List of top-50 MI recruits and their schools
The Freep just posted the top-50 recruits in the state and where they are going to college. After Campbell, MSU seemed to have a run on the in-state talent, though read into that what you will.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090129/HSS/90129069/1238
That said, what do people think of RR's in-state recruiting. Sure, UM can get virtually any big-name kid in MI that it wants now, but do you think that D'Antonio's continued inroads with the local coaches may erode this ability later on? I'm still of the belief that RR maintains good relationships with local pipelines like Cass Tech, but I'm also worried that the rest of the state may be overlooked for the sake of other states.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:54 PM ^
MSU has this state on lock down. Nothing we can do about it. Our dominance over State has ended, tables turned, etc.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:00 PM ^
They have turned the corner
January 29th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
Listen, they can build on this!
January 29th, 2009 at 4:04 PM ^
Am I the only one who is growing tired of the immediate hyperbolic, sarcastic reply to every thoughtful question that might hint of something negative about UM or RR? It seems to be something of a contest on this board. It often sets the tone for the rest of the thread, making the original post meaningless. People who question the system are often the ones who help keep it in check. A thoughtful question does not automatically mean bandwagon fan or troll or whatever.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
Paging the WLA... somebody isn't having any fun!
January 29th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^
I think he was just mocking the Press's meme, not the poster.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:33 PM ^
so many ways you can tell people the sky isn't falling just because MSU picked up more in-state recruits this season. This question has repeatedly been asked since late spring.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^
Because this is the internet, where everybody thinks they are a comedian.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:07 PM ^
completely agree with you here....
January 29th, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
Well if DREW SHARP agrees...
January 29th, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^
Don't forget a return to glory!
My point was that it is interesting to see MSU make some inroads with local recruits. Sure, the Big Otter was the top dog in the class, but having lived in the central part of the state for a few years, I think MSU has a much stronger pull with center->west talent than they had in years past. Sure, Grady never panned out from GR, but there is still a great deal of talent on that side, and I presume that RR is still working his feelers out there in order to get the best talent possible.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:56 PM ^
Most of MSU offensive commits don't fit Michigan's new offensive philosophy. Chris Norman would have been a great LB pickup, but we landed 4 LBs in the '08 class and had the coaching change, so Dantonio took advantage and grabbed a great prospect. Other than missing out on Norman, we picked out the prospects we needed. The '10 recruiting class will be more interesting with all the great prospects that MSU and UM both covet such as Gardner, Bolden, White, Hill, Mathis, and Gholston.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:01 PM ^
the media won't be saying dick once we get all the 2010 talent.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:04 PM ^
If you look at the top 15 players those are really the only kids we'd go after and we landed the kids that fit our system. Not to mention Campbell is light years ahead of everyone else on that list. Treadwell's dad coaches at MSU so he was never even targeted. I think we did just fine with instate recruiting. Norman is really the only big setback.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:00 PM ^
RR is still new to the state and its been a slow go so far. He has offered several high school juniors so the trend may be reversing.
RR has a certain type of offensive player(s) that fit his "system" Maybe most Michigan high school don't run the spread option. So RR isn't finding the players he needs in Michigan.....or maybe RR just thinks most Michigan kids suck and he'll offer 20 kids from Florida.
So far RR hasn't even sniffed West Michigan for players. Yes he did offer AJ Westendorp a "walkon" role. Remember 6 of the 7 state champions came from West Michigan. So there is talent there.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
Winning a state title and having Big Ten talent are totally different. Cass Tech didn't sniff a title, but are loaded with talent. Take a look at that list again - did Sparty sign a lot of West Michigan talent? No, Western and Central did. I played high school football in GR, and they have good "teams" but they don't have the same individual talent that the east side has.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:06 PM ^
did you play?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:35 PM ^
Forest Hills Northern. You're a Ram, are you not?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:58 PM ^
What year did you graduate? I went to FHN from 01-05
January 29th, 2009 at 5:41 PM ^
I graduated in 2002. You prob know my little bro, Ryan Schmuldt.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:58 PM ^
Really? I played at Forest Hills Central.
Small world.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:11 PM ^
Pride before the fall has taken taken fruition...yawn!
No one on that list I would want but Norman.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:07 PM ^
MSU consistently beats UM in football with their recruits, this is all meaningless. UM will recruit those in state kids who fit the program. And as long as UM gets the players they need and the team wins (hopefully they'll start to win) I could care less if no one from MI goes to U of M.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:23 PM ^
The Freep has been especially bad this year. Rosenberg wrote a bunch of crap about RR. Every decommit was taken as the end of the program. Meanwhile, they fawned over Dantonio's in-state recruiting, and practically foretold State's future dominance. When Michigan replaced a decommit with another highly regarded recruit the headline was much smaller. They screamed MSU's in-state success from the ramparts, but rarely, if ever, mentioned how the two schools stack up against each other nationally.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:36 PM ^
The Freep's sports coverage has always been abysmal - when Sharp and Rosenberg are your top dogs, what would you expect. I think the reason the Freep focuses so heavily on MSU is that it pushes clicks and moves print, because the MSU fans love to spout off about how they are "building something" in EL while also taking digs at anything UM. Plus, the comments section for some of these articles may be the bastion of some of the least-informed "fans" I've ever read. I mean, more intellectual conversations go on in your average 4chan forum than most UM/MSU pieces at the Freep.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:34 PM ^
RichRod is really screwing it up. Damn him for focusing on recruiting in those crappy states like Florida and Texas and the such. How are we supposed to win with 4 and 5 star OUT OF STATE talent??
January 29th, 2009 at 4:38 PM ^
Who cares what state the talent comes from? If State wants some moral victory from picking people up from Michigan, have at it. If our class comes in better than theirs, though the kids came from everywhere in the country, our class is still better.
Recruiting is based on merit - I don't give 2 shits where they come from. As long as RR gets the best talent available to him, I don't care if all 25 kids come from Wasilla, Alaska.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:52 PM ^
I totally agree with your point that it shouldn't matter where the best players come from, but it is also clear that Michigan does produce some top-notch kids every year. For so long, UM had its pick of in-state talent (for the most part) for a variety of reasons (tradition, winning, inept MSU coaches, etc.), but there are people around today who remember when MSU could beat UM for the top talent on a somewhat-consistent basis. And as we've seen, the best teams (USC, Florida, Texas, etc.) usually recruit really well in-state first, since it is harder to nab kids out of your backyard. For as much success as UM has had recruiting in places in Florida and California, for example, they still whiff far more than they score going against the big in-state schools.
So I guess my point is that while I don't see the pipeline of in-state talent drying up, I just wonder if people are concerned that RR might be focusing too much outside and that one year, this oversight might allow MSU to snag some good kids down the line. Based on the responses, the answer is an emphatic no.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:11 PM ^
because 70-80% of the top talent in the country is in those three states. There was a map recently that showed where the top talent lived for this recruiting season and Florida was No 1, followed by Texas, then Cali, and then smatterings in the SE. There were a few in OH, PA and Michigan, but 90% was south of the Mason-Dixon line or in Cali. Locking down the state would not help the program return to dominance, all it would do is give the perception that we "own" the state in recruiting.
Just 'cause you own something doesn't mean it's worth much. It's only worth something when you have it and everybody else wants it. When's the last time Florida was "stealing" our recruits? USC got Nick Perry and maybe there are a few others, but signing more players doesn't make it better just because they are from Michigan.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^
Here is the top 100 kids according to Rivals:
http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewrank.asp?SID=880&Year=2009&ra_key=1936
Sure, there are a good number of kids from Florida, Texas, and California, but that also makes sense - those are three of the most populous states in America. Yet, there are also a fair number of top recruits from LA, MD, AL, and MS, amongst a smattering of other states. And for many of these kids, they are early targets of the local schools and, more often than not, they sign with those schools. So if it is true that most of the top players come from these three states, and many of them sign with the local schools, it is imperative that UM follow suit and keep everyone "good" local.
I never said, though, that UM needs to "lock down" this state. Right now, UM gets the recruits it wants in state, and that is how it should be. "Locking down" a state is something fans say because it sounds somewhat cool and makes it seem like only in-state kids matter. Trust me, if UM relied on MI talent to win, they'd be CMU or WMU. Sure, some kids leave, and that is fine. My question, though, was if people were concerned that MSU might be making inroads with some of the typical feeder schools in the state, so that maybe next time a Big Otter-type goes to MSU instead of UM. UM will always recruit well nationally, but you also don't want to forsake your backyard because every once and a while you might get a good harvest.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:18 PM ^
I think the "emphatic no" will be demonstrated this next year with the in-state talent being substantially better than this past year's (which really wasn't very good). We pulled the one really highly rated guy instate this year. Next year there will probably more top-100 types in-state. I suspect those guys will either be signing with Michigan, or they will be signing with a USC, Ohio State, or other power program. It'd be an upset if any of them ended up with MSU unless it's a QB when UM and OSU grabbed more highly rated guys already in the class.
Though out of state, Barrent was a nice piece of scouting by MSU's people though, they got him early and then he rocketed up the charts and it appears he's sticking with them. I don't think he'd have been a fit for our line and its focus on mobility over size (he's going to be monstrous from what everyone seems to think), but he would have been a fit for a ton of other programs.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:39 PM ^
Just get the talent - wherever it is. If it's in Michigan, that's just an added bonus in that UM will have an upper hand vs. ND, USC, LSU, etc. State has not and will not for the foreseeable future be a threat to pick up elite talent, no matter where it is.
And as a counterpoint, our out of state efforts have produced far more promising results than anything instate could provide. Just look at FL. You can't tell me with a straight face that you would rather open up or expand any pipeline in MI vs. Pahokee. I think it's even more reamarkable that UM can open up solid pipelines all over while still managing to grab elite talent here in MI. We have our hands in a lot of different places and that is far better than placing our hopes in-state.
Use the stock portfolio analogy. We need to invest in every area of the country rather just one because the Freep says so. Otherwise, MI could have an off year (like investing in the financial sector in mid-2008...) and produce virtually nothing, and we will get the lion's share of scraps. No thanks. I'd rather have a diverse set of options that we can hit up when we need to.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:49 PM ^
I'm not disagreeing with you that we need to diversify to succeed, and that RR's inroads in Florida is great. My whole point was to question whether or not people should be concerned that MSU is making some hay in the state and if RR is still maintaining the school's ties to local feeders. What I was concerned about is that UM fans will keep saying "Oh yeah, we totally can nab player X, even though MSU is going after him. Heck, we're UM and they are MSU. Wha... he just signed an LOI with MSU!?! Wha' happened?!?"
Using your portfolio analogy, UM has invested across the nation for years, from New York to California, and has reaped some great returns. But at the same time, you don't want to forget to keep a constant stream of money into your bedrock investments, since those consistent returns, while not glamorous, will allow you to continue to take chances in other fields with some security.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^
the original question, what we're doing isn't really any different than what we've done in recent years. We never try to lock down all the talent in Michigan, because there isn't enough to make us elite. If there is a capable 4-star like Dion Sims, we don't always offer just to be sure he doesn't go anywhere else.
We target the players that fit best, which is usually something like 7-10 guys from Michigan and we usually land 6-9 of them.
Look at that SI study of recruiting over the last 5 years.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/01/20/recrui…
We average 23.1% of our recruits from in-state and 38% from within 200 miles of campus.
Look at our class this year (assume we get 25):
4 out of 25= 16% in-state. add another 4 within 200 miles (the IL and OH guys) and thats 32%. Which puts us about one or two guys off our five year average.
Not a big deal.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:58 PM ^
For the record, none of the Illinois nor Ohio guys live within 200 miles of campus. Justin Turner is only 208, though, so we could probably count him.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:01 PM ^
said border. which puts all the OH and IL guys within range.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:08 PM ^
After reading that article, I must say, "We cannot compete, we cannot compete, we cannot compete...". I hand my worthiness to the mighty Dantonio.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:03 PM ^
Sparty will only get more obnoxious about their instate recruiting "domination" next year as Michigan's top player in 2010, William Gholston, is an MSU lock.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:14 PM ^
William Gholston that came to the Northwestern game (his third or fourth this season) on Saturday and talked to our new D coordinator? and the guy that was supposed to commit to MSU this week but didn't?
January 29th, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^
Since he goes to Southeastern, a place where state is doing well at, is more than likely going there.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
him a heavy lean, and I don't think the basketball games mean all that much. But look at what happened with Lamarr Woodley and what almost happened with William Campbell between about this time and signing day in years past.
FWIW I wouldn't call anyone a lock until the August of their senior year.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:24 PM ^
Yeah, lock might be a stretch, but heavy lean is not. I would expect him Green.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:14 PM ^
i betcha that kid from holland chrisitan is going to be reeeal good for nodak state