PonyFans.com

...is that Rivals has SMU getting commitments from two kids named Victor Makinde (or McKinde). This first is a 2-star DB from Phoenix, the second is a 3-star DB from Glendale, CA.

I wonder what will happen to our #80 ranking once they eventually figure it out?

HA! Didn't they do this a few years ago, too? Identifying the same guy twice, with a slight difference? (Actually, Texas only signed two guys, but there were some really bad mis-spellings in all the repeated reports. When they get it sorted out, UT will be way behind us on the ol' list. )

I see a database that shows us ranked 111. Last in the WAC.

111 or 80, anyway you rationally look at it, this does not appear to be a very good class. Anybody using the terms "great", "outstanding", etc. has to admit they are sunshiners or are smoking something I would like to have.

I would say the class is Ok considering the very poor on field performances of the 3 Bennett years.

This class gives us depth. I am excited about the JUCO's who can come in and contribute right away and about the linemen. All of them have decent size and frames that a red-shirt year and a weight room can sculpt. All seem to be coachable from the quotes I saw. If a kid comes in and works his tail off, he'll get be right up there. Whether these guys will be starters or practice squad players, they are clearly an upgrade from the not too distant past.

I agree, the key to this class was the new-found depth. The most glaring need, depth-wise, was the offensive line, and it sounds like we've added some guys who not only are big, but also strong and have some talent. I also like the additions at LB, and the athletic WRs (Sanders and, if he plays there, Givens). How this class turns out, of course, can't be determined for a few years. And while there might not be an Adrian Peterson in the group, it sounds like there are going to be a lot of players who contribute to SMU's improved team.

rich-alum,

That 111th ranking on Insiders.com is based on a grand total of 3 – count 'em 3 – commitments. Needless to say, those guys are a bit out of touch... They're missing the other 22 kids...

the Insiders was a complete waste of money this year. I don't think they even had a correspondent focusing on Texas recruiting after Emfinger left. I agree the Insiders ranking is completely worthless.

So was their methodology more driven by past performance?

No there are small pockets of the US where Insiders may be better than Rivals probably because they have a quality editor in that section of the country. This year they didn't have one solely for Texas so the editor for the SEC region also covered Texas-much too big an area. Its simply incomplete coverage in Texas unless the recruit was a national recruit. BTW I have serious doubts any of these services do a good job covering JC Football or the MWC region either.