In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 410
Online now 389 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
According to a post on the mgoforum, the coaches are in the southwest and had a recent function...here is a snip it from an alums supposed conversation with one of the coaches:
I asked him about a WR at Brophy here in Phoenix and he marveled about his speed but said we already have 3 WR's for next year. He said people only know about 2 of them...
On a side note, some seniors of team #133 are out in Cali training with Navy Seals....pretty bad a$$
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Awink2 23 months ago
This and all related posts to this topic should really be removed. Its an violation for a coach to speak about a kid who is not signed. So we are really doing a disservice continuing this rumor, true or false.
Wrong. Coaches are not allowed to identify prospects by name, but there is no rule preventing them from talking about recruiting generally or talking about numbers. Saying we have verbals from three WRs is not a violation.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by MrWoodson 23 months ago
Read the original post again sir. If someone asked about a prospect by name as the poster suggests above, then it is a violation to comment on the prospect as the poster suggests. Point is, we are going off a lot of hear-say and what good will come of it if it seen by officials who may inquire more.
This post was edited by Luger 23 months ago
I do not think the rule is written to be that strict (though I don't know for sure). The coaches talk to high school coaches about specific prospects and it's not a violation. They likely talk to parents of prospects about other kids at the position that they are recruiting and that's not a violation. In some cases they probably even talk to reporters about potential prospects who might be committing if they have a good relationship (though obviously couldn't be quoted in any articles as that would be a violation). So if a coach was asked about Allen and said "he's fast" I do not think that would be a violation.
This post was edited by Dizzo 23 months ago
I believe the rule you're talking about prohibits 'public' comments. This is, of course, a grey area. Perhaps the setting he was speaking in was not 'public'. I know Kiffen got in trouble because he mentioned a prospect on the radio. If it was a violation, then it will probably end up on a secondary violation report to the NCAA that they seem to not care at all about.
You are right that if one of the coaches discussed Devon Allen as a UM prospect publicly, that would be a minor violation. But the OP's post is pretty vague. For all we know, the coach said he was not allowed to discuss our recruitment of Allen specifically and simply agreed with the alum that the kid has great speed. If that's a violation (and I'm not even sure it is), it's about as minor as you can get. This thread does not need to be deleted because of it.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 23 months ago
I guess everyone is missing the intent of my post. Why would we potentially out our own coach and team by even posting it, even if it was a grey area or a 5% chance of it being even a secondary violation?
I get what you're saying. But this post provides a possibly huge nugget of information that hints at something many, if not all, of us what to know. Perhaps the post can be edited to just drop all the Allen stuff, and just focus on the 3 WR comment.
Exactly my point, no one knows the context or what was truly said, its all hearsay. So why even post what the OP did when it gives the impression of a potentially minor violation. I know we are all anxious with potential commits just saying we all need to be a little more diligent with what we post.
Then you better shut down all the boards because we discuss things that might best not be discussed all the time. Frankly, I have enough faith in our coaches to believe they know and follow the rules. And if they are violating them, they should be fired. We aren't doing UM any favors by trying to help the coaching staff hide violations.
Wow, you are really missing the point. It's not about the coaches, its about posting rumor and hearsay that hurts coaches. As the gentleman suggested above I would have no issue if OP was edited to not reference Allen. But do you.
The OP did not write that the coaches were committing recruiting violations. He simply relayed a conversation he had with Coach Hoke. I don't see any problem with the conversation or with our discussing it on this board. But if Coach Hoke is doing something wrong by having such conversations, he needs to stop and the sooner he does the better. Don't blame the OP or the rest of us because we are discussing something that Coach Hoke did or said at an alumni event.
Who heard Brady Hoke say the comment posted above? One other person in a private conversation? A post above said Snake Kiffin announced something on the radio. Is that private? How many people caught that on the airwaves? Do you think anyone would second guess coach Hoke if he said "I never said that", other than the gentlemen who provided us with the info? I think your being paranoid, but good looking out.
seems pretty odd considering you are an insider and this is exactly the news that we want to hear. I laso listened to a certain radio guy who interviews kids sounding pretty confident two should drop in june. but that is hearsay too....right? so what would anyone do on these boards if we didnt guess and speculate off what people are hearing/saying. i mean we analyze kids tweets for gods sake.
the coach is not going to get a minor recruiting violation because someone on a board heard through someone that a coach may or may not have named a recruit in a dialogue
Obviously the point is being missed here. All I was stating was us as fans should use diligence to How we post info. If you look at the original post, the author states that Hoke responded to a question about Allen, that's the hearsay I'm referring to that could have easily been edited out of the post since the meat of the post was Hoke saying we have 3wrs, we didn't need the additional info about Hoke responding to a question about Allen, especially since we don't even know if that's true. I'm not down on relaying info, just how we relay info. Everyone just take a step back and just process what I'm saying. I'm not trying to dump on the news just making sure we all are making sure we don't create smoke, especially since our rivals frequent our posts and can run with anything.
Did anyone listen to the recruiting roundup today? The way Sam makes it sound were on the cusp of a few elite commitments.
This does not sound at all like something he would say. For example, he would never comment that a recruit has connections to Ohio and imply that as a negative. Most of our commits do and some are Ohio legacys. Some other points are unlikely as well. Can you link the quote? I highly doubt this took place as speculated. These stories tend to change vastly as they go from one post to the next. Also, I would vet the direct source on this one given the comments.
I also read a similar but vastly different account elsewhere about there being 3WRs. Both accounts had to start from the same original story whether fabricated of true.
This post was edited by Uncle Newt 23 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports