the meaning of a word.
Perhaps next we can challenge UM's quaint notion of tradition as fluid in meaning? If Brady uses this and/or academic reputation in recruiting I suggest he stop as those are historically meaningless to transient, confused youth.

What other schemes is he hiding? Certainly he is a hypocrite for things we don't know but imagine he did. I call on JUB to write a great half story about only his failings as seen from afar.
I am done as I can only take facetious so far.

I think some look at this the wrong way.

This is 2 totally different situations.

When a kid commits to Michigan his commitment is received and a cholarship is saved for him. He is requested not to visit other schools.

Now, Hoke goes and continues to recruit another kid that is committed elsewhere. I have no problem with that.

As long as Hoke doesn't rescind the original offer if the second kid commits.

That's where it becomes stinky. If Hoke continues recruiting, gets a better player, then pulls the offer from the first he is dirty.

He has not done that.

Look, that kid got a commitment FROM the University of Michigan. His committment from UofM has absolutely NOTHING to do with Hoke recruiting another player. Two totally different things.

When Hoke strips an offer because he gets a better recruit I'l be the first to scream bloody murder.

It is my understanding that a verbal committment is more serious for The University in the manner that they must save a scholarship for that player. Kids accept verbal offers as they do not want to miss a chance. Unless you are a 5-star, "can't miss" prospect, you accept that offer from Michigan.

Some people (i.e, Dawson), after they accept the Michigan offer, receive other offers and decide that they want to look around some more. If they do (which is their right) the University has no further obligation to save a scholarship. They can re-offer if the HC wants to (as in the Dawson case) at a later date IF they want to.

I don't think that Coach Hoke would ever strip an offer from someone because "someone better came along" but if that happened, yes I'd question the mans integrity as well.

I totally agree with these last two posts and they are to my last and original point. If Brady becomes Saban then UM welcomes an unapologetic Webber and I am done with following a formerly great FB team and Institution that is a standard I tell my kids to follow.

Agree with all 3 of you.

'shoes

How would Brady become more like Saban?

This is a simple-minded way of thinking. I think we take to stereotypes as a fan base too easily. Saban (and the SEC,) may cheat with bags of cash, and we don't need to follow the SEC down that road, but is it possible that Saban can do some things the right way?

Michigan recruits itself so encourage kids to take all their visits like Lloyd and Bo did. It's the most honest, and the most constructive approach. Let the kid find what's best for him.

If the kid can't figure out the gem that UM is then do we really want him anyway? What are we afraid of exactly with this policy? This policy may limit us in getting top prospects in the future, as opposed to maximizing our potential.

I'm sure he does tell them to take all of their visits, don't commit until you have weighed all of your options. Be sure you are really ready to commit. But when you commit, we are holding your spot. If you choose to go on other visits, we are not obligated to hold your spot, because we need to fill our needs.

This probably isn't that big of an issue, however, I just think it looks hypocritical when we're trying to flip recruits; and I want use to flip recruits. There is nothing wrong with flipping because in my mind, the school or the player is not truly committed until they fax the LOI. So he shouldn't lecture anyone what a commitment means with this policy.

Also, fish I agree, an early signing period would certainly help.

I'm not opposed to Brady's rule....and recruiting has worked out pretty damn well the last two seasons.

The writer of the article nailed it: it's an old-school mentality. In other words, it's a MICHIGAN mentality.

Is it a bit hypocritical to then go out and still actively pursue kids already committed to other schools?

Perhaps.

But I don't give a damn.

I want the best players in the country, and I really don't care how we get them (save for some serious cheating).

I'd say, overall, Brady's rule has worked. Look at long-time commits like Shane Morris, Dymonte Thomas, etc. in the 2013 class.

In a year, we'll be saying the same thing about Wilton Speight, Michael Ferns and (hopefully) Mason Cole.

The more I write about it, I actually LOVE this rule.

Think about it for a second.

How great of a job did kids like Shane and Dymonte do in becoming recruiters themselves? I'm not saying kids at other schools can't/don't do the same, but I don't think they match the level of intensity displayed in helping to build their class, especially to the likes of Morris.

Michael Ferns has already taken the '14 class by the neck and is walking in the same footsteps as Shane. Hell, Ferns has made up t-shirts (they say Team 134) and is sending them out to every kid that commits. His motive behind it is so that when they all show up to the camp circuit this summer, they're going to look united and standout amongst other prospects, thus getting their attention and getting them to look at Michigan as a real possibility.

I simply don't know if you see that anywhere else, or if we'd even see it here if that rule wasn't in place. And I don't think it's only because of the rule, but simply the culture at Michigan these days. Once you give that verbal, you are a part of the family, whether you're still in HS or not.

Maybe all of that only makes sense to me. I don't feel like I'm doing a very good job of conveying my thoughts this morning on this topic.

Either way, to Hell with OSU and Go Blue.

Get'em tiger! ! I am enjoying that this discussion itself is because we are gearing up for some football and can all agree in that excitement.

romeo49 wrote:

Get'em tiger! ! I am enjoying that this discussion itself is because we are gearing up for some football and can all agree in that excitement.

Agreed.

Minus missing all the musical festivals I'm hitting this summer, I'd love to wake up in tomrrow morning and it be Aug 31st.

But Saban also "suggests strongly" that a player stuck deep on the depth chart should "maybe transfer?????"

Michigan doesn't do that. In the SEC if you don't cut it you get cut. In one way or another.

You want to stay? Saban is a bitch and maks you pay for it.

This is the SEC way.

Guess snarky preplies to snarky replies using the exact same verbage get deleted here as well? What's good for the goose must just be good for the goose.

Admin wrote:

Michael Ferns has already taken the '14 class by the neck and is walking in the same footsteps as Shane. Hell, Ferns has made up t-shirts (they say Team 134) and is sending them out to every kid that commits. His motive behind it is so that when they all show up to the camp circuit this summer, they're going to look united and standout amongst other prospects, thus getting their attention and getting them to look at Michigan as a real possibility.

Don't you mean TEAM 135?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1539665-2014-lb-michael-ferns-already-going-hard-on-the-recruiting-trail-for-michigan

You're slipping Admin...

Yeah yeah, 135.

I can't keep up anymore. Once I turn 27 this September, I'm gonna go ahead and hang everything up.

Those in here older than 27 probably feel like they just got punched in the gut, and for that, I apologize.

What I keep hearing old people say is that life doesn't begin until after 40. If that's the case I'm still waiting to be born.

Admin I hear ya, and I realize what Hoke has reeled in two years. I just don't want us to limit ourselves in anyway that is ethical.

I think Hoke has taken a step back from enforcing his policy anyway, as we saw with Dawson. He obviously held his spot as opposed to the kid who went to Oregon (I can't recall his name -Pharoux something.)

As for stjoe's comment about Saban over-signing, that is a separate issue from Hoke's no-commit policy.

Since you brought it up though, I'll dabble into that. Over-signing can be done ethically. I don't see anything wrong with pulling a scholarship from a student athlete that is lazy in the weight room and lazy in the classroom. It is a privilege to be sponsored to attend Michigan, so if a kid doesn't share that attitude and is just dead weight, we should award the scholly to someone else who does. The kid can still attend classes, but no more gravy train, like most other students. It's not like he's out of a wonderful situation. Whether he takes advantage of it or not is another story.

Now if the kid is a model student and is doing all the right things in the weight room, but just isn't a player, I don't see us ever turning into Alabama in that regard. Hoke or Brandon are not going to push kids out that way. Not to mention the two universities are completely different. A kid at bama is going to want to transfer because usually, he's not there for anything but football; as opposed to a kid at UM will hesitate leaving our academics. In other words, if a kid's NFL dreams are in dwindling, he surely will consider focusing on something other than football.

Hoke didn't change his policy, The Dawson kid took his visits and re-verballed after checking and finding Hoke still had s spot and then Samuelson came aboard with another spot (he wanted to be closer to home) still open that two others Hunt and Dan something (Tennessee verbal) also vied for. Pharoah Brown didn't choose to try and come back after his visits and/or a spot was no longer available as it was filled by someone else. Simple concept for most people.
The Saban issue was about duplicity (leaving kids in the lurch due only to a better prospect being available) in these areas as a whole. not his coaching style or technique or schemes or weather or boosters.
Michigan has offers out until signing day and holes to fill in the coaches mind and I am not sure if they actively have called on kids verballed to other schools or if the kids have inquired with them or if HS coaches have been intermediaries on kids that came late to UM. I just don't know these facts. Do you?

romeo49 wrote:

Hoke didn't change his policy, The Dawson kid took his visits and re-verballed after checking and finding Hoke still had s spot and then Samuelson came aboard with another spot (he wanted to be closer to home) still open that two others Hunt and Dan something (Tennessee verbal) also vied for.

Yes he did change his policy, according to Hoke himself. On Dawson: "One thing that you have to understand about that policy," Hoke said on signing day, "every situation is a little bit different."

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/8938840/bcs-programs-no-visit-policies-commits-make-little-sense

Pharoah Brown didn't choose to try and come back after his visits and/or a spot was no longer available as it was filled by someone else. Simple concept for most people.

No, Hoke pulled Brown's scholarship: "For everybody who wants to know I never de-committed from Michigan," Brown tweeted this week. "They said they don't consider me a commit because my (official visit). That's their policy."

http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/coach-brady-hoke-suffers-1st-recruiting-departure-at-michigan-after-pharaoh-brown-visited-oregon/

Maybe the other forum is more suited for you. This is not the place for throwing insults and making arguments based on fiction.


The Saban issue was about duplicity (leaving kids in the lurch due only to a better prospect being available) in these areas as a whole. not his coaching style or technique or schemes or weather or boosters.

...and this relates to Hoke's no-visit policy, how?


Michigan has offers out until signing day and holes to fill in the coaches mind and I am not sure if they actively have called on kids verballed to other schools or if the kids have inquired with them or if HS coaches have been intermediaries on kids that came late to UM. I just don't know these facts. Do you?

No, I don't know, but thank you for supporting my point that the no-visit policy is outdated and has its limits by observing holes need to be filled up until LOI day.

How would Brady become more like Saban?

This is a simple-minded way of thinking

Notice anything about the tolerance and good spirit you wrote above as you went on to support Nick Saban. Is simple minded a compliment to you?
I simply brought your sentiment right back without direction "at" you. My point was to his reneging on schollies, only, which have been nationally questioned. I don't feel Hoke has done any such thing (not comparable and not hypocritical if no policy change just situational revew) and if he does wouldn't we all question his being in this position?
Dawson wasn't a policy change just a re-offer and acceptance based on spots still to fill. His own words above.
Pharoah Brown above nicely sums up Hokes policy and I want to thank you for the quote. You take other officials and you are no longer committed "hence the simple concept". Ask Dawson how to get back "if there's space" which there wasn't in the coaches eyes otherwise they would have "situationally" reviewed their need and his skills.
If you are a Mod and feel you need to throw me out of here for an opposing opinion and withstanding your singular insults then have at it. I'll easily leave it to others to look through the thread and see my thoughts and differing opinion on Coach Hokes policies and integrity.
Ask Coach Hoke if his policy is intact and if we are losing Michigan Men as a result. I think we all would love to hear the answer. I'll stand on every comment, fact and refutation and meet any further insult you choose to initiate.

No, I'm not a mod, but if I were I'd hit the ignore 'romeo49 button' for the rest of the forum, so they wouldn't have to read your nonsense; but you could still post.

You have posted no facts or links to back up your delusional opinions; and you have convinced yourself that the references that I linked, somehow now support your delusions.

Also, where are you getting from my posts that I "support Nick Saban?" You are confused.

Ok, I am done with you romeo - to spare everyone else. Take it back to the other forum.