# 107

by **westexSMU** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:45 pm

Rivals has the 2006 SMU Recruiting Class Ranked # 107 in the nation today. Any thoughts ?

by **SMU88** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:54 pm

They only have 13 of our committments listed. They are missing 3.

Still 107 is harsh.

by **westexSMU** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:03 pm

[quote="SMU88"]They only have 13 of our committments listed. They are missing 3.

Still 107 is harsh.[/quote] You were right and the three have now been added. SMU has moved up to #105.

by **JasonB** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:49 pm

Yo, we only have 16 players, so total points isn't an accurate judgement.

We are 87 if you use average, which isn't great either, but not as bad as you are making it out to be.

Cunningham, DeGroat and Jones will ALL be major players before it is all said and done.

by **MFFL02** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:43 pm

I don't think these recruiting pages are that accurate that is at least what the coaches say.

by **KnuckleStang** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:49 pm

The Rivals ranking that uses TOTAL PLAYER POINTS is about the stupidest ranking one could possibly conceive. It means nothing, and it hurts Rivals credibility that they even publish it for serious consideration.

Every school has different #'s of schollys to give. It's the average rating PER RECRUIT that matters.

(And even that's debatable.)

by **Stallion** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:39 pm

No that's not true. A team with 25 players is still going to have 25 players to 'hit" on while we will have 16. I like the chances of the team with 25 if the classes are generally equal. I pointed this out in past years when we took a full class and the cheerleaders were talking about Rivals rating those classes relatively high. Don't remember too many of you suggesting those SMU classes should be downgraded because they were full classes.

A great majority of the schools take full classes or at least 23. That being said some consideration should be given to schools which didn't take full classes. A good way might to combine the full classes from recent years with this one to get a composite. If you do combine recent full classes with this smaller class SMU is still not recruiting on a particularly high level for the last 3 years.

Fact remains that even though we had fewer ships to give we still signed about 10 kids who can only be considered sleepers. Not only did we not earn a very good Total Points Number we also did not earn very many points with the numbers we did sign. Even if you double SMU classes SMU still falls far behind the top recruited classes of CUSA and TCU and that is because of the lack of quality we did sign. Look at the number of recruits signed by other CUSA teams who were nationally ranked at their positions-thereby earning extra points. This is where Phil Bennett's earns his pay in evaluation.

As for the excuse that we recruited a lot of rural kids who didn't get a lot of publicity let me assure you that is because Phil Bennett failed to successfully recruit a heck of alot of great prospects in his own backyard that were in fact his own first choices. TCU has simply outrecruited Phil Bennett badly over the last 3 years ESPECIALLY in our own backyard. Therefore, Bennett has resorted to 3rd 4th and 5th options who are sleepers.

by **Original Frank** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:56 pm

Does westexPony remind anyone else of FrogSnob? Constant putdowns with really no point other than to deride and ridicule. FrogSnob disappears and westex suddenly appears. I think we can all sense Stallion's passion; westex is just a sand-in-the-face humiliation seeker (aka FrogSnob). I think they are both just Frog trolls who haven't yet discovered girls. It could be the chronic acne...

by **westexSMU** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:03 am

[quote="JasonB"]Yo, we only have 16 players, so total points isn't an accurate judgement.

We are 87 if you use average, which isn't great either, but not as bad as you are making it out to be.

Cunningham, DeGroat and Jones will ALL be major players before it is all said and done.[/quote] I am not" making anything out to be" I am just saying how RIVALS evaluated our class. You may not agree with the information. Certainly there are several recruits I think will contribute to our team,but the FACT is generally this class is not highly regarded by any recruiting service.

by **westexSMU** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:16 am

original frank, Live your dream "we can win championships with this class" maybe so, but I would rather be ranked higher than #105

by **OC Mustang** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:29 am

Stallion wrote:

Therefore, Bennett has resorted to 3rd 4th and 5th options who are sleepers.

Okay, I respect you, even if I occasionally razz you. :roll:

But c'mon Stal...you gotta back this particular comment up.
You might be right, but you are not getting this from rivals or scout or whatever site others are chewing on you about. It is one thing to suspect it, but you are putting it out there as gospel. The truth is, I personally don't know. Again, you could be right, but I think it is an accident if you are.

Yeah, I can use common sense and see that our interests in JUCO QBs...well, we definitely were down the list a ways before we got one. But these 3rd, 4th, and 5th options on up to 10 of the 12 high schoolers. I disagree. One anecdote, for Zac Rhoades, I heard about him as high on their list last June, I believe.

by **RGV Pony** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:38 am

I think ULLaf is rated higher than we are...or at one time they were

by **KnuckleStang** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:43 am

Sorry, it just seems stupid to me that the recruiting class of Southwestern Sh*tbag State College is considered "better" than ours because they had 26 scholarships to give and we didn't. Hell, if that's the criteria, who needs Rivals. And when do the Preseason Recruiting Rankings come out for '07.

by **RGV Pony** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:27 am

KnuckleStang wrote:Sorry, it just seems stupid to me that the recruiting class of Southwestern Sh*tbag State College is considered "better" than ours because they had 26 scholarships to give and we didn't. Hell, if that's the criteria, who needs Rivals. And when do the Preseason Recruiting Rankings come out for '07.

and therein exists my point. How many of the 106 above us are the same story as "Southwestern Sh*tbag State College?"

by **EastStang** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:51 am

I was watching ESPNU's recruiting coverage. No mention of Non-BCS conferences in the first hour and 1/2 of coverage, not even on the ticker underneath. I quit watching. I didn't care about what kind of recruiting year Louisville had. I bring this up because that's what we're facing now. We get what's left over after the BCS schools get their picks. Arkansas was rated the worst recruiting class in the SEC, yet gets one of the best QB's in the Country. Even the worst recruiter in the SEC gets better players than we do.

# 107

# 107

Who is online