PonyFans.com

former L.D. Bell recruit Steve Crevar who originally signed with Nebraska but was placed at Kilgore JC and converted to LB has committed to Tulsa allegedly over offers from OU and Nebraska. Rated 3 stars by Rivals. BTW I noticed Tulsa has about at least 2 transfers from OU and another from OSU who are to be eligible next year-maybe more. UTEP has about 5 Division 1A transfers from BCS schools. TCU has about 4 Division 1A transfers from Division 1A schools. Once again SMU is losing this battle BADLY. It's even worse when we are getting beat for Texas and even Metroplex recruits by TULSA.

..I don't think SMU really appeals to the local kid (forget poor, poor teams for a second..). Our eliteist attitude, "rich kids school", snob factor..all of these things, real or percieved, keep a TON of kids from SMU. A Bunch o' kids are not real comfortable in that "St. Marks / Hocaday" environment....

If our recruits can play, I don't care if they come from DFW or from Mars.

And is there any truth to the rumor that Tulsa has become a bit "lenient" on the academic admission standards for recruits?

I do not expect us to compete head to head with BCS schools for the top players but there are a lot of good (even great) players that are not always on the top of the BCS schools' wish lists. I do expect SMU to win most of the recruiting battles for the 'rest of the best' with schools like Tulsa, Rice, UTEP, La. Tech, etc. (essentially our conference foes). However, we are not. What is more troubling is that last year and now this year Tulsa has outrecruited us for many good local players. That is not a good sign. As Stallion points out, these schools also are getting transfers and solid JUCO help. I understand we have recently explored the JUCO recruits after a humiliating winless season but until SMU lossens its standards and restrictions we will not be able to consistently get these type players. Why would a kid choose SMU over UTEP, La. Tech, Tulsa, TCU, etc. when all of their JUCO/former Division 1-A school transfers and at SMU they do not? Again, SMU is its own worst enemy. Another sub par recruiting year.

JR,

You are only assuming that these specific Tulsa recruits could not have been admitted into SMU. Do you have any facts to support that?

btw, I am as perplexed as you as to why ANYONE would choose Tulsa, Oklahoma over Dallas. We should win these recruiting battles as often as A&M beats us in recruiting battles, which is 9+ times out of 10.

There is no reason for SMU to be outrecruited by Tulsa in football. SMU has better football facilities and better location. Neither school has had any consistent success on the field lately, but in fact SMU has a decided head to head advantage since we both joined the WAC. And while Graham is a good local recruiter, so is Bennett. Add it up, and it really makes you wonder what is up.

Recruiting of HS/JC is one arguement. The 'transfer' of BCS players is another. They are not one in the same, although the initial recruiting out of HS will effect who the transfer initially contacts.

On BCS transfers, the 'player tampering' issue is a serious offense & one that I'm sure (our) coaches want to avoid. As I understand the rules:
[1] No one from SMU can talk to the proposed 'transfer- he must contact them.
[2] The proposed 'transfer' must seek a release from his current coach before he can contact any other ncaa school.

If they follow the rules, the player must burn the bridge behind them (to OU/OSU), then go look for a new school. Logically, the player will contact the old recruiters 1st, then some 'outlaw' schools.

Now Tulsa has been known as an 'outlaw' school (especially in BB) in that they have always taken in the 'disgruntled' athletes from other programs. It should not surprise you that some kids transfer after sitting the bench, arguing with a coach, grade issues, girlfriend problems, drugs, injuries, or feeling they were misled in the recruiting process.

WE WERE NOT INTERESTED AND DID NOT RECRUIT HIM SO WE DID NOT LOSE HIM TO TULSA. Do you really think somebody would not go to OU or Nebraska if they really had offers and go to Tulsa? Be realistic.

SWC2010 wrote:Now Tulsa has been known as an 'outlaw' school (especially in BB) in that they have always taken in the 'disgruntled' athletes from other programs. It should not surprise you that some kids transfer after sitting the bench, arguing with a coach, grade issues, girlfriend problems, drugs, injuries, or feeling they were misled in the recruiting process.

Pardon me, but so what? What does Tulsa care how they are labeled by the cartel's coaches? Sounds like to me, a non-BCS school would almost be foolish not to compete for BCS transfers in the same way their competition, in this case Tulsa, does. The only repercussions I imagine is the coaches at said school develop a reputation that maybe hurts them in getting jobs later at BCS schools. If I am an athletic director who cares about winning and not my next job, I probably tell my coaches to play the game on transfers. I've always wondered why SMU gets fewer transfers than anybody, maybe this is why, we tip toe around the big boys who are trying to put us out of business.

that's right we are too busy fightin' it out with Sacramento St, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Grambling, Tennesse Tech, Texas St., to offer a kid from our backyard who not only was offered but signed a LOI with Nebraska. As for Division 1A transfers don't let the smokescreen from the cheerleaders get to you. SMU doesn't get 'em because we generally ain't in the game for 'em due to transfer complications.

Finished that report yet Stallion? We are beating alot of other schools besides the Sac. St. and the likes. Maybe we should not hold our breath for Stallion to do the report. Seems to be focused on one thing at a time.

Stallion, I really think you should go to support another school who can recruit players that 2/3 of their offers come from respectable D-1 schools, wherever that percentage comes from. Is that something you learned from reading the Rivals guidebook? We were not recruiting this kid because we did not think he could play. Maybe Tulsa does.

have you? I never said I was going to do a report but I already have said TCU and Tulane's recruits meet the criteria I stated. 3/4ths of Tulsa's recruits meet that standard. Right now if you include Division 1A transfers it looks to me like we are pulling up the rear in CUSA West except for Rice. That's my report.

One other point. Not all of these players are leaving voluntarily. Besides wanting out after sitting the bench, arguing with a coach, grade issues, girlfriend problems, drugs, injuries, or feeling they were misled in the recruiting process, some are being 'pushed' out.

If the current coach places a call on the player's behalf do you think he calls someone he may play in the next year or two? No, he calls the coaches at the schools who he will not face and/or the schools that are willing to 'take a risk' on such a player.

Now, I'm sure the transfers discussed in this thread are all good guys and my examples may not apply. Just like Foy Munlin, they just want to go somewhere else & get a chance to play. In that case, it's unfortunate that SMU was not on their radar screen as a second choice.

But many transfers bring baggage with them. I'd rather coaches spend their limited time & resourcesat the HS.

YOU are the ONE who said 2/3 were not offerded DIV 1 scholarships. (and TCU fits that bill as well). None else has come up with such a proposterous statement. Still waiting on your report on ALL non-BCS schools, Stallion. Not just your selected few.