"Michigan isn't in this situation because it's evil or untrustworthy, but rather because it's been disorganized and sloppy"
Which would appear to be entirely unacceptable, especially given the depth and breadth of the recruiting staff JH has assembled since his hiring. I also find it hard to believe that there isn't any process in place to maintain regular contact with all offered recruits, let alone verbally committed recruits.
Whatever. Unfortunately M can't comment on these situations, so everyone is left to evaluate what transpired based entirely upon what one party has to say. It does seem odd that both of these kids suggest they were blindsided, but neither took an official visit to M either, did they? If not, why not? (I do recall that Swenson was planning an official in mid-January, but why not earlier?)
I do hope that future verbals are restricted to kids the staff is certain about, although I'm not sure what can be done if a kid announces he's "committed" after the coaches have told him to hold off on doing so (Brian mentioned in a previous post this as a scenario that has happened this year).
Regardless, it's an ugly look, and certainly gives some ammunition for competing schools to use going forward. Sure doesn't seem like it should be terribly difficult to keep all recruits in the loop as to where they stand on the coaches board. They don't have a problem letting kids know where they stand on the depth chart once they're enrolled.
I'm sure the staff has a clear idea of who's returning and who's not, and are recruiting with the benefit of that knowledge. Nor do I want to suggest that players are being driven out. If a kid literally sees the “writing on the wall” (his name at the bottom of Harbaugh's posted depth chart in the locker room), and wants to actually play organized football before his eligibility expires, then transferring out is their only real option.
I'm just pointing out that there's gonna be a lot of attrition between now and next fall – I won't be surprised if that includes a few guys that are currently assumed to be returning contributors next year. As several others have suggested here, we'd better get used to it. If Michigan wants to compete on the highest levels, roster management is going to be a big part of that going forward. At least the staff apparently makes it crystal clear as to where everyone stands within the parameters of the highly competitive culture they're creating. Harbaugh seems like a straight shooter to a fault - I highly doubt any impending transfers/unrenewed 5ths are being blindsided. Hopefully the same is true of the lower ranked recruits in this class.
Managing recruits isn't the only thing with a Darwinian feel. If this class does indeed reach 27, no less than 11 current scholarship players will be moving on – more if additional grad transfers are accepted as well. Scanning the depth chart leads me to believe that there's likely to be several recent contributors and/or underclassmen pushed out via medicals or early transfers.
As exciting as the best case scenarios are for the upcoming recruiting class, I can't help but feel bad about some of the inevitable attrition that this signals. Given his previous stance on similar issues that have occurred at other schools, I will also be curious to see Brian's take on this once it's all shaken out.
Great, great post! I still don't think Hoke's job is riding on 2014 though. I suspect that the inherited OL issues are understood throughout the athletic department and Brandon will exhibit patience through 2015, barring unmitigated disaster this fall. "Unmitigated Disaster" being defined as something like 4 wins.
I'm cautiously optimistic about all the changes, although I'm admittedly unclear about what sort of learning curve is involved (for the players) in switching from an under to an over front. Will the skills they've practiced and developed over the past three years translate, or does this sort of change involve starting from scratch?
Offensive changes will be happening too, but I'm guessing that will involve a great deal of simplification from Borges' schemes, so the offensive guys might have an easier time than the defense. I still think the OL will get blown up a bunch this year (just read this January '13 post from Seth again - sigh!).
Personally, I hope Hoke is retained at least through 2016. I think that year is likely to be special regardless of the coaching staff, and I'd like to see the guy who brought in the 2012 through 2014 classes have the opportunity to coach them as upperclassmen.
Really wish we could upvote. I'm one of the thousands of lurkers Brian referenced this week, and it appears to me that this thread is otherwise filled with those his post was addressing.
Good for MSU. M had a down year, but I'm much happier to see the Spartans win this game than the alternative. Go Blue!!!
Well, you and I agree on this one, and I think it would be great for both fans and revenue. When I was playing around with this idea, I was thinking that from a revenue standpoint, they would need to make sure that M & OSU were in the same division, as well as protecting as many traditional rivalries as possible within the divisions.
Then on Week 9, the weekend before Thanksgiving, they could not only schedule The Game, but as many other long-standing traditional rivalries as well - in any case, with a 16 team conference, make sure that all Week 9 games are in-division games, which guarantees that there would be major playoff implication for that weekend. (If they expand to 20 teams with four 5 team divisions, you could only manage 8 divisional matchups, but still major playoff implcations would apply).The semi-finals would then follow the next weekend, along with the balance of the BIG playing a relatively closely matched opponent.
With the BIG Championship following, Delaney and the AD's would be minting money for three solid weekends, and I'd guess that national interest in the conference would jump throughout the season as well. More viewers means more revenue.
Since it looks like we're heading to a super-conference anyway, I hope they do choose to do something like this. Accept the brave new world while maintaining as much tradition as possible.
Only real downside I see is that God only knows what Delaney might do if he has four divisions to name instead of just two.
This is essentially the same thing I was considering, although I only looked at a prospective 16-team league. In that scenario, Pod A would play all of Pod B, Pod C would play all of Pod D, and the each Pod would play half of another Pod. Rotate every two years to allow for home and home, and you shouldn't see more than four-year breaks between cross-division conference members.
The only real difference between this and what I was thinking, is that instead of having predetermined semi-final matchups, I'd rather see the four division winners seeded after week 9, and play 4 @ 1 and 3 @ 2, while the rest of the conference would also play a 10th game that same weekend (6@5, 8@7, 10@9, etc.).
As some others had mentioned in this thread, this might create problems for NCG chances - the BIG champ would have a hell of a time going undefeated. On the other hand, if the other super-conferences didn't follow suit, with four teams every year with an opportunity to play for the conference championship, the BIG would likely see a significant bump in both overall fan interest and TV revenue, as well as a certain appeal to recruits.
They could go to a a four-team conference playoff without expanding the current number of total games.
When the BIG announced the most recent expansion, it occurred to me that if they were to move to 16 teams (which seems inevitable), I'd like to see them realign into four 4-team divisions, play a 9-game regular season schedule, and then seed the four division winners in semi-final games for the conference championship in week 10. The balance of the conference would then also be seeded for the 10th week. (Seeding the non-division winners 5 v 6, 6 v 7, and so on would help sort out the relative strength of teams for secondary bowls).
Four divisions would go a long way towards eliminating concerns about extended absences of cross-divisional conference rivals. With the set-up above, there would only be three divisional games each year, and 7 cross-divisional games, including the 10th conference game. If they stay with just two divisions in a 16-team conference and go to 10 conference games, there would inevitably be at least some six-year breaks between cross-divisional games, and it just gets worse if the conferences expand to 20 teams.
Recent Comments
"Michigan isn't in this situation because it's evil or untrustworthy, but rather because it's been disorganized and sloppy"
Which would appear to be entirely unacceptable, especially given the depth and breadth of the recruiting staff JH has assembled since his hiring. I also find it hard to believe that there isn't any process in place to maintain regular contact with all offered recruits, let alone verbally committed recruits.
Whatever. Unfortunately M can't comment on these situations, so everyone is left to evaluate what transpired based entirely upon what one party has to say. It does seem odd that both of these kids suggest they were blindsided, but neither took an official visit to M either, did they? If not, why not? (I do recall that Swenson was planning an official in mid-January, but why not earlier?)
I do hope that future verbals are restricted to kids the staff is certain about, although I'm not sure what can be done if a kid announces he's "committed" after the coaches have told him to hold off on doing so (Brian mentioned in a previous post this as a scenario that has happened this year).
Regardless, it's an ugly look, and certainly gives some ammunition for competing schools to use going forward. Sure doesn't seem like it should be terribly difficult to keep all recruits in the loop as to where they stand on the coaches board. They don't have a problem letting kids know where they stand on the depth chart once they're enrolled.
I'm sure the staff has a clear idea of who's returning and who's not, and are recruiting with the benefit of that knowledge. Nor do I want to suggest that players are being driven out. If a kid literally sees the “writing on the wall” (his name at the bottom of Harbaugh's posted depth chart in the locker room), and wants to actually play organized football before his eligibility expires, then transferring out is their only real option.
I'm just pointing out that there's gonna be a lot of attrition between now and next fall – I won't be surprised if that includes a few guys that are currently assumed to be returning contributors next year. As several others have suggested here, we'd better get used to it. If Michigan wants to compete on the highest levels, roster management is going to be a big part of that going forward. At least the staff apparently makes it crystal clear as to where everyone stands within the parameters of the highly competitive culture they're creating. Harbaugh seems like a straight shooter to a fault - I highly doubt any impending transfers/unrenewed 5ths are being blindsided. Hopefully the same is true of the lower ranked recruits in this class.
Managing recruits isn't the only thing with a Darwinian feel. If this class does indeed reach 27, no less than 11 current scholarship players will be moving on – more if additional grad transfers are accepted as well. Scanning the depth chart leads me to believe that there's likely to be several recent contributors and/or underclassmen pushed out via medicals or early transfers.
As exciting as the best case scenarios are for the upcoming recruiting class, I can't help but feel bad about some of the inevitable attrition that this signals. Given his previous stance on similar issues that have occurred at other schools, I will also be curious to see Brian's take on this once it's all shaken out.
Simulator says...
FINAL SCORE -- Michigan (2016): 45 - Michigan State (2016): 7
Matchup Simulation Stats
The info on Spartan injuries is especially helpful!
Great, great post! I still don't think Hoke's job is riding on 2014 though. I suspect that the inherited OL issues are understood throughout the athletic department and Brandon will exhibit patience through 2015, barring unmitigated disaster this fall. "Unmitigated Disaster" being defined as something like 4 wins.
I'm cautiously optimistic about all the changes, although I'm admittedly unclear about what sort of learning curve is involved (for the players) in switching from an under to an over front. Will the skills they've practiced and developed over the past three years translate, or does this sort of change involve starting from scratch?
Offensive changes will be happening too, but I'm guessing that will involve a great deal of simplification from Borges' schemes, so the offensive guys might have an easier time than the defense. I still think the OL will get blown up a bunch this year (just read this January '13 post from Seth again - sigh!).
Personally, I hope Hoke is retained at least through 2016. I think that year is likely to be special regardless of the coaching staff, and I'd like to see the guy who brought in the 2012 through 2014 classes have the opportunity to coach them as upperclassmen.
Really wish we could upvote. I'm one of the thousands of lurkers Brian referenced this week, and it appears to me that this thread is otherwise filled with those his post was addressing.
Good for MSU. M had a down year, but I'm much happier to see the Spartans win this game than the alternative. Go Blue!!!
Well, you and I agree on this one, and I think it would be great for both fans and revenue. When I was playing around with this idea, I was thinking that from a revenue standpoint, they would need to make sure that M & OSU were in the same division, as well as protecting as many traditional rivalries as possible within the divisions.
Then on Week 9, the weekend before Thanksgiving, they could not only schedule The Game, but as many other long-standing traditional rivalries as well - in any case, with a 16 team conference, make sure that all Week 9 games are in-division games, which guarantees that there would be major playoff implication for that weekend. (If they expand to 20 teams with four 5 team divisions, you could only manage 8 divisional matchups, but still major playoff implcations would apply).The semi-finals would then follow the next weekend, along with the balance of the BIG playing a relatively closely matched opponent.
With the BIG Championship following, Delaney and the AD's would be minting money for three solid weekends, and I'd guess that national interest in the conference would jump throughout the season as well. More viewers means more revenue.
Since it looks like we're heading to a super-conference anyway, I hope they do choose to do something like this. Accept the brave new world while maintaining as much tradition as possible.
Only real downside I see is that God only knows what Delaney might do if he has four divisions to name instead of just two.
This is essentially the same thing I was considering, although I only looked at a prospective 16-team league. In that scenario, Pod A would play all of Pod B, Pod C would play all of Pod D, and the each Pod would play half of another Pod. Rotate every two years to allow for home and home, and you shouldn't see more than four-year breaks between cross-division conference members.
The only real difference between this and what I was thinking, is that instead of having predetermined semi-final matchups, I'd rather see the four division winners seeded after week 9, and play 4 @ 1 and 3 @ 2, while the rest of the conference would also play a 10th game that same weekend (6@5, 8@7, 10@9, etc.).
As some others had mentioned in this thread, this might create problems for NCG chances - the BIG champ would have a hell of a time going undefeated. On the other hand, if the other super-conferences didn't follow suit, with four teams every year with an opportunity to play for the conference championship, the BIG would likely see a significant bump in both overall fan interest and TV revenue, as well as a certain appeal to recruits.
They could go to a a four-team conference playoff without expanding the current number of total games.
When the BIG announced the most recent expansion, it occurred to me that if they were to move to 16 teams (which seems inevitable), I'd like to see them realign into four 4-team divisions, play a 9-game regular season schedule, and then seed the four division winners in semi-final games for the conference championship in week 10. The balance of the conference would then also be seeded for the 10th week. (Seeding the non-division winners 5 v 6, 6 v 7, and so on would help sort out the relative strength of teams for secondary bowls).
Four divisions would go a long way towards eliminating concerns about extended absences of cross-divisional conference rivals. With the set-up above, there would only be three divisional games each year, and 7 cross-divisional games, including the 10th conference game. If they stay with just two divisions in a 16-team conference and go to 10 conference games, there would inevitably be at least some six-year breaks between cross-divisional games, and it just gets worse if the conferences expand to 20 teams.