Re: We can't wait until March to fire Jank
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:50 pm
EastStang wrote:Let's be realistic. Who do we have to beat in recruiting? Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, Villanova? ACC schools? SEC schools? Big Ten Schools? Big XII Schools? Big East Schools? PAC 12? We know that Duke, UNC, KU and UK get first dibs. Then the upper tier ACC school and upper tier Big Ten (MU, MSU, UMD). After that, who can we realistically beat out? What is our measuring stick? Certainly, we should aim to have the best class each year in the AAC (depending on needs). Can we realistically aim to have a better class than the teams in the Big XII (except KU)? How about the Big Ten other than UM, MSU and UMD? How about the SEC (except UK and perhaps now Tenn.)? Shaka for example was used to recruiting leftovers and those leftovers loved his style of play. Now 5 star players don't like the word defense and he's having trouble in recruiting. Add in, that we can't get in the cesspool with other schools because, we'll get hammered, because we're SMU. So, that rules out great players with academic or character issues. The question you need to ask yourselves is this? Is it Jank or is it, us? If its us (our unique need to ensure that rules aren't broken), then perhaps no coach will recruit any better than Jank. We are not and have never been a top ten program except two times. And both of those times we got hammered by the NCAA.
Great questions EastStang. I have followed SMU basketball for a long time and I believe that the
breakup of the SWConference is the worst thing to happen to SMU, even more so than the death
penalty. I strongly agree with your recruiting and NCAA points. Yes, SMU basketball can be
exciting and tournament bound. Larry Brown proved that, but he also proved that the NCAA loves
to bash SMU (and him.) We don't have a marquee coach, we don't have a favored conference,
and we don't have a great TV contract so that young men can be seen playing on the national
stage. Your other point about not being able to compete in offering recruits under-the-table
incentives (implied) is right on.