TCU Example

[SMUstang]

Do you think SMU will ever recruit 10 ***'s out of a total of 18 ships given like TCU did this year?

[BringBackThePonies03]

In the near future their is no doubt that we will do at least this, this will happen within the next five years.

[me@smu]

Give it some time and if we keep winning ballgames then yes, we can pull in some three stars also.

[Stallion]

Yeah just because TCU has outrecruited SMU 16 or 17 years out of the last 17 years(the truth-not an exaggeration) does not mean that miracles don't come true.

[Flatlander]

I believe that the ***'s will not fall SMU's way for more cynical reasons: IF SMU is in the running for them late, then most likely, I believe the recruiting services will downgrade them since they believe that "SMU couldn't possibly be close to signing quality players"....you see it all the time with players moving up as a strong recruit gets semi-courted by UT or OU or if a recruit that WAS courted by a traditional power and commits to a mid-level program....besides, everyone can point to 5* recruits that bust and 2* kids that end up as studs.

[Frog2003]

Do you think SMU will ever recruit 10 ***'s out of a total of 18 ships given like TCU did this year?

It doesn't matter about the stars next to the name in February, all that matters is what the record is at the end of December. Outside of maybe the National Top 100, its more about finding players that fit into your system, and who are evaluated well by your schools staff. I'll take the 2 stars we signed this year over alot of players that are ranked as 4 stars for 1 simple reason: our coaching staff wanted them.

If you trust your coaching staff, then SMU fans should feel the same way. If you don't, or your coaches can't get the ones they want, then thats a different story.

Most of the guys below 4 stars aren't even evaluated by the recruiting services until after they've gotten a substantial number of offers, or they've committed, and who they're recruited by has a direct reflection on their final rankings. TCU's recruiting rankings this year are more about the reputation of TCU's coaches to get good recruits and make them into good college players. The recruiting services then assume the kid's a decent player, and rank them accordingly. There are simply too many players out there for the recruiting services to keep up with them. At least Rivals tries. Look at ESPN's ratings...if they don't know who a kid is, they assume they aren't any good, and give them a 3.0 ranking.

The bottom line is this, if your coaching staff gets who they want, your program will be just fine. If they can't get who they want (for whatever reason), or they suck at evaluating talent, then your program is going to have issues.

[Peruna88]

All that matters is the scoreboard at the end of the game - 21-10.

[Frog2003]

All that matters is the scoreboard at the end of the game - 21-10.

I'll take a year like this year every year, even if it means losing to SMU.

[SMUstang]

"It doesn't matter about the stars next to the name in February, all that matters is what the record is at the end of December. Outside of maybe the National Top 100, its more about finding players that fit into your system, and who are evaluated well by your schools staff. I'll take the 2 stars we signed this year over alot of players that are ranked as 4 stars for 1 simple reason: our coaching staff wanted them.

If you trust your coaching staff, then SMU fans should feel the same way. If you don't, or your coaches can't get the ones they want, then thats a different story.

Most of the guys below 4 stars aren't even evaluated by the recruiting services until after they've gotten a substantial number of offers, or they've committed, and who they're recruited by has a direct reflection on their final rankings. TCU's recruiting rankings this year are more about the reputation of TCU's coaches to get good recruits and make them into good college players. The recruiting services then assume the kid's a decent player, and rank them accordingly. There are simply too many players out there for the recruiting services to keep up with them. At least Rivals tries. Look at ESPN's ratings...if they don't know who a kid is, they assume they aren't any good, and give them a 3.0 ranking.

The bottom line is this, if your coaching staff gets who they want, your program will be just fine. If they can't get who they want (for whatever reason), or they suck at evaluating talent, then your program is going to have issues."

Thanks Frog2003, you made me feel a lot better about our 2006 class. I know we picked up a lot of speed, and I am sure the coaching staff picked the people they felt we needed. But the lack of recognition by the recruiting services had me wandering.

[Stallion]

Oh please TCU acts like its a miracle that they even win a game when in reality they have had among the top non-BCS classes just about every year for 10 years. Its not so much the keen evaluation skills of the TCU coaches (although they have had their discoveries just like every other coach)-TCU's real success has been just beating the heck out of their competition in recruiting. Its called getting the job done and out working your competitors.

[SMU Football Blog]

Haven't had a spitting match in a while.

TCU:
1995: 6-5
1996: 4-7
1997: 1-10
1998: 7-5

Yeah, the difference between 1997 and 1998 was ALL recruiting. The mere fact they paid big money to get a new coach was entirely coincidental.

[McClown27]

Oh please TCU acts like its a miracle that they even win a game when in reality they have had among the top non-BCS classes just about every year for 10 years. Its not so much the keen evaluation skills of the TCU coaches (although they have had their discoveries just like every other coach)-TCU's real success has been just beating the heck out of their competition in recruiting. Its called getting the job done and out working your competitors.

I agree. As a condemned fan of SMU and the University of Minnesota, I can't believe that TCU regularly beats both schools in recruiting.

[Stallion]

the typical mistake of just about all casual fans-especially the ones on this board. The effect of good recruiting years rarely are fully observable for at least 3 but usually 4 years. For example, the 1995 team was made up predominately of players recruited from 1990 and 1991 and also 1992. And starting with Fran TCU has regularly beaten SMU like a drum in recruiting accourding to ALL sources except for one year

[SMUstang]

Haven't had a spitting match in a while.

TCU:
1995: 6-5
1996: 4-7
1997: 1-10
1998: 7-5

Yeah, the difference between 1997 and 1998 was ALL recruiting. The mere fact they paid big money to get a new coach was entirely coincidental.

Don't forget, in 1997 TCU's only win was against SMU and in 1998 they beat USC in the Sun Bowl.

[me@smu]

This whole fight about who outrecruits who by Rivals and Scouts standards is so completly useless.

Alright lets dispel the lies...USC did not win their national championships by being the number 1 recruiting class. Infact their first recruiting national championship according to Rivals wasn't until 2004 which was the signing day after their 1st partial NC.

UT was the National recruiting champion in 2002 and that helps..however, every year since Mack Brown was there they have been in the top five and hadn't won it before now.

UM's best recruiting classes and the ones that won them the 2001 NC along with the whole winning streak, were unheralded compared to many other programs. Might mention their 2002 class was far superior than their 2000 class at recruiting time...however, 8 first rounders later...there isn't a contest.

Point is that you win by coaching. You take your players and you mold them into something special, otherwise, why bother with Coachs, just give me a band of recruiters. If coaching doesn't win ballgames, then how does SMU beat five teams this year with a senior class that recruiting numbers wise was its worst in four years?