Do recruiting critics want it both ways?

by **Mitch McConnell** » Thu May 26, 2011 3:34 pm

The hand wringing over SMU's recruiting efforts this winter/spring are perceived to be poor. My concern has been over what has not been done in Texas, but I think there is more to the Texas issue than what people believe.

The critics need to be challenged.

1. While we can agree that basing in Texas should be a given, is it fair to presume that the perception in this state with these kids will not change until a marquee win is on the board?

2. Do you believe that because you are more familiar with Texas kids than Florida and California kids, you have trouble lending credibility to these commitments/offers/visits because you don't know them as well as the Texas kids? Is it a bad idea that SMU is recruiting in these states where the football talent is vast? Aren't these the 3 traditional states for recruiting?

3. Do you have hard evidence that the other coaches beyond Klemm have not put in the time. How do you know Klemm has put in the majority of the time? Because he's mentioned in more recruiting stories than other coaches? If you're basing your opinions on what you see on Scout and Rivals and where coaches are attached to recruits, that's sketchy at best because it's not a certainty that every recruit/recruiting coach have been identified. There could be some or many who are missing. Do you know how many visits these coaches have made to these schools? Do you know how many facebook/phone calls have been made? Do you know that before offers are made that they must be brought back to Klemm/Jones before they are extended? Do you claim to know every bit of the recruiting philosophy of this staff?

We may have an understanding of the type of players they want, but that's as far as I will go on that.

4. Do you believe that there is more to these Texas schools offering against each other than what meets the eye? Sure, Colorado and Kansas St. can offer because they likely know they have nothing to lose. When it comes to Tech offering against TCU, do you think it's a situation where someone has to blink first? This affects the other DI candidates and not the Jonathan Grays of the world. Those are the no-brainer offers. For the guy like the DL at Round Rock Stony Point, I betcha every recruiting nut looked at him and thought, "Who the hell is this guy? He must suck because he's not even in their system and has no offers from major schools." Is that accurate.

5. If the ratings for some of these recruits come in better than expected, will you retract your criticisms?

6. Recruiting is one thing. Player development is another. Do you believe Emmanuel Sanders and Aldrick Robinson would have been drafted under Bennett? To what extent did the Jones regime make an impact for those two playing in the NFL?

All I know is that recruiting is important, and I hope it translates on the field. My guess about what's going on is as good as yours.

Food for thought.

by **ponyboy** » Thu May 26, 2011 3:37 pm

Here's another thought for you. While we are in fact going to knock them dead in recruiting this year and satisfy all but the most zipcode driven recruitniks, recruiting isn't everything. Fit to system is also important as is the scheme itself. Motivation, coaching, and culture are important too. While fun, fussing over recruiting rankings alone is stupid.

Especially nine months before signing day.

by **NickSMU17** » Thu May 26, 2011 3:40 pm

Most of the argument has very little to do with zipcode...more to do with types of players we are going after at this time...how much effort is being put in by all the assistants?

I didn't even read your rant, because I don't think you understand the issues...

If we get a great recruiting class this year its going to be because of 1 or maybe 2 guys at most...

by **ponyboy** » Thu May 26, 2011 3:41 pm

I don't care if it's because of my Aunt Martha's ouija board.

by **Mitch McConnell** » Thu May 26, 2011 3:42 pm

NickSMU17 wrote:Most of the argument has very little to do with zipcode...more to do with types of players we are going after at this time...how much effort is being put in by all the assistants?

I didn't even read your rant, because I don't think you understand the issues...

If we get a great recruiting class this year its going to be because of 1 or maybe 2 guys at most...

Nick, maybe you don't know as much as you think you do.

How can you tell me I don't understand the issues when you said you didn't read what I wrote? Are you that knee-jerk?

by **NickSMU17** » Thu May 26, 2011 3:43 pm

Take it or leave it...some of us need to work in between ponyfans...

by **Mitch McConnell** » Thu May 26, 2011 3:46 pm

NickSMU17 wrote:If we get a great recruiting class this year its going to be because of 1 or maybe 2 guys at most...

Let the backpeddling begin. Usually, if you have a great class, you're going to have 5-7 guys in it. You cross your fingers with the others. SMU has five commitments. So you're making this assumption when there is still about 8 months to go until signing day with a bunch of June/July camps coming up.

Hmmm. That's interesting.

by **NickSMU17** » Thu May 26, 2011 3:51 pm

I am making the assumption on the amount of work the other assistants are putting in....

Did you guys know we got a new special teams coach from UCLA whose dad was a legend? How many recruits has he brought in for visits?

We better not miss a FG this year or let Kerley return the ball past the 50 or we will be wasting our cash....

by **Mitch McConnell** » Thu May 26, 2011 4:00 pm

NickSMU17 wrote:I am making the assumption on the amount of work the other assistants are putting in....

....

I'm assuming you've checked with every HS in Texas/California/Florida to find out who has been there and you've seen expense reports for the travel, checked the recruit's facebook hits and the phone records for all the SMU coaches.

If you're basing on this on what someone told you, never forget that person telling you something has an agenda behind what he's telling you. I'd be careful of that.

by **NickSMU17** » Thu May 26, 2011 4:02 pm

ok...go start a new thread...

The rivals board has info of guys visiting all the time...so far 95% have been Klemm's guys...take it for what its worth...you love the premium boards now...

Can you answer this?

Did you guys know we got a new special teams coach from UCLA whose dad was a legend? How many recruits has he brought in for visits?

by **Mitch McConnell** » Thu May 26, 2011 4:12 pm

NickSMU17 wrote:ok...go start a new thread...

The rivals board has info of guys visiting all the time...so far 95% have been Klemm's guys...take it for what its worth...you love the premium boards now...

Can you answer this?

Did you guys know we got a new special teams coach from UCLA whose dad was a legend? How many recruits has he brought in for visits?

I enjoy the Rivals board. I just don't proclaim it as the gospel. But the Rivals board didn't know about the Stony Point kid visiting until 5 days after he visited and probably got a tip that he visited and then committed.

To answer your question, it's Frank Gansz Jr. and no I really don't know if he has brought anyone in for a visit. Do you even know his territory? Do you even know how he was told to proceed from a recruiting perspective since he just got started in April, likely spent all of that month ramping up on the spring football and getting to know the personnel on the roster, before finally going out on the May evaluation period where he can't talk to kids but only observe them? When college programs change assistants, those usually happen in January. So those new assistants have about a 5-month lead on him. Not an excuse but I would suspect he's playing a whole bunch of catching up. Every new assistant has to start somewhere.

by **NickSMU17** » Thu May 26, 2011 4:49 pm

I'm not going to argue with you because you have never been one to stay firm on any point...

Believe what you want..

by **ClickClack** » Thu May 26, 2011 5:58 pm

NickSMU17 wrote:I am making the assumption on the amount of work the other assistants are putting in....

Did you guys know we got a new special teams coach from UCLA whose dad was a legend? How many recruits has he brought in for visits?

We better not miss a FG this year or let Kerley return the ball past the 50 or we will be wasting our cash....

I sure hope we dont play the jets this year and let kerley take one to the house

by **78pony** » Thu May 26, 2011 7:22 pm

I will bite, Mitch. My responses are shown in parentheses

Mitch wrote:

The critics need to be challenged.

1. While we can agree that basing in Texas should be a given, is it fair to presume that the perception in this state with these kids will not change until a marquee win is on the board?
(Not necessarily)

2. Do you believe that because you are more familiar with Texas kids than Florida and California kids, you have trouble lending credibility to these commitments/offers/visits because you don't know them as well as the Texas kids? Is it a bad idea that SMU is recruiting in these states where the football talent is vast? Aren't these the 3 traditional states for recruiting? (No, no, yes- the ones producing the largest # of D-1 recruits. LA is # 1 on a per capita basis I believe)

3. Do you have hard evidence that the other coaches beyond Klemm have not put in the time. (No) How do you know Klemm has put in the majority of the time? (Don't, as they don't submit time sheets.) Because he's mentioned in more recruiting stories than other coaches? (Nope) If you're basing your opinions on what you see on Scout and Rivals and where coaches are attached to recruits, that's sketchy at best because it's not a certainty that every recruit/recruiting coach have been identified. (Not likely as SMU does not report offers/contact with these kids, the kids initiate these communications with the recruiting services. And kids love the attention so the great majority can't wait to tell somebody that they've been shown some love) There could be some or many who are missing. (maybe a single or two but not many) Do you know how many visits these coaches have made to these schools? (No, but irrelevant. Results are. That's the bottom line) Do you know how many facebook/phone calls have been made? (Irrelevant) Do you know that before offers are made that they must be brought back to Klemm/Jones (YES) before they are extended? (Do you understand that just because policy is adopted does not mean that it is followed) Do you claim to know every bit of the recruiting philosophy of this staff? (That would assume there is a philosophy. Would a philosophy go something like this. This is what we want to accomplish and her is how we are going to get it done. Let's id the best 5-10 players at a position, then work our way down from top to bottom until we either have commits, maybes, or no's. Then move to next bunch in line. A philosophy is only valid if there is a game plan attached, it is communicated, followed, and there is 100% buy in.)

We may have an understanding of the type of players they want, but that's as far as I will go on that.

4. Do you believe that there is more to these Texas schools offering against each other than what meets the eye? (Do we care?) Sure, Colorado and Kansas St. can offer because they likely know they have nothing to lose. (Wrong, as you have tied up a spot theoretically until you determine that it's time to move on and let that one go...although you would use a factor for the likelihood of a yes or no. To assume you automatically lose would be imitating the PB philosophy - of course you actually have to extend an offer before it can be turned down) When it comes to Tech offering against TCU, do you think it's a situation where someone has to blink first? (No, they actually think they can compete with anyone) This affects the other DI candidates and not the Jonathan Grays of the world. Those are the no-brainer offers. For the guy like the DL at Round Rock Stony Point, I betcha every recruiting nut looked at him and thought, "Who the hell is this guy? (I'll bet your are correct here) He must suck because he's not even in their system and has no offers from major schools." Is that accurate. (From someone who follows this stuff's perspective, probably - in the present tense anyway. That could change in time, but all you have to go on is what has already been in the past. Projecting the future is tough, especially when you have a ton of kids that already have an impressive track record to point to).

5. If the ratings for some of these recruits come in better than expected, will you retract your criticisms? (Criticisms are directed at happenings now, what is known now, not in the future).

6. Recruiting is one thing. Player development is another. Do you believe Emmanuel Sanders and Aldrick Robinson would have been drafted under Bennett? To what extent did the Jones regime make an impact for those two playing in the NFL? (ES no due to attitude/work ethic/responsibility. JJ made the difference. AR no, without JJ nada).

All I know is that recruiting is important, and I hope it translates on the field. My guess about what's going on is as good as yours. (Me too on the translating. On your guess on what's going on vs mine: No, yours is not.)

by **RGV Pony** » Thu May 26, 2011 8:01 pm

interesting thread from a Hawaii board from 2008. Don't know the context or who the "Lee Brothers" are, but you could cut Hawaii and paste SMU into a lot of the spaces.

http://mobile.sportshawaii.com/sh/viewt ... b0e6afe7a2

**note: not saying I agree with or endorse anything on the thread I've linked above...just interesting