I will update this post throughout the day with players who have sent in their official paperwork, as well as commitments elsewhere:
SIGNED LETTERS OF INTENT
- QB Tommy Carr
- QB Brady Smigiel
- RB Jonathan Brown
- RB Savion Hiter
- WR Travis Johnson
- WR Jaylen Pile
- TE Mason Bonner
- TE Matt Ludwig
- OL Tommy Fraumann
- OL Adrian Hamilton
- OL Malakai Lee
- OL Bear McWhorter
- OL Marky Walbridge
- DE McHale Blade
- DE Tariq Boney
- DE Carter Meadows
- DT Titan Davis
- DT Alister Vallejo
- LB Kaden Catchings
- LB Markel Dabney
- LB Aden Reeder
- CB Andre Clarke
- CB Jamarion Vincent
- S Jordan Deck
- K Micah Drescher
- LS Colton Dermer
COMMITMENTS ELSEWHERE
- S Blake Stewart - Georgia
- OT Sam Utu - SMU
Acceptable- Barely. In the era of NIL UM should target top 5ish as a good class and top 10 being average to expectations. And with these coaches we need a decisive talent advantage to compete at the high end B10 teams.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if this shows our recruiting is anything but average for what we offer in NIL and the brand.
From my seat, OSU/Oregon have a decisive talent advantage coupled with a decisive coaching advantage.
And probably a decisive available money advantage as well. Both those schools -- Oregon and Ohio State -- are unabashedly about their football programs, and feel no shame in being associated with being a football factory where players "play school," provided they win on the field.
DeleteMichigan has a long history of trying to have it both ways: success on the football field while preserving their prestige as an elite educational institution. The issue of transferring credits in is well known. Former UM president Mark Schlissel held his nose in disgust when having to acknowledge the football program. Many of the faculty feel the same way. There's a reason why it took so long for Michigan to come around to the new NIL paradigm: it didn't fit with the utopian vision of Michigan being first and foremost about academics, and athletics a distant second.
Things are changing, but slowly. Oregon and OSU are out front because they're about athletics first.
Another case -- far less lofty than Oregon or OSU -- and that's Michigan State. They don't have the donor base to really throw the money around, but they have no problem whatsoever in taking in as a "student" a player that has no business being in college.
DeleteI went to MSU back in the late 1970s, and there were several basketball players on my floor. One, I'm pretty sure, *never* went to class. I doubt very much he could read or write, based on what I could discern. It didn't matter. I had some interaction with some on the football field, and they were little different. Nothing has changed there in the intervening 40 years.
Well, the complicating factor is that NIL has to be split between high school recruits, portal recruits, and (probably most importantly) retaining existing personnel.
DeleteThere's probably a lot of alignment on teams spending more in each of these areas but you may find differences in allocations too. Personally I would say that spending big on blue chip high school recruits is the riskiest approach. In other words if you gave me the choice between a $3M player out of high school and a $3M player out of the portal -- I'm picking the portal guy. But YMMV.
What is becoming the "general manager" role at college football programs is very interesting. I agree with the general proposition that investing a lot in a high school recruit carries risks. On the other hand, I imagine there are positions better suited for portal acquisitions (offensive line, particularly), and where getting the high school guys is worth the risk (QB, CB). Offensive lineman, particularly, are notorious for being rolls of the dice ... they *look* good coming out of high school, but for whatever reason they don't *become* good. But a portal get allows for a more proven product.
DeleteSo I'm thinking about this new GM role, and in many ways he's operating with a salary cap sort of thing, and he's trying to swizzle a complex formula to come up with the best outcome. And because the NIL/portal thing is still settling into what it will be, these GM types are learning as they go.
Absolutely. Dunno if we're there yet but likely CFB will hit the same place as most sports where the GM is more important and clearly above the Head Coach in importance. Not there yet!
DeleteQB is one of the positions where I think portal is most optimal. Most QBs take time to develop and we've seen Bryce for example go through struggles, even though he pretty much turned up as a best reasonable case scenario IMO. Another relevant example is Dante Moore, who stunk at UCLA, sat the bench at Oregon, and then finally in his 3rd year turned into a big time player. Sayin started off at Alabama, sat a year at OSU, then turned into a good player. Why pay big money to develop these guys and then watch a lot of them flop, when someone else can do it for you? Did Sayin or Moore give OSU and Oregon a discount for developing him on the bench in 2024? I doubt it.
Anyway, there seems to be a lot of QB supply every year in the portal and most heisman contenders these days are transfers. Bryce is an in state kid so maybe a special case but generally speaking I wouldn't go after (very expensive) blue chip QBs and instead focus on (very expensive) proven vets.
In contrast OL seems to have less relative supply in the portal. While freshman are rarely contributing big time you also don't see as many jumping around via the portal. I feel like this is where you focus on getting guys you like and building them up into big time players. We'll see how Babalola and Haywood turn out but those were big money guys (rumored) and I don't know if that's the path to go vs just grabbing a big bag of 3 and 4 stars and letting building them up over time. (The question here to me is less about the portal vs high school and more about the types of recruits you get. Rather than spending big on one or 2 blue chippers and getting 3 stars elsewhere it maybe better to spread the NIL around more broadly.)
One v one (portal v HS) it depends: would I rather have a one year rental or a development opportunity with a blue chip? Miller Moss or Bryce Young? Easily Bryce! But of course I'd rather have another Oluwatumi over some 5star Center. It's gotta be case by case
Delete*a thing I do greatly appreciate is Sherrone's approach to QB: 2 per year is much preferred over Harbaugh, who skipped or half-assed the position. With Moore, we're a lot less likely to get stuck with 2o2o or (God forbid) 2o24 QB rooms. My guess is they will offer firm handshakes to guys not working out, leaving the room adequately stocked & competitive, with NIL leftover for the next guys coming in
Any concern about Hiter not yet signed? Any rumors out there?
ReplyDeleteAccording to one post on MGoBlog, they're just in final contract negotiations, and should be signed on Thursday.
DeleteHe's in.
DeletePer AI, estimated expense (note, not publicly published!?)
ReplyDeleteOSU
$22-25M
Oregon
$23-28M
Michigan
$18-22M
I wonder how much money (and money-in-kind) was shoveled out by SEC teams (and others) during the peak of the "bag man" mode of college football recruiting? I have to believe these numbers dwarf those.
DeleteI don't follow recruiting closely any more, but a bigger concern than "just top ten" is our place in conference
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see us a close third, second some years, and the occasional (even if rare) first. I'd also like that supplemented with portal guys to fill in the depth chart or make up for urgent needs
Do that and we're in playoffs every year, with a high Seed in some ... as long as we're developing
Michigan can do better with recruiting. I think Michigan is slightly behind the curve on the new NIL model, but they're making up ground quickly. I suspect Sherrone Moore is a great relationship ambassador, and from what I can gather, Tony Alford is a great recruiter. I don't think Martindale recruits at all, and I don't hear a lot of buzz about others like we used to with, say, Jay Harbaugh. So it's an area of work Moore has to make good with. The benefits of a settled HC situation ... those things can be ironed out. Ryan Day at OSU is in his 9th year, so he has that worked out.
DeleteI think Ron Bellamy, Lou Esposito, and Lamar Morgan have great reputations as recruiters. I think Grant Newsome does a really good job, too, but he gets ignored a little bit because offensive linemen aren't super sexy recruits.
Delete6'6" and 320 is about as sexy as it gets, Thunder. ;-)
DeleteIt's somewhat ironic that OL is considered "unsexy," when, in fact, it's second to QB for importance. But from what I understand, it's a position group that's hard to project from high school. Some work out well, many do not.
Marchese seems like a big upgrade to the tall guy they lost to Stanford (I forgot about him already see!)
ReplyDeleteFeistier/taller Roman Wilson?
This is a nice class. It scratched a lot of itches. Really strong across the defensive line after a nice bag of Dbs last year. I can't get mad about a kid from South Carolina going to play for the home school, particularly when his dad is coaching strength there. The response on that move from the M faithful seems severe. Besides, at the end of the day anymore, "They come and they go Hobbs. They come and they go."
ReplyDeleteWould have liked some stud linebackers tho.
I was surprised the kid committed here in the first place, and more surprised that he stuck around as long as he did
DeleteThis just makes the position a higher priority in the Portal
Watching Indiana's DL get pressure makes me feel like we're headed for a 2o19ish DL experience unless we hit the Portal aggressively, or get better coaching
ReplyDeleteI want Moore to OUTBID Cignetti for their DC ... just look at their roster, it's all coaching!
DeleteHoly sh:t, they did it
Delete