USA Today: Michigan One of the "Losers" on Signing Day; WTH?
What the hell am I missing here? It seems like everybody is punishing us simply because we had a small class.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/recruiting/2015/02/04/colleg…
In three weeks, Harbaugh flipped guys from Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, UConn and whatever else I'm missing. He flipped the No. 4 QB in the class. He got four-stars that Florida, Alabama, FSU, Arkansas and ND wanted. How does that make us a "loser"?
February 5th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 10:59 AM ^
I agree we 'lost out' on weber and clark, but the others were either last second names that popped up or guys that we never had a legit shot with (i.e. Marshall)...
We did fine
February 5th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
Double Post
February 5th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
It's USA Today, fergodsakes. It's a dumbed-down newspaper for old people who still read newspapers.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:48 AM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 11:13 AM ^
I'm considering the source and I'm considering an ad hominem attack by you that has no relevance because no real argument is cited.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:33 AM ^
but if their focus is on numbers, we'll never quite match up with oversigners. So... meh.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:33 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 5th, 2015 at 10:33 AM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 10:33 AM ^
This does sound (and read really - I am sorry I read it too) like a nice little troll job by USA today, removing all the nuance from everything and basing it on "lack of time" and "no Weber" without really talking about what did in fact get accomplished given the circumstances. A class that was salvaged all the way up to being in the top quarter of Division I classes, still procuring some good players at that? If that's what we can do with a "lack of time", I am eager to see a full cycle. One of the winners? Maybe not, but not a "loser" when you look at this three-dimensionally.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:50 AM ^
reference to the length of time JH had to recruit-"less than two months". He had 36 days, part of which was in the dead period. I am used to shabby journalism.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:35 AM ^
Fuck the sec, fuck osu.
UM started the day in the 71st position (according to 247) and finished at 35th or so. That's some good recruiting and the next class with as many recruits was Pitt at 62. I said it yesterday and I'll say it again, UM did very well.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
we can be considered a "loser" because we lost out on Weber and Marshall
February 5th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^
was a bigger "loss" than Weber. Higdon is a very nice consolation prize there. Considering we never really were getting Marshall anyway I'd say we didn't really lose on anything.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^
in this class is not the loss of stars, its the addition of the staff that will develop not only them but also the players already in the stable. This staff has extensive NFL experience to along with their college experience, so player development will not be the problem it has been in the recent past.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:17 AM ^
They've got good talent already there plus the ability to coach up less highly ranked guys. For once I didn't privately curse at an 18 year old who chose somewhere else. Weber, Marshall, and Jefferson didn't hardly move the needle for me. Maybe it's me getting older, though.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
We missed out on most of our top targets, including several former commits. I'm personally fine with the job Harbaugh did given the cicrumstances, but media types probably had unrealistic expectations.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^
Sports Illustrated put Michigan in the loser column as well.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/02/04/national-signing-day-winn…
Let's be honest: We won't know if we're a "winner" or "loser" for another 2-3 years when this class develops and shakes out. So I take these recaps with a grain of salt just like the NFL draft grades that come out one day after that's all said and done.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^
It's USA Today. Who cares?
There's probably an unfair comparison between Urban Meyer's 2012 transitional class and JH's 2015 class. Just ignore that Meyer had at least two (2) additional months of recruiting more than Harbaugh.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
Let's not forget that OSU was allowed to have two full-time coaching staffs at that time--Fickell was coaching and Urban could focus on recruiting 100%. NCAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
I'm not saying this to imply that it totally excuses Harbaugh (and I'm not saying that to imply that Harbaugh needs excusing), but just that there are a ton of other factors at play.
All things considered, I'm satisfied with this year's class.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^
What the hell did the media/many UM fans expect? Did they think Harbaugh was gonna walk into a recruit's home and just wave his wand?
February 5th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
Yes.
Anybody who assumed that Marshall and Smith weren't huge longshots was deluding themselves, and they would have been longshots even if JH had two more months to recruit. Clark is somewhat of a goofball, Weber reversed his Tuesday night decision to flip because of Higdon's commitment, and Van Jefferson was a very late entry into the staff's focus.
Relative to what should have been expectations grounded in reality, Harbaugh and staff did fine.
If I were Harbaugh, I'd take the articles by USA Today and SI print them out at a large size and tape them to every weightlifting station in the weight room and to every locker next fall just so the incoming recruits know that people think they suck.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^
FWIW this is not my sentiment. I think Harbaugh's staff did a good job given the situation. But, our major signing day targets were Weber, Clark, Marshall, Jefferson, and Wheatley Jr. When I say major, these are the 4-5 star guys. We obviously signed some 3-star guys too. But, of our major targets we missed on all but one and his dad is our coach. So, from the outside looking in I can see their point. Upon closer review I don't think UM is a loser, but I get it.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
They simply don't take the time and effort to really look at the details. They do a quick glance of high level numbers and an article is produced.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^
In the interest of full disclosure (even in the danger of getting flogged on this forum): I used to work at USA TODAY in the sports department (my boss was an ex-Daily editor who initially wrote "Go Blue!" when he responded to my CV/resume for that gig). In fact, at one point there were quite a few ex-Michigan Daily writers/editors employed by the paper. If I were still there, I probably would have had to publish this article since I used to work with the college sports desk.
The National sports media won't delve deep into this stuff--they only write what they can see. Like a few others have mentioned, they won't think about what the future may hold. Only that "Michigan lost out on Clark and Marshall...UCLA grabbed a whole bunch of highly-ranked players...etc." It's very superficial and I'm not a big fan of it either. But like stated before: It's all clickbait to rile up the fanbases. We know better--Harbaugh can develop these guys to play like studs. That's all there is to it.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 5th, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^
Didn't read the article, but it's probably crap like the OP mentioned. Sure M didn't get all the recruits, butHarbaugh did one hell of a job considering the time constraints.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
Don't take this too seriously. From a small picture standpoint we were one of the "losers" yesterday. We had a small class and even our average star rating was below what we normally see at Michigan. We only have one consensus top 100 recruit. And we landed none of the biggest recruits we were competing for, including a guy who most thought we would get. The guys premise is completely reasonable viewing signing day from this point of view.
From a big picture standpoint it's hard to see it as a lost day considering all the factors working against us. We did flip guys that other schools wanted. We did fill our limited numbers with guys that weren't complete flyers. And we knowingly were sacrificing part of this class to land Harbaugh, a sacrafice every single person in college football would have made. Obviously we hope that the talent we did bring in plays above their recruiting rankings and are solid contributors over the next five years.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 5th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^
I didn't say it wasn't due to availability. But there is a reason that class size factors into these evaluations at all, the more bullets in the chamber, the more likely you'll have productive seniors four and five years from now. But, even considering the small class, our star rating isn't at Michigan standards. If it were a top 5 or 10 class by average star rating, nobody would be calling us "signing day losers."
Again, that's not to say that extenuating circumstances don't make it silly to call the day a loss in the big picture. But when writing articles about the small picture, i.e., what do respective classes look like today, it's not unreasonably to say we were a "loser" on the day.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
-Jabrill Peppers 5 Star (#2 overall player in nation)
- Ty Isaac 5 Star (#5 all-purpose RB in nation)
-Drake Harris High 4 Star (#7 WR nationally)
-Lawrence Marshall High 4 Star (#9 WDE nationally)
-Ian Bunting 4 Star (#11 TE nationally)
-Juwann Bushell-Beatty 4 Star (#23 OT nationally)
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 5th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
...just got it wrong. One possible theory: one of their "reporters" attended JH's presser and had his/her vision compromised by a shot of pickle juice to the eye.
Seriously though, it's USF-ingA Today.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 5th, 2015 at 10:50 AM ^
They always have to have "winners" and "losers" - not because it's bonafide journalism, but because it creates controversy which gets clicks. The concept of winners and losers in recruiting on NSD has no relevance at all. And I would say that even if we had the #1 class rating-wise. The ONLY thing that matters is what do those players develop into 3 and 4 years down the road. How many of them became all-conference or All-American, how many graduated, how many were drafted into the NFL, and how many titles did they win.
To me, almost every team without exception, only gains on NSD. They get new players that can help them in some way. Michigan got a small but class of great young men who came here to accomplish great things.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^
I wish there was a way to listen to Wojo without hearing his stupid ass.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 5th, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^
How do you think he feels? From what I hear, when your ass talks it can lead to big problems. It's amusing when it starts off, but then things can go awry:
(I kid WH, of course. I know he's talking about Caputo's stupid ass. Caputo may, in fact, be the guy Burroughs wrote about.)
February 5th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^
One of the reasons we have small classes is that our players graduate. If every freshman redshirted and everone graduates that averages only 17 recruits per year. If nobody redshirts and everyone graduates that is still about 21 per class. The only way to get to 25-30 is for a lot of players to not graduate from your school, either to leave school or to transfer.
February 5th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 5th, 2015 at 10:56 AM ^
about how Harbaugh's recruiting class only proves he needs more time. In a seperate article the FREEP takes a positive spin on MSU's recruiting class that could only manage to finish 22nd after back to back top five finishes. Why doesn't the FREEP focus on the fact that 22nd is about the best MSU can and will ever do instead of Michigan only a few spots back in the 30's being considered a failure by some! Michigan ended up with 6 four star prospects according to 247 sports compared to 5 by MSU. But one team is perceived as expanding their brand to land national recruits while the other just needs more time. Harbaugh and staff did a tremendous job in the limited time he had should have been the focus. Shit, the guy didn't even know who the top recruits where just 6 weeks ago. One thing is for sure, next year Michigan will be right back where it belongs well ahead of Sparty in the recruiting scene. Lets just see what spin the FREEP decides to put on it then.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 5th, 2015 at 10:56 AM ^
What happened to the junior college kicker and the Stanford U grad transfer?
February 5th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
Get your level of perspective straight. From an abstract, non-contextualized perspective based merely on # of recruits and # of stars, Michigan is a comparative loser. From a contextualized perpsective, taking into account that Michigan could only have a small class, and is coming off a coaching change, Michigan is less of of a loser (I would say we are more neutral - we sort of broke even).
Ok, now that that lens and look at the media. When you look at de-contesxulalized media such as USA Today, you get just what you expect. When you look at more contextualized media, such as 247, you get what you expect. So stop bitching. Basically operator-error is at fault here.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^
The way I read it, Myerberg comes to the conclusion that we are in the "loser" category because, essentialy, we were not able to flip Mike Weber. Myerberg essentially ignored the rest of the 3 and 4 star players that make up the class.....
ESPN has us ranked 40th, 247 has us 38th, Rivals has us at 49, and Scout at 27.
I think an average score of 38.5 does not = "loser". It is respectable, especially considering the class is small and the fact that Harbaugh and co. had to scramble. Additionally, Harbaugh was able to get additional solid recruits in areas of need, i.e. QB.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
February 5th, 2015 at 11:09 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 5th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
Why does that opinion matter so much to you?
That's the real curiousity.
Does USA Today's opinion matter one iota on what is going to unfold on this team next year? With this class the next 4 years? No.
Should we be in a circle fapping to USA Today if they said "heckuva job Brownie!" to UM Football.
February 5th, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^
Ranked #38 with 14 kids is more then solid. Anyways these kids are not gonna make much of a difference in our turnaround this upcoming season, Peppers being healthy and a QB stepping up is gonna make all the difference.