PonyFans.com

First of all, I do not agree with team rankings list until December.

Nevertheless, I got on Ponystampede and looked at their team rankings.

SMU is ranked No. 49
TCU is ranked No. 51

Are you kidding? Based on the pedigree of players the Horned Frogs are getting vs. who SMU is getting (which is not as good but appears to be better), I would suppose that those in charge of this were sucking on a bong when they crafted this list with their point scoring system or whatever it is they use.

Please do not insult us with stuff like this. Probably why I will no longer look at that web site.

Just look at the offers the kids that TCU has committed and then look at the offers of our guys.

A quick look at the Scout site really emphasizes the difference in the two classes. Just going by the offers listed on the Scout player profiles, and assuming that whatever problems in reporting occur proportionally across the board, here's the data:

TCU's Class:
14 Players
12 Offers from BCS Schools
6 Offers from other D1A Schools.

SMU's Class:
18 Players
2 Offers from BCS Schools
10 Offers from other D1A Schools.

I know that Scout doesn't have all the offers listed on the profile page, but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that this is true not only of the SMU kids, but of the TCU kids as well. This also doesn't indicate that SMU has a bad class, just that Scout's own data seems to contradict the team rankings when analyzed.

-CoS

Cadillac wrote:SMU's Class:
18 Players
2 Offers from BCS Schools
10 Offers from other D1A Schools.

I know that Scout doesn't have all the offers listed on the profile page, but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that this is true not only of the SMU kids, but of the TCU kids as well. This also doesn't indicate that SMU has a bad class, just that Scout's own data seems to contradict the team rankings when analyzed.

-CoS

I don't think anyone has stated this is a 'bad' class per se...I do think there are some, including me, who feel this is a very average class and given JJ's pedigree, are disappointed.

To give this a bit of a more realistic perspective (comparing us to TCU is just heartbreaking) here are some more numbers. These are in order of "total offers per player" The best way to get a better feel for this would be to establish a scale to weigh offers from better schools. BCS vs. non-BCS only tells part of the story (which is better, an offer from perennial BSC threat TCU, or perennial BCS Bottom Feeder Baylor?).

TCU's Class:
14 Players
12 Offers from BCS Schools
6 Offers from other D1A Schools.
Total Offers Per Player: 1.29

Houston
14 Players
11 Offers From BCS Schools
3 Offers from other D1A Schools
total offers per player: 1

Tulsa
12 Players
9 Offers from BCS Schools
3 Offers from other D1A Schools
total offers per player: 1

Rice
14 Players
5 Offers from BCS Schools
7 Offers from other D1A Schools
total offers per player: .86

SMU's Class:
18 Players
2 Offers from BCS Schools
10 Offers from other D1A Schools.
total offers per player: .66

Tulane
11 Players
3 Offers from BCS Schools
2 offers from other D1A Schools.
Total offers per player= .45

UTEP
2 players
Zero Offers
total offers per player: lol.

-CoS

SoCal_Pony wrote:

Cadillac wrote:SMU's Class:
18 Players
2 Offers from BCS Schools
10 Offers from other D1A Schools.

I know that Scout doesn't have all the offers listed on the profile page, but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that this is true not only of the SMU kids, but of the TCU kids as well. This also doesn't indicate that SMU has a bad class, just that Scout's own data seems to contradict the team rankings when analyzed.

-CoS

I don't think anyone has stated this is a 'bad' class per se...I do think there are some, including me, who feel this is a very average class and given JJ's pedigree, are disappointed.

What I would be curious about is how JJ's recruiting here compares to the recruiting he did at Hawaii. Since he has a bigger budget and better facilities than he did at Hawaii, is he accomplishing more, or less than he did at this stage in Hawaii?

I went back and looked at his 02-06 classes on Rivals - In 2002 he got a 5 star LB and a 4 Star OL, but everyone else was 2 or 3 (mostly 2). In 03-05 his classes (at least in terms of star ratings) looked a lot like our class for 2009, and in 2006 it looked worse (all 2 star).

I guess it's important we all remember the "system" and how it can work, but maybe Garret or Dr Death can elaborate on how these classes were for Hawaii beyond just the basics.

It takes time. I mean once he gets this class and next years recruits in ( which will be a small class) it will still take a few years for those guys to mature. Basically he will still be using a majority or PB's recruits for the next 2 years.

[quote="SMU21TCU10"]It takes time. I mean once he gets this class and next years recruits in ( which will be a small class) it will still take a few years for those guys to mature. Basically he will still be using a majority or PB's recruits for the next 2 years.[/quote]

I really dont think so, we arent using that many of PB's recruits right now. Take a look at the depth chart.

SMU21TCU10 wrote:It takes time. I mean once he gets this class and next years recruits in ( which will be a small class) it will still take a few years for those guys to mature. Basically he will still be using a majority or PB's recruits for the next 2 years.

not sure I agree with that at all.......

I've run the numbers on Rivals and TCU's recruits have about 50-60 and almost all have numerous BCS offers-Scout is way way off. I've posted a comparison before. All in all we are addressing certain major areas well but we have more like the 75th to 80th Class not anywhere close to 48th.

Here is a comparison as of mid September-don't have time to update.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TCU-14 Recruits
Total Offers From Other Teams 64
approx. 4.5 per recruit
Total BCS Offers 41

SMU-16 Recruits
Total Offers From Other Teams 24
1.5 per recruit
Total BCS Offers 8

Offers From both Schools-TCU 3 SMU 0
Texas Top 100: TCU 5 (Nos. 27, 30, 41, 52 and 66)
SMU 0

Quite frankly some of TCU's recruits are so highly recruited you would have to do more than just search their Rivals Profile page to come up with all their offers and several are blue chippers who committed in February who without question would have received many more offers.

Back to top

Patton and Stallion actually agree?
Slightly different measure...but they actually...do...agree!
mudderfudder...

abezontar wrote:What I would be curious about is how JJ's recruiting here compares to the recruiting he did at Hawaii. Since he has a bigger budget and better facilities than he did at Hawaii, is he accomplishing more, or less than he did at this stage in Hawaii?

Just because I was curious, I looked up Colt Brennan's profile as a recruit and he was a 2 star recruit (not sure where he got offers from). I know that there are definitely a TON of players who ended up being good despite a low ranking from the scouting services but I thought it was nice to see that JJ has already turned a "low ranked" guy into a heisman finalist. (although his 1st year was considerably better than anything we've seen to date...)

LA_Mustang wrote:

SMU21TCU10 wrote:It takes time. I mean once he gets this class and next years recruits in ( which will be a small class) it will still take a few years for those guys to mature. Basically he will still be using a majority or PB's recruits for the next 2 years.

not sure I agree with that at all.......

yea our starting team is half people JJ brought in.