PonyFans.com

I personally don't see the link on Rivals for this info-but here is what some Baylor fan posted. Not sure if it includes our 3 recent commits or not.


College Football Recruiting Class Rankings just came out on RIVALS!! (www,RIVALS.com). Here they are thus far for the current 2009 class:

TOP 25

1) Ohio St
2) Usc
3) TEXAS
4) LSU
6) OKLAHOMA
12) TEXAS A&M
25) TCU

*************************************************
TOP 50

30) MIZZOU
31) KANSAS
32) TEXAS TECH
50) HOUSTON

*************************************************
THE REST

76) SMU
94) BAYLOR
96) RICE
99) UNT


Szymanski4QB
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Szymanski4QB

Here is the one I read this morning. Doesn't have TCU 25th though.

http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/co ... CID=823591

I guess this ranking is ok and probably important but let's see how we all rank at the end of the High School football season....which players really stand out and which ones have knee injuries which wipe them out or even those who get in trouble with the law or which ones change their mind near signing date...these discussions are not that important to me now...Go Mustangs!!!....can't wait...

What I like is the fact that we even have something to talk about as far as SMU is concerned. That is certainly a change.

But, is this the ranking that is based some what on the number of recruits. That could actually raise our level at this time within our conference, but we could be significant lower if we end up with just 14 or so players. Am I right on that or is this ranked with different criteria that only base the quality of the athlete?

The one I posted seemed to take into account the quality of the recruit to a great degree. I think this list is more subjective than the one they do at the end of signing day when they give points for each recruit etc.

The best barometer for how our class measures up to our contemporaries is to use the average star per recruit criteria. In other words, team rankings are not always indicative of how "good" a class truly is. For example, if we have 25 commitments with an average star ranking of 2.4 we will have a higher class ranking than a team that had a class of 18 and an average star rating of 2.8. It can be a bit misleading to go strictly by the team rankings.

I personally like the fact the TCU has a Top 25 class.

Just goes to show what WE can accomplish….because once SMU decides to compete, and it looks like we finally have made that decision, there is nothing TCU does that SMU can’t do better.

SoCalPony,

I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that the success TCU has enjoyed over the past several years would pale in comparison to what SMU could accomplish if we'd just stop playing with one hand tied behind our back. Every indication is that we are making a major push in the right direction. If we can get the program consistently in bowl contention, what rational kid would really want to go to TCU over SMU? They're getting kids b/c they've proven they are winners. Once we do the same the sky is the limit.

Especially true in BB…look at Doh’s recruits…you think they want to spend their 4 most formidable years in Cowtown?

All things equal, SMU has a higher ceiling than TCU if we are truly committed to doing things the right way. It certainly seems as though that is the case. Now all we gotta do is start winning some games.

TOP 25

1) Ohio St
2) Usc
3) TEXAS
4) LSU
6) OKLAHOMA
12) TEXAS A&M
25) TCU


It seems those successive "alleged" infractions at USC didn't really affect recruiting too much for them, did it. I guess the NCAA was too busy busting small schools with Indian mascots to devote much time to the "investigation"