PonyFans.com

Between Rice, Houston, and SMU (all three former SWC mates and current CUSA mates), there are eight current Rivals three stars showing interest. The breakdown:

Rice has zero.

Houston has one.

SMU has seven, including one commit.

largely misleading -only a sliver (about 3-4%) of this year's expected class of 3 stars have been rated yet by Rivals. According to Scout Houston has 3 three stars and who the hell cares about Rice.

Also Houston has the No. 62 and No. 88 rated Recruits in the Texas Lone Srar Recruiting Top 100 (Texas Rivals affiliate) which is the list I think is best until Rivals actually releases their Texas Top 100 which should be soon. Right now Houston has 4 recruits that are either 3 Star on Scout or Texas Top 100.

Expand that list nationally and see what you find, chief.

Chief-those are commitments not interest. Learn the difference. You don't get to scoreboard an opponent based upon offers. Some of these kids have 20 offers.

Chief?

RGV Pony wrote:

ALEX LIFESON wrote:Chief?

Interesting generational gap. I immediately thought of Jimmy Olsen addressing Editor Perry White in the very old Superman TV series. The response from White was always "Don't call me chief." I do well recall Get Smart but Superman was my first thought.

I usually think of Chief Knock-a Homa-(but that's racist). Here's a picture of Chief standing in front of his Right Field Teepee

http://stilespoints.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... lanta.html

Stallion wrote:Chief-those are commitments not interest. Learn the difference. You don't get to scoreboard an opponent based upon offers. Some of these kids have 20 offers.

Um, duh, commitments are stronger than mere recruit interest in helping determine how well a particular school is doing. Good to see that Houston got a couple of apparent commits. But short of commitment data, interest from three and four star recruits is an excellent indicator of recruiting success and the data, particularly on the four star guys, blatantly contradicts your assertion that we're the bottom of the former SWC heap recruiting wise.

I'm not sure why you suddenly and somewhat randomly jumped to offers in your comment above. I never used our offering top recruits as a recruiting success indicator. I only used their interest in us.

Short answer: You are wrong. We are doing well in recruiting despite a perceived paucity of efforts in Texas.

"blatantly contradicts your assertion that we're the bottom of the fomer SWC heap recruiting wise."

I never said any such thing. I simply posted the evidence in a chart (without comment) that SMU ignored Texas recruiting for the first 2 months of the recruiting season and posted the evidence. The numbers don't lie. Some one might conclude from the same chart that SMU was the No. 1 school for non-Texas recruits. You get your little Cheerleader skirt in a wad just because the facts reveal that SMU was neglecting its backyard. You have been the No. 1 clueless, naive SMU fan for over a decade.

And what difference does it make that we're ignoring our own back yard if we are still getting good players?

You obviously don't think it makes any difference-so you should be elated that my Chart shows SMU is No. 1 in offers to out-of-staters.

I don't know. Which is why I ask the question of you, the recruiting guru. So please enlighten us.

I side with the other 7 Coaches of the former SWC and every other Coach in the history of each of those schools that Texas recruiting is your bread and butter. You can send a recruiter to other areas but never neglect Texas. Why do we have one recruiter with 35 offers-why only sigle digit Texas offers two months into recruiting season. Have we hired the right combination on this staff. I don't question a single resume but why is recruiting so uniquely lopsided to one Coach at SMU.