Composite Texas Top 100

by **Stallion** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:07 pm

For what its worth-here's another interesting attempt to do a composite ranking of the players in the Class of 2009 based upon a long list of about 10 recruiting sources-probably only has any real use in rating the Top 150 or so-because a Top 100 is usually the focus of the rankings:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:o9z ... clnk&gl=us

by **ponygrad90** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:37 pm

Having read through that, is ther not cause for some optimism over some of the SMU recruits listed?

by **MustangLaxer** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:26 am

life is easier for texas huh

by **San Antonio Mustang** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:56 am

Stallion, Thanks for posting these lists.

by **friarwolf** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:03 am

Interesting how many kids are staying at home or Oklahoma versus 10 years ago................

by **MustangIcon** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:56 am

friarwolf wrote:Interesting how many kids are staying at home or Oklahoma versus 10 years ago................

Texas:
1991: 5-6
1992: 6-5
1993: 5-5-1
1994: 8-4
1995: 10-2-1
1996: 8-5
1997: 4-7

Oklahoma:
1994: 6-6
1995: 5-5-1
1996: 3-8
1997: 4-8
1998: 5-6

I think that explains a good portion of it. Of course its a chicken/egg type thing. Were they getting crappy recruits bc their teams sucked or did their teams suck bc they had crappy recruits? Of course, things changed in 99 for OU and in 98 for Texas as a couple fellas named Stoops and Brown took over.

But you are right. I swear during the late 90s, reading the Houston Chronicle, it seemed like every top recruit picked FSU, Miami, Michigan, and ND.

by **Stallion** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:27 am

those top recruits simply didn't want to play in the SWC and a good part of the blame goes to SMU, TCU, Rice and UH whose administrations were simply happy to be riding the coattails of the state schools. The have-nots undersestimated the value of Big Time College Football and not one of those schools had made major infrastructure changes to their facilities in about 30-40 years. Since the breakup all those schools have addressed such changes-too late. Its too bad the have-nots were so ridiculously naive as to what was needed to compete at the highest levels of Division 1 but Arkansas, UT, A&M, Tech and Baylor all made the right choice in splitting up the SWC. It may suck but the right choice was made for the long term benefit of their schools.

by **davidpaul123** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:46 am

good post. it was nice to see a handful of our recruits on there.

HOUSTON seems to be off to a nice start in recruiting as well.

by **friarwolf** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:47 pm

Looking back, it is amazing to think one state kept a conference together for so long. I wish SMU had had the foresight to be one of the instigators in the early 80's...............

by PK » Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:58 pm

Stallion wrote:... but Arkansas, UT, A&M, Tech and Baylor all made the right choice in splitting up the SWC.

I think you give Baylor too much credit...they were just damn lucky to be included.

by **San Antonio Mustang** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:04 pm

PK wrote:I think you give Baylor too much credit...they were just damn lucky to be included.

It didn't hurt to have Governor Richards telling Texas, A&M, & Tech they could not leave the SWC unless the took Baylor with them.

by **friarwolf** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:55 am

Garret wrote:I've been following Texas recruiting for a long time (since the SWC days) and I cannot remember a year like this before. Every player that Texas and Oklahoma (and Texas A&M) have battled for has so far picked Texas...and the quality of the recruits seems higher than normal.

I thought that Texas only has 4 or 5 offers out as of now? Some of the 9 offers reported are not valid anymore or the players were not actually offered.

Its a return to the 1960's when Texas' 3rd string probably could have beaten all the other SWC teams with the possible exception of Arkansas........

by **Sewanee Stang** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:15 am

It's best for SMU, TCU, Baylor, etc when UT gets the top tier talent, so that they can battle against each other and the middling Big 12 schools for the next tier talent. From that level, there is enough talent in Texas for the other schools to field successful teams. When the top recruits go out of state in large numbers then UT has to drop down and grab some of the guys from the latter bunch, and then SMU, TCU & Baylor have to "lower their sights" to marginal recruits. The more the talent stays home, the more SMU can potentially benefit.

by **expony18** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:33 am

this should be called the stallion blowing texas thread... we get it... texas recruits top talent and gets them... and thats why they win...

by **mathman** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:36 pm

Sewanee Stang wrote:It's best for SMU, TCU, Baylor, etc when UT gets the top tier talent, so that they can battle against each other and the middling Big 12 schools for the next tier talent. From that level, there is enough talent in Texas for the other schools to field successful teams. When the top recruits go out of state in large numbers then UT has to drop down and grab some of the guys from the latter bunch, and then SMU, TCU & Baylor have to "lower their sights" to marginal recruits. The more the talent stays home, the more SMU can potentially benefit.

Somehow that made sense to me. :shock:

Composite Texas Top 100

Who is online