PonyFans.com

Jsut bsed on their "star" rating system. We have 5 three stars so far this year. Previous years:

1 in 2002,
11 in 2003 and
1 in 2004

Good job by the coacahes!! Keep 'em coming!!

Well done -- finish strong, coaches!

What do we have .... one left? Two?

Currnet Rivals team rankings shows SMU at #71 and Tulane at #90. Anyone surprised this was not mentioned in post below?

perhaps that's because Rivals only has half of Tulane's recruiting class listed genius.

Get over yourselves.

Stallion, before indiscreetly jumping on Stampede's enthusiasm about the Rivals rankings, maybe once again you should do your homework. But, don't worry, I went back and did it for you.

You're right when you say that Rivals' rating of Tulane might be questioned since Rivals only lists 7 of Tulane's 17 announced commitments. Of the 7 Rivals does publish, 6 are 2 stars and 1 is a 3 star. Of the 10 which Rivals missed, 5 are in Rivals' database, and 5 aren't in Rivals' database. Of the 5 who are in Rivals' database, 1 - Matt Slocumb, a DL from Louisiana, is a 2 star. The other 4 who are in Rivals' database are all no-stars. And, I think it would be fair to presume that the 5 who aren't in Rivals' database are likewise no-stars since according to Rivals, they don't exist. This being the case, Rivals' rating for Tulane stands, and Stampede's point is therefore well taken. I think you owe our comrade an apology.

Thanks for your analysis!

Thanks for your analysis,MustangForever. Good woek but my real point is that htis is Coach Bennett's 2nd bet class and we should be thankful for the results obtained by Coach Bennett and his staff.

Next years' class will be even better and I am looking forward to the first 4 or 5 star recruit to sign with the Mustangs!

I know Phil's first class wasn't all his, but this is his FOURTH class at SMU.....and EVERYONE concerned better hope we have a good season in 2005!

Why are we all arguing over the little things? We can all agree that SMU still is not structured to compete in Division 1-A football. When Bennett took the job he said his focus was on the local high school kids. If we judge Bennett on the local kids he has been able to recruit, I would be hardpressed to give him a C grade. Again, I ask the following questions to which no one has answered: How many State top 100 players does SMU have commited? How many top area players does SMU have commited? How many DISD players does SMU have commited? I am impressed by Stallion's knowledge of the recruiting. His posts of what other schools (namely our competition) are doing really shows how far SMU still has to go to become even semi-competitive. To put matters frankly, SMU still is clueless and has a long way to go. I am really excited to listen to the spin Bennett and his staff and Copeland put on this recent set back.

JR, I will not concede your point that SMU is not prepared to compete. Your persistance and negative posts are as predictable as rain.

Our performance in recruiting is linked to our recent performance on the field. Phil is actually doing better than one would expect given our results. You expect us to out-recruit UT and A&M. That is naive. With the additions of JUCO to the roster, Phil has more latitude than previously.
Get off the sky is failing attitude. God knows we have our challenges.

If I was a recruit reading your posts, why would I come.? Thank goodness most posters dismiss your rants because this is no insight or reasons for optimisim. You claim the facts are facts. If so, why bother to work for the future. I don't accept the premise we aren't going to improve. Phil is committed to us and am grateful.

I do not expect to outrecruit BCS powers. I do expect the coaches to outrecruit (especially locally) Tulsa, Tulane, Houston, Baylor, TCU, La. Tech, UTEP, etc. Bennett's plan to recruit local kids has not worked out so good has it. I am sure you will find a way to 'spin' it waterpony. Tell us how SMU will return to winning seasons soon and compete for conference championships.

1. In the next two years, we benefit from the last three years of investing in youth.
2. We are gaining size and speed.
3. Coaching staff will have more options to invest in and execute with.
4. It is the last three classes, not a 2005 class, that will need to deliver successfully this season.
5. The schedule remains a challenge but there is no TTech or Okla State.
6. We trade Boise State, Fresno State and La Tech for East Carolina, UAB and Marshall
7. Pick-up Houston and Baylor
8. Ouch, A&M on schedule.
9. We play TCU tighter and win in '05
10. A .500 season is possible and do-able.

With that result we can recruit much better in the MetroPlex against anyone; recognizing that the cartel continues to have an important edge ($) and TX and A&M continue to be first choice of high school kids.

Water Pony, you are sooooooooooo right.

With the returning upperclass, and injury situation, I am expecting a 5-6 or 6-5 year. If this happens, recruiting will become easier and more HS kids will give SMU a closer look. When you see a program go 0-12, 3-8 and then 5-6 or 6-5, you can see the improvement. You no longer are having to promise the improvement, you have it documented.

Now you can recruit on the premise of going to bowl games at 7-4 or 8-3.

Things take time! I see it and a lot of recruits see it.

I like this class and we are FULL. Think about it.... Full... Not waiting for someone to get bumped from Tulsa, Baylor, or TT.

We are FULL of OUR SMU recruits.

Way to go Coaches