BlueBayou's picture


Member since 30 May 2012 | Blog

Recent Activity

Comment 20 hours ago

In all fairness to the kid, the coach shouldn't be making those kind of comments about commitments. I believe it was said because it isn't often that a SDSU coach is turning down a USC caliber player, so my guess is he felt the need to justify it, but isn't allowed to go into detail.  If you can't give details, then it is best left unsaid because people then assume the worst about his character, much like is being done here.

Comment 29 May 2016

Rumors are that he had issues with his academics.  Was committed to USC, but decommittes and probably thought he could get admitted to SDSU.  Apparently he couldn't.  Maybe he has gotten the academics cleaned up, but they probably do figure it will help with Darnay.  Thing is, Darnay is also best friends with David Long, and they are interested in playing together, so I'm not sure they need the cousin angle, but I guess they will.

Comment 11 May 2016


if you read the NJ article, it is obvious the coaches' motivation.  Two quotes left out by Ari but can be read on

Campanile's brother, Anthony, is an assistant at Boston College, but the Bergen Catholic head coach said: "I love my brother more than anything in the world. I just don't want anything to do with my kids going to a camp at Paramus Catholic.''

or this one from one of the other coaches.

Hansen offered a similar sentiment, saying: "I wouldn't want my guys going (to Paramus Catholic) for the same reasons,

These coaches are afraid of their players camping at PC because PC coaches will be there working it and most likely recruiting kids from other programs.  They would prefer to have them go somewhere else.  Rutgers gave them an out and a way for them to look noble by having their players "boycott" when really their motivations are most likely selfish.

Unless your kid is one of the top prospects in the country or they are grossly underrated and they know it, there shouldn't be a a question which camp a kid should go to in order to get greater exposure.  You would tell him he should go to the one that gets him seen by more programs, including the one that offers more potential realistic options.  That camp is at PC.  The fact those coaches aren't saying that along with their comments, I think their motivations are blatant, and it has nothing to do with state loyalty.

Comment 11 May 2016

If a kid is interested in playing college football, hell yeah one is a better option than the other if you aren't a top prospect.  Your choice is to go be seen by 6 different programs or 3 with 2 of the 3 requiring you to  be a D1 talent.  I'd say a kid is better off going to the one with 6, especially since in 3 to 4 hours you aren't going to improve your game but it is just enough time to make an impression.

Comment 09 May 2016

They are mocking Rutgers because yesterday their media and fans were outraged that Michigan would dare have a satellite camp where another B1G school is.  Essentially saying they are breaking a gentleman's agreement.  Now the next day they are having their own camp up the road and they aren't even the headliner in their own state (even though they are trying to pretend they are).  More people will go to that camp because of Ohio State, but that I guess was Rutgers point.  They knew they couldn't outdraw Michigan, so now if they do have a larger crowd on the same day, they will try to pretend they sent a message that they own the state and pretend it had nothing to do with tOSU.  I will say though, I will be shocked if any Paramus athletes pick the Rutgers/tOSU camp over Michigan's.  Mostly based on the fact their school is hosting the Michigan one.

Comment 17 Apr 2016

Thanks, I do.  If you follow Michigan sports, you can get more of the back story and not just what the press puts out there for page clicks.  All of the kids that "decommitted" from Michigan, except for Swenson, still visited other schools because they were encouraged to by the coaching staff.  It was also communicated ahead of time that there was a chance they wouldn't have a scholarship.  Why do you think a couple defended Harbaugh after their decommits?  The one that really kicked off the bad press was Swenson because he vocally complained about it.  I do think he has some accountability in it though.  He was told by the coaches that he needed to do a few things and he didn't do them.  He was told his performance during the season would be evaluated (i.e. His scholarship isn't guaranteed).  He was also encouraged to visit other schools and didn't do that.  He has some accountability in that he helped put himself in a worse situation by not listening to the coaches.  Recruits absolutely can't abdicate the ownership of their recruitment to the schools.  There is no reason a kid should stop visiting other schools before their senior year, even if they commit.  Maybe they do because their is this perception that it makes their offer safer because the school sees their commitment, but Sibley's case shows that is not true.  At the end of the day, since schools don't need to honor their end of the commitment, the recruits need to always do what is best for them.

Comment 16 Apr 2016

Well, since we are talking about a 2018 kid, I hope he does visit other schools.  Especially a kid that will have a ton of options.  I mean, look at Sibley as an example.  The kid shut his recruitment down early over a year ago when he could have been doing research to make sure he found a best fit.  Now he needs to rethink his process and start visiting other schools under a shorter timeline.  As for Michigan, their biggest advantage right now is his teammate is a current Michigan commit and I'm sure he feels a little vested in his pick, but it is a long way until he can sign.  

Comment 15 Apr 2016

I was going to choose not to respond, but your comment made me feel obligated to.  I didn't want to disappoint you guys.  Have a great weekend everyone!

Comment 15 Apr 2016

Well, in this instance, there is also a difference in how the recruit is handling this.  This is out because Sibley chose to talk about it.  With Swenson, Harbaugh and company asked him to attend their camp so they could evaluate him in person (he was offered and committed under Hoke), he declined, and then he was told fine, but that means you will be evaluated at the end of your season. (I.E. you may or may not get a scholarship). He was also encouraged during his season to go ahead and visit other schools.  Swenson said no thanks.  I believe Swenson thought he could just ignore that and because of his status, they wouldn't pull his scholarship.  Well, they did.  They really should have cut the line, but probably thought he would choose to go elsewhere.  With Sibley, I think it is kind of similar, but the message is coming out before summer camp season.  I'm sure the coaches know offering a greyshirt is essentially giving him his walking papers, it is just a nicer way to put it.  Kind of like the "it's not you, it's me" breakup line.

Comment 11 Apr 2016

Early enrollees get back dated against the previous class, so for 2017, the number of EEs is based on what your 2016 class numbers were.  The limit is 25 total in a class, so let's say your 2016 class was 22.  That means they would have only 3 EE spots open for 2017.  So even though the limit is 25, this is how some classes get to be larger than it.  Example, if the previous year was 4 short, that means that the class size of the current year can be 29 with 4 starting as EEs. 

Comment 05 Apr 2016

So I wonder if this changes anybody's opinion on what happened between Mattison and that disgruntled Iowa recruit.  Seems like a similar type of misunderstanding, only Mattison got blasted and Meyer gets a pass.  My stance is the same for both, sometimes you are just going to have a misunderstanding.  It is hard to effectively communicate all the time.  At least that is what I tell the Mrs, but she doesn't always buy it.

Comment 24 Mar 2016

No, that isn't really the point.  It is about controlling the story.  The SEC, ACC, and even Mark Emmert were going on a publicity campaign to eventually justify why they were going to ban spring break practices (to save the children of course).  If Harbaugh stays quiet, then there is absolutely no shot at doing it again in the future because it will already be lost.  He will have let them shape public opinion and set up the expectation it will be banned.  Instead, he challenges them in a way that makes them uncomfortable and effectively kills their campaign.  Now they don't get to make everything easier on themselves.  This issue, if taken up and banned will be bigger and the decision is now set up to be greatly scrutinized.  Now, Smith chimed in, and while I admit, Harbaugh's response was more sophomori than the others, he has to stay consistent with his challenging to make it effective.

Comment 23 Mar 2016

I think my use of the word rebuttal was incorrect because it doesn't really fit what I think his intent is.  His intent is less about winning an argument and more about making his detractors uncomfortable to comment on his practices.  It is about being the only voice about Michigan football and controlling the storyline in the media.  I think that is the true intent.

Comment 23 Mar 2016

Squirrel Master,

i appreciate the response.  I think maybe I shouldn't have used the word rebuttal in my thoughts, because I believe Harbaughs intent is less about having a nice back and forth conversation and more about making the coaches, ADs, and conference officials uncomfortable.  Case in point, Smith essentially backing away from the conversation as well as the ACC and SEC's rabble about spring practice going away.  So I really think the intent is to make the person uncomfortable with the conversation, therefore they aren't allowed to control the conversation in the media, leaving Harbaugh and Michigan the only voice about Michigan because those that may publicly criticize most likely don't want to get in a public squabble so they most likely will avoid commenting.

I think one of the questions going forward is, will this effectively quiet critics of some of Michigan's practices or will they still feel comfortable commenting?   If they do keep commenting, then Harbaugh's strategy will get old, hence the yet.  Right now I think the strategy is proving to be effective for what I think the intent is, but I could always be wrong.

Comment 23 Mar 2016

It is just my opinion here, but I don't think Harbaugh's response is simply him being an ass, I think there is a bit of strategy here.  He isn't just going after anybody, he is responding only to those that comment negatively towards what he is doing.  He is setting up the expectation that if you think you can safely criticize him without a response, you are wrong.  Expect a rebuttal to your statement (which I believe is fair).  Harbaugh doesn't really care what people think, but it is noticeable that the subjects of his rebuttals are uncomfortable with it and tend to not offer any more comments on the topic.  It also lets others know what will happen if they do the same, so they might want to tread carefully or else they will become a topic of a national discussion.  To me, I think a strategy is at play, and honestly, so far, outside of alienating other teams' fans that aren't going to support him anyway, there haven't really been any negative consequences for Harbaugh yet.  It just gets chalked up to, well, that is just who he is.  There is a general acceptance of it.  I actually find it interesting due to the testing of general societal norms and human behavior that are on display here.  One side is expected to adhere to them, while the other party has some general acceptance that they will not.  

Comment 12 Mar 2016

Hov, there are no bounds in the fight against cancer.  I    will drop my colors to stand with you, your wife, and your family in your fight against cancer.  I will be keeping you all in my thoughts and prayers.