Keelon Brookins De-commits from Minnesota and heads to rival Badgers

Donate To GopherHole

I'm going to take this in a slightly different direction. I don't follow the Twittersphere, but noticed this Tweet from Doogie: "He'll [Keelon] be glad to have his good friend, Riley Dearring, there." Is it coincidental that he changed his commitment less than a week after Riley Dearring committed? Dearring appears to be fringe b-ball prospect, with his other offers from Drake, Illinois St., and Northeastern. I guess what I'm asking, is it possible these guys were a package deal and wanted to go to school together?

https://twitter.com/DarrenWolfson/status/228278635654688768
 

STPGopher said:
Now I see why others are ripping you. If one goes to multiple sources and reads that Bielema is "upset" over a gentleman's agreement, you can't accuse said individuals of creating some delusional reality. Bielema is partially responsible for that perception. Furthermore, why did Alvarez feel the need to say there is no such thing as a gentleman's agreement?
Click to expand...

If you remember when this hit back in February the narrative of what Bielema had said took on a life of its own. National talk shows, national writers talking about how Urban Meyer was shaking up the Big Ten, ruffling feathers, outrecruiting, etc. and that Bielema and Dantonio were crying about it and talking about this gentleman's agreement. That was why Alvarez commented on it, because he was asked about a gentleman's agreement. I'm sure Alvarez found the idea funny, as would Bielema.

It is a delusional reality because it's not based in anything factual. Point me to a single quote attributed to Bielema or Wisconsin complaining about Urban Meyer, or anyone, violating a gentleman's agreement. It is a delusional reality because nothing supports it other than a bunch of people speculating on what Bielema was actually saying. Which also was a ridiculous conclusion to draw.
 

Location is hugely important. Most recruits stay really close to home. Not sure what your point about UCLA was, because it made little sense to me and certainly wasn't germane to what I had said.

Stop making contradictory statement.
At one point you said But you're right, you'd pick Minnesota if you wanted a more urban campus. I would think on the list of reasons for a recruit to pick a school that one is pretty close to the bottom. The implication came out of that statement is location is not an important factor. I presented my case based on that implication. And yet you tried to refute as an irrelevant thing to what you have said.

The next moment you said Location is hugely important.

I presented UCLA as an example because of its location in urban area. UCLA is a basketball school. If you think they’re football school, you’re kidding yourself. They are somewhat successful 25 years ago. And yet their basketball still overshadows their football.
On your list, tell me which one is the selling point of UCLA. These future players are picking UCLA because of its location. Did I mention location? Location, location, location

Tradition; Mehhhh
program prestige; ?????
recent success; OMG!
coaching staff; first year coach or someone who was on the lifeline throughout the season
facilities; I would prefer San Diego state facility
academics; absolutely yes
climate; yes
teammates; ????
coeds; I can acknowledge that
uniforms. Babyblue?
 

Prado89 said:
Location is hugely important. Most recruits stay really close to home. Not sure what your point about UCLA was, because it made little sense to me and certainly wasn't germane to what I had said.

Stop making contradictory statement.
At one point you said But you're right, you'd pick Minnesota if you wanted a more urban campus. I would think on the list of reasons for a recruit to pick a school that one is pretty close to the bottom.
The next moment you said Location is hugely important.
I presented UCLA as an example because of its location in urban area. UCLA is a basketball school. If you think they’re football school, you’re kidding yourself. They are somewhat successful 25 years ago. And yet their basketball still overshadows their football.
On your list, tell me which one is the selling point of UCLA. These future players are picking UCLA because of its location. Did I mention location? Location, location, location
Tradition; Mehhhh
program prestige; ?????
recent success; OMG!
coaching staff; first year coach or someone who was on the lifeline throughout the season
facilities; I would prefer San Diego state facility
academics; absolutely yes
climate; yes
teammates; ????
coeds; I can acknowledge that
uniforms. Babyblue?
Click to expand...

This will be my last post, because clearly you and I are talking about different things. Location, as in proximity of the campus to where you live and grew up. This is vastly different from campus setting, be it large, medium, small city or in the middle of a corn field.

Location is hugely important in that the overwhelming majority of recruits choose to play for schools within driving distance of where they grew up. Campus setting, whether it be a total urban setting in the middle of a big city vs. a campus in a smaller town would be the part that I think falls way down the list of importance. I stand by all of that.

The appeal of UCLA is its location. Being that it's right in the middle of one of the most densely populated parts of the country, and thus has an excess of talented players within a short drive of its campus. USC and UCLA are the big programs in Los Angeles. I believe that USC has more of an urban campus kind of feel than UCLA does, though they both do to an extent. But my point is, and always was, if you're a recruit and you are choosing between the 2 schools then the urbanness of the campus is not likely to make an impact. You're more likely to choose USC, all things being equal, because it has better tradition, more prestige, etc., etc. It being an urban campus is so far down the list of reasons to go to USC that it hardly registers.
 


HCSmooth said:
If you remember when this hit back in February the narrative of what Bielema had said took on a life of its own. National talk shows, national writers talking about how Urban Meyer was shaking up the Big Ten, ruffling feathers, outrecruiting, etc. and that Bielema and Dantonio were crying about it and talking about this gentleman's agreement. That was why Alvarez commented on it, because he was asked about a gentleman's agreement. I'm sure Alvarez found the idea funny, as would Bielema.

It is a delusional reality because it's not based in anything factual. Point me to a single quote attributed to Bielema or Wisconsin complaining about Urban Meyer, or anyone, violating a gentleman's agreement. It is a delusional reality because nothing supports it other than a bunch of people speculating on what Bielema was actually saying. Which also was a ridiculous conclusion to draw.
Click to expand...


Again multiple sources mentioned this. Bielema and his actions did little to nothing to refute this perception. Perception is reality. Bielema has done more than enough to create the perception of him that is less than perfect.

BTW Why has Bielema always been so vague about any complaint of violations he may have had?
 


HCSmooth said:
This will be my last post, because clearly you and I are talking about different things. Location, as in proximity of the campus to where you live and grew up. This is vastly different from campus setting, be it large, medium, small city or in the middle of a corn field.

Location is hugely important in that the overwhelming majority of recruits choose to play for schools within driving distance of where they grew up. Campus setting, whether it be a total urban setting in the middle of a big city vs. a campus in a smaller town would be the part that I think falls way down the list of importance. I stand by all of that.

The appeal of UCLA is its location. Being that it's right in the middle of one of the most densely populated parts of the country, and thus has an excess of talented players within a short drive of its campus. USC and UCLA are the big programs in Los Angeles. I believe that USC has more of an urban campus kind of feel than UCLA does, though they both do to an extent. But my point is, and always was, if you're a recruit and you are choosing between the 2 schools then the urbanness of the campus is not likely to make an impact. You're more likely to choose USC, all things being equal, because it has better tradition, more prestige, etc., etc. It being an urban campus is so far down the list of reasons to go to USC that it hardly registers.
Click to expand...

Too lazy to look it up, but I've heard both as being a reason that recruits have used for choosing between schools.
 

I'm disappointed, but we've got a Gophers football game in 35 days, and that interests me more.
 



John Galt said:
I'm going to take this in a slightly different direction. I don't follow the Twittersphere, but noticed this Tweet from Doogie: "He'll [Keelon] be glad to have his good friend, Riley Dearring, there." Is it coincidental that he changed his commitment less than a week after Riley Dearring committed? Dearring appears to be fringe b-ball prospect, with his other offers from Drake, Illinois St., and Northeastern. I guess what I'm asking, is it possible these guys were a package deal and wanted to go to school together?

https://twitter.com/DarrenWolfson/status/228278635654688768
Click to expand...

That's a good observation and I'm thinking the possible reason for the decommit after many that talked to him felt he really wanted to be a Gopher. I'm sure we will never know, but sounds like the way recruits think these days. Good take Galt!
 

HCSmooth said:
This will be my last post, because clearly you and I are talking about different things. Location, as in proximity of the campus to where you live and grew up. This is vastly different from campus setting, be it large, medium, small city or in the middle of a corn field.

Location is hugely important in that the overwhelming majority of recruits choose to play for schools within driving distance of where they grew up. Campus setting, whether it be a total urban setting in the middle of a big city vs. a campus in a smaller town would be the part that I think falls way down the list of importance. I stand by all of that.

The appeal of UCLA is its location. Being that it's right in the middle of one of the most densely populated parts of the country, and thus has an excess of talented players within a short drive of its campus. USC and UCLA are the big programs in Los Angeles. I believe that USC has more of an urban campus kind of feel than UCLA does, though they both do to an extent. But my point is, and always was, if you're a recruit and you are choosing between the 2 schools then the urbanness of the campus is not likely to make an impact. You're more likely to choose USC, all things being equal, because it has better tradition, more prestige, etc., etc. It being an urban campus is so far down the list of reasons to go to USC that it hardly registers.
Click to expand...

USC and UCLA are both in urban settings though. The schools are completely different as far as the feel of the campuses. UCLA is like a gigantic commuter campus. The U sometimes has that feel (more than a lot of Big 10 schools), but UCLA's is much more intense. USC feels like a normal college campus. Granted, it's in the ghetto, but within the campus, it has much more of a traditional campus feel. USC is also less than 1/2 the size of UCLA.

The school's really don't have much in common. They are both in LA, so location (proximity) doesn't matter. They are both urban (so demographic of the city doesn't matter). USC is one of the great programs and UCLA hasn't been succesful. That is why kids are choosing USC over UCLA.
 

Parski1 said:
That's a good observation and I'm thinking the possible reason for the decommit after many that talked to him felt he really wanted to be a Gopher. I'm sure we will never know, but sounds like the way recruits think these days. Good take Galt!
Click to expand...

I could believe that Dearring's choice influenced Brookins', but there is no way that any D1 hoops coach is going to burn 1 of his 13 scholarships on a prospect JUST to get a football recruit to commit. Would never ever happen, even for the #1 football recruit in the country. Pride alone would prevent that.
 

Can anyone here possibly believe that the reason he de-committed from Minnesota was because he didn't have a Wisconsin offer before summer camp and then got one after summer camp allowing him to do so a couple weeks later? Because that's exactly what happened. I know it's not a popular thing to believe around here, but like it or not, your boy Brookins was essentially using Minnesota as a "safety school" in the case that he didn't get the Wisconsin offer he obviously wanted more. Happens with lots of kids in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Enough with all the conspiracy theories about friends and family and dirty recruiting and all that.
 



Breakin' The Plane said:
I hope he's a starter in three years and he gets pulled after Nelson and McDonald torch him for 3TDs in the first half.
Click to expand...

Or, in keeping with recent tradition, coughing up a game-ending, kick-in-the-crotch, hail mary pass - or TWO!
 

MorningCalmBadger said:
Can anyone here possibly believe that the reason he de-committed from Minnesota was because he didn't have a Wisconsin offer before summer camp and then got one after summer camp allowing him to do so a couple weeks later? Because that's exactly what happened. I know it's not a popular thing to believe around here, but like it or not, your boy Brookins was essentially using Minnesota as a "safety school" in the case that he didn't get the Wisconsin offer he obviously wanted more. Happens with lots of kids in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Enough with all the conspiracy theories about friends and family and dirty recruiting and all that.
Click to expand...

I have heard 1 theory that he wanted to go to the same college as a friend of his, this thread isn't blowing up Alex Jones-style. I have no idea why you would feel the need to come on here and say "enough with all the conspiracy theories".

On to your point, I don't think that's very likely either. Most kids don't commit to their "safety schools". I believe when he committed to MN that he genuinely believed that he wanted to go to MN.

If he had the Gopher offer sitting there and he didn't accept it, then he went to Madison, got an offer and committed. Kids rarely commit to their safety school, especially not so early in the process.

I think what happened (and it's the most plausible), is that Brookins chose the U because he got the most immidiate attention. He then went to the Badger camp and liked them a lot. After he went home, he weighed the options and he believed that UW was a better fit for him than the U. That's most likely what happened.

The idea that it clearly suggests that Brookins committed to the U only for the safety net and he was privately opining the entire time to just hopefully get a UW offer is GIANT speculation. In fact, it flies in the face of common sense (you wouldn't need to committ to your safety school to retain that net). Your theory is actually nothing but a conspiracy theory, and I thought you said "enough with all the conspiracy theories"?
 

MorningCalmBadger said:
Can anyone here possibly believe that the reason he de-committed from Minnesota was because he didn't have a Wisconsin offer before summer camp and then got one after summer camp allowing him to do so a couple weeks later? Because that's exactly what happened. I know it's not a popular thing to believe around here, but like it or not, your boy Brookins was essentially using Minnesota as a "safety school" in the case that he didn't get the Wisconsin offer he obviously wanted more. Happens with lots of kids in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Enough with all the conspiracy theories about friends and family and dirty recruiting and all that.
Click to expand...

Keelon Brookins used Gopher's offer as a launching pad for his future career. If ND and Alabama offer him today, he will choose these programs over Wisconsin. It will take him a New York minute to accept the offer. I'm not going to blame him for doing so as we do with our careers. He didn't want the Wisconsin offer specifically, he just want an offer that will possibly help him to be in better position. So stop thinking Wisconsin as a be-all and end-all of CFB programs.
 

justthefacts said:
I could believe that Dearring's choice influenced Brookins', but there is no way that any D1 hoops coach is going to burn 1 of his 13 scholarships on a prospect JUST to get a football recruit to commit. Would never ever happen, even for the #1 football recruit in the country. Pride alone would prevent that.
Click to expand...

+1,000,000

I can't believe anyone honestly thinks Bo Ryan would waste a coveted scholly to get Bulimia a marginal football recruit.

'cuz Brookins is marginal at best now right? He's a future All-American when committed the Gophers - but overnight he becomes average simply because he decommitted.

Funny how players like Andre McDonald are now heroes amongst the rubes here even though he changed his committment every 6 months. How is that any different?
 

positively4thstreet said:
I'll never understand the Sisyphean quest of going on an opposing team's message board to defend your program. How empty is your day/life?
Click to expand...

Is it just me or have the other annoying fans dropped off from coming over to this board to defend their beloved team over the last couple of years? hhmmm.... I wonder why?
 

Sounds like him and Dearring are good friends maybe thats the reason for the switch?
 

Arbogast said:
Is it just me or have the other annoying fans dropped off from coming over to this board to defend their beloved team over the last couple of years? hhmmm.... I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Don't worry. Depending on the out come of September 29 game, they will come out of their mobile homes. Until then, we won't hear smack talks from pig farmers, and they are busy raising real pigs to create MN state fair delicacies.
 

Kill is not a great recruiter. He's not a sharp-looking, slick salesman. It's going to take time for him to turn this program around because his biggest sales pitch is going to have to be winning and stability. All it takes is a couple good seasons in a row for him to be able to sell Minnesota as a (potential) top level Big Ten program. He simply isn't there yet and who knows how long it will take. Kill is the polar opposite of Brewster, and I think we all can accept that. I would love for this program to bring in a solid base of 4-star prospects and finish top 6 in the league in recruiting consistency, but that's not going to happen. Right now, Minnesota is beating out players with offers from MAINLY non-"Big 6" schools. What does that mean? It means in order for the Gophers to finish with a winning record, several players are going to have to take a huge leap in development while on campus. Rarely, if ever, will this program sign a polished, stud high school player. It's going to be filled with raw, unproven and under-the-radar prospects. Frustrating to fans, maybe. But in the long run I think a coach like Jerry Kill is a good fit for Minnesota.
 

Adding to your point, I think that the team will be cyclical short term. This is why I wish Gray was only a junior. I think this season may be a bit too soon to make a splash.

Hopefully they prove me wrong.
 



hard to argue with the kid's switch if it is already paying dividends.
 

I still don't think this is settled and we could be back in play.
 

CrocShots said:
Thus showing that stars don't mean diddly.
Click to expand...

Why does that mean that stars don't mean diddly? Kids ratings go up and down all the time, that's to be expected. This is especially true with a guy like Keelon who was injured for a large portion of last season. When a kid who was injured gets healthy and is still impressing, wouldn't you expect his rating to go up?
 

wait!what? said:
hard to argue with the kid's switch if it is already paying dividends.
Click to expand...

It really hasn't. His offers were already coming in. I suppose you're right if he starts picking up more and more offers, it could have helped him. However, I'd bet he ends up at Wisconsin or the U and he already had those offers prior to his rating increase.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Why does that mean that stars don't mean diddly? Kids ratings go up and down all the time, that's to be expected. This is especially true with a guy like Keelon who was injured for a large portion of last season. When a kid who was injured gets healthy and is still impressing, wouldn't you expect his rating to go up?
Click to expand...

You don't think the reason for his rating going up is a direct result of him verballing to Wisconsin? You believe that his rating would have still gone up to 4 stars if he had stayed with Minnesota?

I'm amazed people still look at Rivals for anything. You could have two kids very equal in talent. One kid verbals to Notre Dame and the other to Minnesota. Guess which one gets 4 stars and which one gets 2 stars? It's such a joke.
 

Bottom Line: We better win the football games we should, stay competitive with the helmet schools and steal a few games that we shouldn't win.

If this happens consistently than the recruiting will work itself out. Gradually we will lure in better talent and eventually become a B1G contender like the skunks to the east.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom