Recruiting adds and the numbers game

Submitted by Dunder on December 8th, 2021 at 11:50 AM

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. 

MGoBoard
Football

TK

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. 

Joined: 09/23/2014

MGoPoints: 18078

Blau

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 $$. 

Joined: 01/23/2014

MGoPoints: 35254

mjv

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. 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 3656

Solecismic

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.

Joined: 11/27/2016

MGoPoints: 7205

LeCheezus

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.  

Joined: 06/11/2017

MGoPoints: 9855

Rickett88

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.

Joined: 08/21/2012

MGoPoints: 10566

Magnus

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. 

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166007

MGlobules

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. 

Joined: 11/17/2008

MGoPoints: 47691

Solecismic

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?

Joined: 11/27/2016

MGoPoints: 7205

Ghost of Fritz…

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 $$$). 

Joined: 10/04/2014

MGoPoints: 23880

IndyBlue

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)

Joined: 09/13/2008

MGoPoints: 4585

rc15

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.

Joined: 01/23/2015

MGoPoints: 12103

bronxblue

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.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171780

GoBlue1530

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. 

Joined: 12/31/2018

MGoPoints: 3140