What the F&%$ SMU 7th best class in WAC?

[RE Tycoon]

What are the guys over at College News.com smoking. They ranked us as the 7th best class in the WAC??? What gives? I guess it's because the 6 teams ahead of us rely heavily on JUCO's. Can someone explain this to me.

<A HREF="http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2003/Recruiting/Recruiting_WAC.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2003/Recruiting/Recruiting_WAC.htm</A>

I used to like this website becuase when they did a story they would cover every conference and every team....Oh Well.

Go 'Stangs!

[Stallion]

First off it was probably written by a sportswriter. First Lesson: Sports Writers generally don't follow or care about recruiting. They write their stories based on the SIDs prospectus, Second Lesson: this sportswriter obviously has a subscription to the Insiders since this is roughly the ranking they gave. I've already expressed my distrust of the Insiders especially their ranking of HS players in posts since signing day which you can read. Third Lesson: Sports Writers that know little about recruiting in their state know even less when you ask them to judge talent from place as diverse as Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nevada, California, Hawaii etc. Fourth Lesson: It is true that probably the top recruits in this WAC class maybe some outstanding JUCO recruits and/or Non-Qualifiers signed by Nevada, Fresno, La Tech, San Jose, Hawaii et al-those that don't take advantage are at a serious disadvantage. Rivals may very well downgrade recruiting classes that rely heavily on JUCOs. Otherwise, there is no way you can reconcile the HUGE discrepancies in the Rivals and Insiders ratings I've posted-perhaps an average of the two rankings would be more fair. But sports writers that know little about HS recruiting know even less about JC recruiting, Fifth Lesson: this is the best class SMU has had in 15 years and we are rated 7th-does that give some of you who have assumed that we had more talent pause for consideration. Sixth Lesson: I really do believe that SMU signed the finest collection of HS players although if you throw in the other teams JUCOS, Non-qualifiers and partial qualifiers it might be close between SMU, La Tech and Fresno Seventh Lesson: I'd say SMU finished from 1-3 in WAC recruiting largely because it is difficult for me to judge Hawaii's class. Eighth Lesson: Bennett really did an outstanding job in recruiting a class composed entirely of HS Seniors as the rankings of HS recruits shows -if we were beat in recruiting it is simply because he is given a much shorter stick to work with than his adversaries. Let's face it the WAC is composed a large group of schools which have very little concern with the academic standards of its athletes. The Big 12, SEC, MWC, PAC10, Big 10 and ACC believe it or not have much higher academic standards than many of our WAC opponents who thrive on JUCOs, Non-qualifiers and partials. Get used to it because it doesn't appear schools like SMU, Rice and Tulsa have the power to bring about some fair standards that the above mentioned conferences have in place.

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 02-11-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 02-11-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 02-11-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 02-11-2003).]

[Nacho]

May I suggest that we form a regional conference made up of schools that will not accept non-qualifiers and only one partial qualifier per year. I don't see how jucos can be stopped.

From what I have been reading the juco route may dry up next year as it becomes infinitely easier for athletes to get into a d-1 school. The problem will be in keeping those kids eligible.

[Dement-ed]

Relax, STUDent. I saw one recruiting website (I forget which) that has us ranked first in the WAC, and it said our class is "head and shoulders" above the rest. And while I don't automatically discount the opinions of sportswriters, like Stallion does, I will reiterate what Stallion has said many times — that while the recruiting services and sportswriters give us plenty to talk about, it's the coaches whose opinions matter. And the coaches seem to think our class is very good.

[EastStang]

And who would be in that conference? I suspect that UTEP might join. But who else? La. Tech lives on jc's, partials, and nq's. Even UNT has juco's and I think they take some nq's, too. Do you think they'd willingly give that up to join this regional conference? I doubt it. Unless C-USA goes k-boom, TCU, Tulane, UH would stay put. Now if TCU, Tulane and UH would join Rice, Tulsa and SMU, then La. Tech might rethink things.

[ponyman]

Stallion--I only take issue with one thing in your lenghty and informative post. I do not agree that SMU, Rice and Tulsa can do nothing to change the recruiting rules in the WAC. As I understand it, Air Force and BYU were pretty much responsible for the MWC changing its rules in re: non-qualifiers.

[JayM]

EastStang...UNT does take selected PARTIAL qualifiers but not NON qualifiers. Believe it was 2 last year (1 in 2001)& both have now qualified. They would have been red-shirts anyhow as few true freshman can get playing time. Only 2 in 2002 were not red-shirts.