Recruiting: SMU vs. TCU

by **panhandle_pony** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:31 pm

Ok, everyone is aware of the accomplishments of the TCU football program with a final season #7 ranking in the AP. But it is interesting to look at how Rivals rated the recruiting efforts of TCU and SMU over the past few years (below). The rankings, if Rivals is considered a reliable source, indicate the TCU recruiting classes were good, but not especially stellar; and, if one were to look at their '07 and '08 classes they will need a great effort this year along with JC talent to keep the wheels greased.

TCU SMU

'03 69 62
'04 55 76
'05 54 81
'06 61 107
'07 80 98
'08 96 90

Superior coaching ? Great JC efforts ? Luck ? Schedule ? Divine intervention ? Why not us ?

by **Stallion** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:39 pm

Finishing 55, 54 and 61 would place the TCU Class aomg the Top 3 non-BCS Classes during the period and better than just about any programs on the schedule except for some of the obvious ones they lost to. The 96 score in 2008 is a mathmatical aberration because TCU signed only about 16 players. If you go recruit by recruit and compare the the classes for these two programs TCU has routed us every year. Nice try though.

by **Stallion** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:48 pm

I've tried to warn you guys that these numbers can be manipulized by size class etc. Take a look at this AVERAGE PER RECRUIT analysis which establishes TCU is one of the Top non-BCS recruiting schools in the Country. TCU First SMU Second

2004 51-86
2005 60-71
2006 49-82
2007 55-84
2008 73-81

by **panhandle_pony** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:50 pm

Very good observation Stallion. But if they were in the top 3 to 5 non BCS recruiting classes by your calculations, what happened to all of the BCS schools with better classes ? To be number 7, BCS or Non BCS, with the recruiting rankings of TCU is hard to grasp. I'm not arguing your point, just continually trying to figure out the Rivals system and its' reliability

by **Stallion** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:56 pm

Now we are going to [deleted] off the Horned Frogs but its my belief that recruiting is relative to your opposition thereby explaining how TCU beats most every team on their schedule-they outrecruit them. I personally don't think TCU could consistently compete for Top 3 finishes in BCS conferences like Big 12 and SEC. I think they would lose 4-5 games most years-probably even 3-4 this year if they competed in those conferences. Could they have beaten OU, UT, OSU and Tech this year-maybe upset OSU or Tech at home-that's still giving them the benefit of a doubt 3 losses before they even travel North. Short answer-I don't think that in most years TCU would finish in the Top 30 playing a BCS level schedule. This year I think they could have made the Top 25 though. But they have had great success against the second tier BCS schools and actually have built a very good-no great record against the BCS. For that they deserve a lot of credit.

by **panhandle_pony** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:59 pm

Voila ! It is the number 7 ranking that deserves scrutiny, not Rivals. I'll buy that.

by **GuardianFrog** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:57 pm

Just to add to the discussion, I think Rivals has a tough time evaluating TCU's classes because of how we recruit. Patterson does a good job finding players like Jerry Hughes who was a 2 star RB and turning them into All American DEs or guys like Shea Reagan and Jason Phillips who played out of position in HS. Plus we have a lot of small town guys that Rivals just didn't do their homework on like 2 star RB Lonta Hobbs.

by **HFvictory** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:14 pm

Stallion wrote:Now we are going to [deleted] off the Horned Frogs but its my belief that recruiting is relative to your opposition thereby explaining how TCU beats most every team on their schedule-they outrecruit them. I personally don't think TCU could consistently compete for Top 3 finishes in BCS conferences like Big 12 and SEC. I think they would lose 4-5 games most years-probably even 3-4 this year if they competed in those conferences. Could they have beaten OU, UT, OSU and Tech this year-maybe upset OSU or Tech at home-that's still giving them the benefit of a doubt 3 losses before they even travel North. Short answer-I don't think that in most years TCU would finish in the Top 30 playing a BCS level schedule. This year I think they could have made the Top 25 though. But they have had great success against the second tier BCS schools and actually have built a very good-no great record against the BCS. For that they deserve a lot of credit.

Hard to tell how TCU would do in those conferences, but remember with membership in those conferences also adds both money and prestige. TCU loses out on untold recruits simply because they are not in the big xii.

However, even with the classes TCU has brought in I think TCU would do much better than many think in either the SEC or Big XII, especially this past season. Certainly would finish towards the top in almost any of the other auto-bid conferences and would dominate many programs consistently rated higer than TCU in recruiting.

I don't buy the theory at all that since TCU out-recruits its main rivals that is the reason they finish so high in the rankings. TCU has proven over the years it can compete against the best of schools and the MWC has shown it is a much better conference than several auto-bid conferences.

Bottom line is TCU's rivals are very good and some of the best in the country. MWC had 2 schools in the Top 10 in 2008.

by **Corp** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:40 am

From all indications, the Frog's 2009 class

appears to have a very promising future.

http://www.star-telegram.com/856/story/1171610.html

by **asphalt cowboy** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:43 am

Patterson took what Franchione left and kept building. He's a good judge of recruits and also has assembled an excellent staff of teachers and coaches. Now we have a situation onthe Hilltop with JJ and staff. They are also teachers and coaches. The ponies will win and win big. Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't help the team.

OLD AGE ISN'T FOR SISSIES!