Recruiting Breakdown

by **ReedFrawg** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:26 pm

Obviously there is no exact science to measure a recruiting class. However, like Stallion, I believe that looking at the offers a player has is more valuable than their star ranking - this is even more relevant based on the fact that Rivals is much quicker to give out 3 stars now than they were 5 years ago. I only included D1A offers...

Here it is...
SMU 27 Players 92 Total Offers 38 BCS Offers
TCU 25 123 80
Rice 20 59 12
Hou 22 41 21
UCF 26 111 76

Based on this, UCF had an outstanding class. Houston had a weak class...thought you guys might be curious like I was.

by **NickSMU17** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:33 pm

Please stop....

You work on the assumption that rivals is reporting the correct number of bcs offers...I would think you are underestimating both tcu and smu's class.

by **redpony** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:34 pm

RF- interesting info. However, the true results/successes only show up on the field. This weekend there is game called the Superbowl. We (SMU) have one player playing and a general manager there. How do the little froggies stack up this weekend?

GO PONIES!!!

by **NickSMU17** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:40 pm

I count over 50 bcs offers from our handout...

If I were you I would be on the ucf board hoping they don't kick your [deleted] in 2 years

by **mrydel** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:42 pm

I am betting he means AQ offers.

by **NickSMU17** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:47 pm

So am I. If you go through our write-ups on smumustangs.com... I count over 50 bcs offers

by **Stallion** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:48 pm

offers really can be off in both ways. Recruiting services may not list them all but the real liklihood is that offers are overstated on the date of actual commitment. They still are indicative that at least a one time a Division 1A Coach considered the player a taker. I've found Rivals to be more accurate on offers. In any event they do understate the offers of kids that commit very early and never waiver. You kind of have to meld several perspectives.

by **SMULaxer** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:51 pm

Purple is an ugly color.

This wasn't taken into account either.

by **ReedFrawg** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:39 pm

SMULaxer wrote:Purple is an ugly color.

This wasn't taken into account either.

My bad guys...just some info I was passing along. Didn't expect such harsh replies but oh well. And no I did not have time to look through every bio from each team.

Take it for what it's worth...directionally UCF had a good class, UH did not.

by **mustangxc** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:58 pm

ReedFrawg wrote:
SMULaxer wrote:Purple is an ugly color.

This wasn't taken into account either.

My bad guys...just some info I was passing along. Didn't expect such harsh replies but oh well. And no I did not have time to look through every bio from each team.

Take it for what it's worth...directionally UCF had a good class, UH did not.

I appreciate the info ReedFrawg!!!! Ignore the newbies, they'll figure it out eventually!!!

by **Stallion** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:59 pm

some people can't handle intelligent discussion. UH did an great job identifying early some overlooked prospects but 7 jumped ship-6 to BCS schools.

by **NickSMU17** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:07 pm

In my field only accurate data counts as intelligent or beneficial. This is not accurate.

by **ReedFrawg** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:09 pm

Stallion wrote:some people can't handle intelligent discussion. UH did an great job identifying early some overlooked prospects but 7 jumped ship-6 to BCS schools.

That's good news for SMU. Houston seems like the big threat to SMU as far as conference expansion goes....so what's bad for them is probably good fr SMU - at least long-term.

And for Nick...the info is from Rivals. If you don't like the source that's cool - feel free to provide correct SMU numbers.

by **NickSMU17** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:15 pm

I did...it's over 50 aq offers according to smu press release...

by **Stallion** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:16 pm

Well you added additional information that everyone can consider. But I can tell you based on years and years of reading team prospectuses that they too are not always accurate. At least on the recruiting services there is feedback from both schools as to whether a team offered. I bet you could go to Sun Belt teams and Division 1AA schools and find all kinds of claims of offers from SMU that nobody has verified. I see it inaccurately reported that SMU offered all the time-and yet SMU recruiting services will have extensive inside stories and sources denying an offer to that player even before he signs with a lower school. No one could ever use a relatively unbiased source such as Rivals or Scout to compare classes because no one has inside info on all these schools.