TCU Recruiting

[papawasamustang]

A lot of purple on this 2012 recruiting list.

http://texags.com/mwr/prospectlist.asp? ... 2012&top=1

[gostangs]

How could we have not one reciever on that list interested in the most prolific passing offense in Texas. Thats crazy. We will have our second pro reciever get drafter this year (AR). Is someone awake out there?

[mathman]

I was under the impression that Rivals only took the top 20 commits for each team when they figured their class ranking. Maybe this formula is wrong since it is two years old but the second sentence says that only the top 20 are put into the formula.

http://life.atlantafalcons.com/topic/38 ... -rankings/

[SMU2007]

How could we have not one reciever on that list interested in the most prolific passing offense in Texas. Thats crazy. We will have our second pro reciever get drafter this year (AR). Is someone awake out there?

Most prolific passing offense in Texas? Really?

I think you are confused. Our passing offense can't come close to being described as "prolific". Padron threw for 250 yards per game. That's behind Houston, Tech, A&M, and just barely ahead of a disaster of a year with Texas at 230/game.

We are no Hawaii, Texas Tech etc. I hope that we will be soon, but for now, our team is not some high flying passing attack like so many people assume with June and the R&S.

[gostangs]

Not confused. Not saying we knocked the cover off the ball this year - but even with that tough year padron is only a couple 100 yds behind Potts for the season -and I have the average around 280 - in a down year. So maybe I should amend to say one of the most prolific in the state.

Still does not explain lack of big time receiver talent coming to SMU - should be at least one big tall burner a year I would think.

[ponyboy]

Read and Learn:
SMU STARTERS:

JT Brooks 4 Offers(1 BCS)
Beachum 1 Offer(0 BCS)
Aldrick Robinson 3 Offers(1 BCS)
Tennison 2 Offers(0 BCS)
K. Turner 1 Offer(0 BCS)
Yenga 3 Offers(0 BCS)
Banjo 6 Offers(0 BCS)
Beasley 2 Offers(0 BCS)
Z. Line 1 Offer (0 BCS)
McJunkin 3 Offers (0 BCS)
Taylor Thompson 9 Offers (8 BCS)
J. Davis 4 Offers (1 BCS)
M. Frazier 3 Offers (0 BCS)
Darius Johnson 5 Offers (2 BCS)
Sterling Moore 2 Offers (1 BCS)
Taylor Reed 1 Offer (0 BCS)
Kyle Padron 1 Offer (0 BCS)
Keenan Holman 1 Offer (0 BCS)
R. Crawford 1 Offer (0 BCS)
Pete Fleps 2 Offers ( 0 BCS)
Marcus Hunt 1 Offer (0 BCS)
Ryan Smith 1 Offer (0 BCS)

14 Total BCS Offers-8 of which were offers to Taylor Thompson. Only Thompson and D.J. received more than 1 BCS offer. Only 6 SMU starters received a BCS offer. Only 55 Total Offers for 22 positions-and 22 of those were from SMU. Only 33 Offers from other D1A schools. Now go compare to the TCU numbers

Nice diversionary tactic. Now back to ModelT's point in the post immediately above your response. How many of TCU's major contributors had low to zero BCS offers? And while we're at it, how the hell could a team that's been recruiting in the 40 range be one of the top five teams in the nation if recruiting were all that mattered?

[Wuba]

I was under the impression that Rivals only took the top 20 commits for each team when they figured their class ranking. Maybe this formula is wrong since it is two years old but the second sentence says that only the top 20 are put into the formula.

http://life.atlantafalcons.com/topic/38 ... -rankings/

I believe you are correct. I applied the formula from your link to SMU's current commitments using both the top 20 commits and the full list of 27 commitments. Using 20 commitments I calculated 618 pts, which is what Rivals has us at right now. Using all 27 commitments returned 699 pts.

[mathman]

I was under the impression that Rivals only took the top 20 commits for each team when they figured their class ranking. Maybe this formula is wrong since it is two years old but the second sentence says that only the top 20 are put into the formula.

http://life.atlantafalcons.com/topic/38 ... -rankings/

I believe you are correct. I applied the formula from your link to SMU's current commitments using both the top 20 commits and the full list of 27 commitments. Using 20 commitments I calculated 618 pts, which is what Rivals has us at right now. Using all 27 commitments returned 699 pts.

So the fact that we have 27 commits and another team might have only 20 does not skew the points in our favor as far as numbers go. Apparently only the top 20 count regardless how many above that number you sign.

[Wuba]

I was under the impression that Rivals only took the top 20 commits for each team when they figured their class ranking. Maybe this formula is wrong since it is two years old but the second sentence says that only the top 20 are put into the formula.

http://life.atlantafalcons.com/topic/38 ... -rankings/

I believe you are correct. I applied the formula from your link to SMU's current commitments using both the top 20 commits and the full list of 27 commitments. Using 20 commitments I calculated 618 pts, which is what Rivals has us at right now. Using all 27 commitments returned 699 pts.

So the fact that we have 27 commits and another team might have only 20 does not skew the points in our favor as far as numbers go. Apparently only the top 20 count regardless how many above that number you sign.

Yes. This can also be demonstrated by the fact that SMU's points on Rivals did not change with the addition of Yenga. Stallion's pre-Yenga analysis had SMU ranked 41 on rivals and post-Yenga SMU is still ranked 41. The reason is that pre-Yenga SMU had 1 4-star and 19 3-stars. Adding in Yenga (a 3-star) did not change the make up of the top 20 recruits (still 1 4-star and 19 3-stars).

Now, if SMU had an average star ranking over 3-stars then it would have impacted the calculation a little bit.

[mustangxc]

Your analysis on the star rating is slightly off as they factor in ratings for 5.5/5.6/5.7, not just 3 star/4 star. Hence TCU's much higher rating despite being a class of 3 stars like ours.

[Wuba]

Your analysis on the star rating is slightly off as they factor in ratings for 5.5/5.6/5.7, not just 3 star/4 star. Hence TCU's much higher rating despite being a class of 3 stars like ours.

Do you have a link showing that Rivals considers 5.5-5.7 in their point calculations? If you do I would love to see it, otherwise I will trust the one that was linked above. All I know is that I used the formula on the link and was able to recreate our ranking exactly.

I think the reason TCU is ranked higher is not the 5.5-5.7 issue, but rather the impact of various players being ranked highly in the nation in various position groups or perhaps in the overall rankings. As shown in the formula, there are various "bonuses" given for commits that rank high, which factor across the total ranking. You should go to the link and read the formula, it explains it much better than I can without just copying and pasting.

For SMU the total of this "bonus" is 24, as they get 8 each for Moreland, Levingston and Nlemchi. I should emphasize that this is not 24 "points" added to the total, but rather it is part of a formula that is multiplied by the points for each commit.

Maybe the formula posted is wrong, but you would have to agree that it is a pretty big coincidence that it returned SMU's exact point total. If I have time I will try to replicate TCU's, but it is a pretty big pain to calculate the "bonus" points as you have to look it up player by player and there are multiple ways a player can earn "bonuses."

[SMU2007]

Your analysis on the star rating is slightly off as they factor in ratings for 5.5/5.6/5.7, not just 3 star/4 star. Hence TCU's much higher rating despite being a class of 3 stars like ours.

Do you have a link showing that Rivals considers 5.5-5.7 in their point calculations? If you do I would love to see it, otherwise I will trust the one that was linked above. All I know is that I used the formula on the link and was able to recreate our ranking exactly.


Maybe the formula posted is wrong, but you would have to agree that it is a pretty big coincidence that it returned SMU's exact point total. If I have time I will try to replicate TCU's, but it is a pretty big pain to calculate the "bonus" points as you have to look it up player by player and there are multiple ways a player can earn "bonuses."

seriously doubt that the formula coincidentally replicates our point total. i think you can take it as truth.

[mustangxc]

Sorry, no source, just remember reading that some time ago.

[SMUtrojanFAN]

Here is Scout's ranking explained. Couldn't find anything on Rivals in a quick search, but I assume they're similar.

http://www.scout.com/3/about-team-rankings.html

[Dutch]

Not confused. Not saying we knocked the cover off the ball this year - but even with that tough year padron is only a couple 100 yds behind Potts for the season -and I have the average around 280 - in a down year. So maybe I should amend to say one of the most prolific in the state.

Still does not explain lack of big time receiver talent coming to SMU - should be at least one big tall burner a year I would think.

we need the O-Line first, and AK is doing a good job of getting them here to protect the QB and give him time to make this a high-flying offense.

remember, in 9 years at Hawaii, june put 17 OL's in the NFL. those are the guys we need, and Klemm is getting them here.