Recruiting adds and the numbers game
The most conservative number I can come up with for projecting next season's scholarship players between current roster and listed commits is 93. And it sure looks like our coaches aren't done yet. This means at least 8 instances of attrition beyond expected departures, likely more.
Don't want to speculate as to given players, I do wish the NCAA would take this up among all the serious issues they have. It seems so clear that this could easily be solved to the advantage of coaches and players by instituting a per year recruiting cap. 25 period (including transfers in). They each get 5 years to complete, total.
Removes the necessity of the "firm handshakes", allows players to move on to their advantage but to continue with the school they signed with as well when desired. And I think some recent coaching hires suggest the athletic departments can afford to carry a few more scholarships.
December 8th, 2021 at 11:58 AM ^
Yeah it’s going to be interesting. I think the NCAA really screwed things up by allowing everyone a “free Covid year” but only allowing more than 85 scholarships for one year. Would have made sense to make it a transition period. 90 in 2022, 88 in 2023, back to normal in 2024.
December 8th, 2021 at 12:18 PM ^
Guys we are gonna get some attrition through the portal. It's a guarantee, and the coaches are recruiting for it. Some older guys got passed up by younger guys and they don't see a way to playing time so they will leave.
December 8th, 2021 at 2:09 PM ^
I'd imagine they'll get more serious consideration from better programs as well after this run.
December 8th, 2021 at 12:57 PM ^
"Would have made sense..." Weird that the NCAA didn't go w/ that option...
December 8th, 2021 at 1:56 PM ^
Yeah, that makes WAY too much sense for the NCAA to wrap their brains around it. You'll have to try (less) hard.
December 8th, 2021 at 1:59 PM ^
I'd like to wait until a couple weeks after the CFP championship to determine how the transfer portal shakes out. To me, that soon will be as big of a gold mine as HS recruiting in the fact that players are already accustomed to college life and the demands of college football. Of course not everyone pans out or becomes a star but Michigan could be a major player in what is basically free agency along with the lure of NIL $$.
December 8th, 2021 at 11:59 AM ^
While I agree with your sentiment, I think that the hard number (85) is tied to Title IX and there are nuances around that subject that make it challenging to make changes.
December 8th, 2021 at 12:42 PM ^
One of the dumber (and that's saying a lot) things about the NCAA is their refusal to make football exempt from Title IX.
December 8th, 2021 at 12:57 PM ^
Title IX is not an NCAA thing. It's a civil rights law. The NCAA sucks ass, but this isn't their choice. It's also not wrong.
December 8th, 2021 at 2:29 PM ^
That's a strong last name.
December 8th, 2021 at 5:44 PM ^
I know it's going to be called sexist but I think it would be logical for the sport that produces the revenue to support all the non-revenue sports a few concessions that allow that to continue.
December 8th, 2021 at 11:35 PM ^
But not that many schools even turn a profit from football. Schools like Eastern lose money. I could be misremembering but I think most FBS schools lose money, or at least barely break even or turn a profit. Michigan is not the norm.
December 9th, 2021 at 11:23 AM ^
Good point.
December 8th, 2021 at 1:06 PM ^
How does one just exempt themselves from federal law?
December 8th, 2021 at 1:17 PM ^
“I… declare…
BANKRUPTCY!!!”
December 8th, 2021 at 2:18 PM ^
Which is, in fact, an attempt to exercise a specific set of laws law, not an exemption from it.
December 8th, 2021 at 2:29 PM ^
Move to the Bahamas?
December 8th, 2021 at 6:03 PM ^
Go back to sleep
December 8th, 2021 at 2:10 PM ^
Nothing in Title IX requires exacting male/female scholarship number equality, especially when dealing with the ripple effects of an extraordinary event like COVID.
December 8th, 2021 at 2:54 PM ^
It's a framework, and one that can be a solid one to protect rights. How it's interpreted and enforced is the issue. There could be a committee of experts who issue some sort of guideline that the government could use for interpretation.
Someone like Carol Hutchins would be invaluable on that kind of committee, because she knows first-hand what it means for athletes to have equal opportunity. She was the lead plaintiff in a suit against MSU while she was a member of their basketball team, though I think that was before Title IX was synonymous with athletics.
It's an excellent framework for protection, but it's not a perfect one. A football exemption makes a lot of sense, and has been proposed ever since Title IX became an important part of the athletic landscape in the early 1980s, but it's far too specific a concept to be included in the framework.
Now that the NCAA is in serious trouble, something has to step into the leadership void. Soon enough, scholarships for football will no longer be a thing at major universities, because NIL money will be controlled by the universities to an extent. For many reasons, this concerns me, though Michigan will always be one of the "haves". The question is how many "haves" can there be, and will major college football be the same without the have-nots.
December 8th, 2021 at 12:00 PM ^
I would have to guess that some of the defensive backs you haven't heard a peep from will probably be the biggest attrition spot. We'll have a lot of returning starters and backups that played last (this) year. After the 3 rotating starters of Green/Turner/Gray, usually the first guy I saw come in was McBurrows who was a true frosh. Note that the staff is basically recruiting an entirely new secondary (2 CB's and one S committed, going after another S). Not saying they will be given handshakes, but I'm sure some of them want to play and have better opportunity elsewhere.
December 8th, 2021 at 12:08 PM ^
There are a fair number of guys behind someone on the depth chart that is their class or below them. We are going to lose some of those guys
December 8th, 2021 at 12:16 PM ^
Yes we have a glut of guys in the secondary that haven’t played much and look to be passed by younger players so I think we will need to see like 5 or 6 DBs leave in order to make the numbers work.
December 8th, 2021 at 12:29 PM ^
I wouldn’t be shocked if the Greens were a package deal again
December 8th, 2021 at 12:01 PM ^
I've always like the hard cap each year (21, 22, 23, 24, 25, whatever the schools/NCAA agree upon) and thats all you can take. Makes coaches be more honest, and the players more honest to hold their spots and make their decisions as each school can only have some many signees.
The new transfer rules make this tougher, but if you keep that rule, and can only get a player to transfer that fills one of those spots from the year they graduated, I think it would make this mass exodus when a coach leaves more under control. So if a player signed in '19, he could only transfer to another program that doesn't have 25 (or whatever the number is) scholarship players still on the team from that year.
December 8th, 2021 at 12:10 PM ^
December 8th, 2021 at 12:19 PM ^
It’ll work itself out.
December 8th, 2021 at 12:25 PM ^
If you raise enough money via NIL to cover your tuition and board, do you even need a scholarship?
December 8th, 2021 at 1:08 PM ^
Nope. This is one of the most interesting things to me about NIL. If Alabama is full but a 5-star QB or transfer wants to come, there's no reason they can't pay their own way for a semester or two as a "walk-on." If you're making $1,000,000 a year in NIL, you can afford $50,000 for tuition and room and board and whatnot.
I'm not sure how much it will happen in practice, but it could potentially wipe out the whole idea of scholarship limits. It would be a pretty shrewd move to put all high-level NIL guys in walk-on status and use scholarships on 3-star and 4-star guys who might not have as much of a media following, etc.
December 8th, 2021 at 1:11 PM ^
This is absurdly brilliant. NIL contracts as a way to free up the athletes from the scholarship restrictions. The guys who are "playing school" still get their academics taken care of.
December 8th, 2021 at 2:52 PM ^
No, it's disgusting. And hardly likely to level the playing field. So many unintended consequences now coming home to roost. And why people think that selling cars or t-shirts is sexy is quite beyond me; a Dickensian and nightmarish race to the bottom of the over-commercialized cesspool in a world where everyone and thing is for sale, if you ask me.
It gets us Romans our spectacle, though.
December 8th, 2021 at 3:07 PM ^
It's simply the natural evolution of major college football. It's a billion-dollar business, and finding athletes who can play at this level and train, take the punishment, excel, is vital to maintaining a credible product.
These athletes are mostly students in name only. For a long time now, we've turned a blind eye to the pretense that major college football is amateur sport. NIL money is forcing us to look at it in a harsher light.
It seems wrong to demand an excellent product on the field and not pay the athletes. I understand the scholarship argument, but how long has it been since college football players could pursue an education the way "regular" students can?
It wasn't that long ago that Harbaugh himself wrote an infamous letter complaining that Bo wouldn't let him major in his preferred subject, and that's essentially why he loved Stanford.
Now there are major-college football athletes who spend every spare moment studying and make the most of their scholarship. We don't want to eliminate that opportunity. But it is rare.
For non-revenue sports, however, it's still a great model. Look at Meghan Beaubien, entering her fifth year on the Michigan softball team. She's now a graduate student in biomedical engineering. That's great, isn't it?
December 8th, 2021 at 1:18 PM ^
Awesome point.
December 8th, 2021 at 1:25 PM ^
Oh man, can't even wrap my mind around that. Could already be happening. What is the counter for a conference that wants to adhere to the notion of some sort of competitive balance?
December 8th, 2021 at 1:42 PM ^
There’s a hard constraint here that makes me not too worried about it: only 11 guys can be on the field at once.
Studs won’t go to Alabama to be the fifth QB on the depth chart. Even if they carry 200 dudes on their team.
December 8th, 2021 at 1:46 PM ^
So, you're saying Quinn Ewers is going to Alabama?
December 8th, 2021 at 2:14 PM ^
Visionary comment. Logged in to upvote.
I can see a P5 NIL cap in this scenario to maintain some semblance of competitive parity.
December 8th, 2021 at 2:24 PM ^
I don't know how you "cap" NIL without getting yourself back into anti-trust problems.
December 8th, 2021 at 2:17 PM ^
Won't happen. The million-dollar NIL five star QB will never want to feel like he is not a feature guy in the class, as would be the message if he is not offered a scholarship. He can just go to OSU, LSU, USC, Clemson, etc. as the 'crown jewel' of their class (with the full ride and NIL $$$).
December 8th, 2021 at 2:21 PM ^
I don't believe NIL will be allowed to NOT count a player against scholarship limits
December 8th, 2021 at 2:37 PM ^
How could they stop it? If a guy agrees to come play as a walk-on, then that's his prerogative. Like someone said above, that will never happen with five-star studs, though, for ego and competition reasons
December 8th, 2021 at 2:38 PM ^
I don't see it happening in reality. But, if they're NOT receiving a scholarship, how could the NCAA count them as a scholarship player for the limits? Doesn't make sense.
(I know there are caveats i.e. where a player from another sport also plays football, etc, but that's not the case in this hypothetical)
December 8th, 2021 at 12:34 PM ^
May lose a guy or two from the bottom of the this recruiting class. Seems to happen every year. When a couple of guys at your same position ranked much higher than you commit in the same class, you start to see the writing on the wall that ever getting on the field will be difficult.
December 8th, 2021 at 1:26 PM ^
I think there will be a couple of guys who walk with a degree, maybe get "poached" by other programs promising more playing time, guys not coming in with the class, etc. You always have to be recruiting (see Worthy last year), and I think the team can play around with the math a bit to get under the total if necessary. But I don't have to look too deep into the depth chart and see some guys moving on.
December 8th, 2021 at 1:41 PM ^
Whatever became of Seldan???,never noticed him on field
December 8th, 2021 at 2:14 PM ^
Was always small, but Covid I think it was got him pretty good last year IIRC so the weight that he needed to add already to his smaller frame was lost and so he's on his way back. I really liked him out of high school and would love to see his height be a non issue like it seemed to be in high school even going against the best at camps/UA All American game.
December 8th, 2021 at 2:23 PM ^
Great question about Seldon. His father keeps tweeting good things about Michigan so maybe he has had an injury. The kid was a baller, despite his size.
December 8th, 2021 at 1:45 PM ^
Could NIL come into play to backdoor some scholarships without so many firm handshakes?
December 8th, 2021 at 2:27 PM ^
I thought they were giving some leeway due to the Covid-shirts for the next few years? Or I could be wrong
December 8th, 2021 at 2:42 PM ^
You are. It’s back to 85 next year.