• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2011 TSUN shenanigans and arguments (off season)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Our favorite editor has destroyed academic smack for their fanbase

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=162&f=1088&t=7717427
Tom Beaver said:
jackgold said:
Guys & Gals;

If you think we should accept marginal kids, consider this: *What courses (at Michigan) will they pass? *Keep in mind that many can barely pass a HS class, have seriously impaired reading skills, no math skills whatever ... *We do not have a scholastic analog of "right field" ( a metaphor from little league baseball) where we can hide these young men for more than a semester. *The big question, I suppose, is this: *will they grow up fast enough to learn that they have to take academics as seriously as work outs in the sport they play? *I believe that they can show this willingness by their actions in the classroom during their senior year. *By then tho' it may be too late for Michigan to come into the recruiting picture. *If we were not so far behind (last in the big 10???) in graduation rates for athletes, perhaps we could indulge in some risky recruiting. *I like RR but this is part of the not so attractive legacy he left us with *Seriously. ...
Click to expand...
your argument is sound from the academic perspective

but, from the football (or basketball) perspective
U-M has done this for 20 years, not 3 ... and kids got through because of the academic support program presumably.

I think I can easily point out an average of 3 (or so) kids a year who've been admitted going back 20+ years (incl. Woodley, Manningham, Branch, Crable, Burgess, Watson , and on and on and on and on) who are our U-M heros and who all made it.

If under RR it went to 5 kids a year instead of 3 (if), then that is the admissions folks, not RR ... RR worked under the guidelines given him ... in fact he had little-or-no clout with them, I know that as a fact ... whereas LC had a lotta clout with them

Now, I know it's true that there's no phys ed anymore for these kids to go into, and that kinesiology no longer wants them either (even tho that was STARTED for these kids) ... however that's been true for 5 years now at U-M. The change I'm talking about is this year.

So ... bottom like:
U-M is tighter now than in 20 years (not 3) ... and we'll just see how it turns out -- hopefully, GREAT! Hopefully there'll be enough talent. If so -- then it's GREAT.

In the end, it's Wins and Losses Hoke'll be judged on, not GPA.
Click to expand...
"Bottom like" #1: UM academic prestige has no relevance to revenue sport scholarships. They are like any other school.
TomBeaver said:
BigJes said:
Michigan has a long history of not recruiting kids because of their bad grades. In the 80's and 90's Michigan would not take kids who were "Prop 48". Most schools would still take star athletes who were "prop 48" even though that player would be academically ineligible their freshman year (they'd have to sit out one year and do "OK" in the classroom and then could have their career). Another similar example would be JuCo's - Michigan, for decades, has not taken hardly any JuCo's. And when I got gung ho into recruiting 10-15 years ago, it was quite common to hear that Michigan would not be recruiting a kid due to the bad grades or character issues, you'd later see that kid commit to MSU, OSU... some SEC school, etc...


Until I hear/see exactly what Burbridges situation is, I'm not going to get all up in arms over some sort of "change". It seems like we've heard this every year for 4-5 years in a row now and every year we end up with kids that barely qualified and we lost sleep over kids that didn't qualify.
Click to expand...

Posted: 7/30/2011*9:24*AM
**RE: BigJes - untrue***
we never really knew what Bo did, one way or the other. Cept AC's HS grades were weak, that was floating around.

But LC: Pierre Woods never (ever) qualified, nor did others like Eugene Germany, Marquise Slocum, etc. And add in the 'late-qualifying-squeekers' Woodley, Foote, Branch, Manningham, Hall, Burgess, Crable, Watson -- that 2006 team was loaded with 'em ... also Chris Perry.

You go back 10 more years -- Clarence Thompson - man! Deollo Anderson, Earnest Sanders ... c'mon, it was bad.

NONE of those guys would get a sniff right now

How many time do I have to say it?

I know people want to put out a certain 'party-line' ... but to me, the truth is better.
Click to expand...
#2: UM will even enroll unqualified kids.

Remember when Slocum failed to qualify twice, then magically ended up on campus anyway?
MEECHFAN wrote: I don't think our problem over the last five years or so has been the level of talent we initially bring in.* The attrition of that talent has killed us.* Realize some were injuries, some just didn't pan out on the field...but we can at least avoid some of the attrition via grades by who we bring in in the first place.
Click to expand...
it was youth on D primarily, with some poor D-coaching thrown in as well

The Youth-part gets fixed on it's own ... so Hoke is (hopefully) walking into a pretty good situation on D, and bringing in better D-coaching as well
Click to expand...
#3: The truth is better, unless it kills the hype for this regime and season

A few commoners chime in
mrmarvelous said:
Our scheme was our #1 problem on defense, then lack of top talent on defense, then youth and poor coaching. If it was mainly young talent, then we would have shown improvement as the season progressed. Where are the All-big Ten players on defense...MM, that's it.
Click to expand...
blake13 said:
And that's just football.* Not sure if Jes was limiting his argument to football, but to say that UM didn't take Prop 48 kids in the 80's and 90's is just flat-out wrong if he wasn't.

Terry Mills and Rumeal Robinson were both Prop 48's.* If they were allowing them for hoops, I couldn't see the old man sitting idly by while someone told him that they could take a chance on some kids for hoops but not football.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Buckeneye;1963500; said:
Most of their fans believing Hoke's recruiting success in Ohio this year will continue past the '12 class...


We'll see how that goes for them.
Click to expand...


two things need to happen for that type of success to continue:

UM needs to win at least 8 games this year

osu needs to have a below average season. (meaning 3 or more losses)


I wouldn't gamble on either of them happening, though.
 
Upvote 0
germ;1963542; said:
Go read your own admins post in the Hoke thread.


Post 733

I have read mblog and had a good laugh.
Click to expand...

So you take the fact that one person (a person not connected with the scUM program, mind you) has not been directly told that Hoke is negatively recruiting, and you jump to the conclusion that there's no possibility that Hoke could in fact be negatively recruiting? :lol: scUM logic at its finest. So we'll just ignore the report of Hoke's negative recruiting and keep our scUM glasses on--that's scUM fans operate, right? :wink:
 
Upvote 0
buckeyesin07;1963660; said:
So you take the fact that one person (a person not connected with the scUM program, mind you) has not been directly told that Hoke is negatively recruiting, and you jump to the conclusion that there's no possibility that Hoke could in fact be negatively recruiting? :lol: scUM logic at its finest. So we'll just ignore the report of Hoke's negative recruiting and keep our scUM glasses on--that's scUM fans operate, right? :wink:
Click to expand...

A report, LOL Dave Biddle and Bucknuts is a report. I guess some do not know what a "report" is these days.

Talk about logic, LOL
 
Upvote 0
germ;1963532; said:
Once again not true, but keep trying.
Click to expand...

You'll never convince me that Hoke and staff got Kalis to turn on the Bucks in a matter of a short time without using some form of negative tactics. Keep dreaming. Let's be honest, most coaches would have done so consdering all of the negatvie press circulating. In fact, I think you'd be pretty stupid not to. Yes, it's shady but that is the name of the game these days. Let's put it this way, if he was a car salesman, I wouldn't be buying a car from him.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top