PonyFans.com

For what it's worth:

http://www.statesman.com/news/sports/co ... cru/nWKWj/

College Personnel Departments will be a financial boondoggle piling more debt on athletic departments for non-educational purposes. Presidents abdicated any pretense of common sense. It also might have at least been pointed out for Balance:

Texas signed a higher caliber of recruit than A&M
Texas beat A&M for 8 out of 11 recruits both schools offered
Texas has one of youngest top programs in the country and could only sign 15
A&M because of small class last year had advantage in signing what 33

$o, they need to fund an additional 4 or 5 $taff member$ (while rai$ing the $alarieS of HC and a$$i$tant$ to more ab$urd level$), fund $atellite camp$ and increa$e travel budget$.

And, while we are at it, let'$ pay the player$.

Stallion wrote:College Personnel Departments will be a financial boondoggle piling more debt on athletic departments for non-educational purposes. Presidents abdicated any pretense of common sense. It also might have at least been pointed out for Balance:

Texas signed a higher caliber of recruit than A&M
Texas beat A&M for 8 out of 11 recruits both schools offered
Texas has one of youngest top programs in the country and could only sign 15
A&M because of small class last year had advantage in signing what 33

I appreciate most of your posts and realize you put a lot of time and effort in digging up the data you put on here. However you continue to let your bias for Texas skew some of the declarations you make.
We have to assume that the 15 recruits that Texas signed were the absolute best that they could get. If they were able to sign more the caliber (your word) of recruit would be less than the first 15 they signed. So to make things fair I compared Texas 15 against A&M's top 15 to see what shook out. Texas' average Rivals' Rating per recruit was 5.77. A&M's average was 5.85
Of Texas' 15 recruits the lowest rated one was 5.5 (2). A&M's lowest ranked recruit of the top 15 was 5.8.
In the final analysis by Rivals, they called this years Texas class one of Mack Brown's lowest ranked classes of all time.
And A&M signed 31, not 33.

A&M has 16 recruits ranked between 5.4 and 5.7 (for ease let's call them "Low 3 Star"s. That's half their class. UT only had 6 Low 3 Stars. Low 3 stars take up space on the 85 man roster. They aren't high quality recruits for a national BCS team. It should be evaluated from the 85 man roster.

Over 2 years it becomes even more obvious. A&M and UT have signed roughly the same numbers -actually A&M has signed 50 and UT 43-but A&M has 29 Low 3 stars while UT has only signed 17 low 3 stars. Same will hold true if you checked 2011 and 2010.

Quality in a Football program is more important than quantity in any particular year because all teams have to be below 85 scholarships in all years. They don't have freshman football teams any more so focusing one big class is irrelevant. In fact there is a greater chance that those Low 3 Stars will never get off the bench because of other higher quality recruits at their same position. Having the 9th highest average quality recruiting class in the country and the best in the Big 12 is not a disaster as long as you recruit quality every year

We'll see what happens next year but signing lower number over the last 2 years indicates that UT has had a young team which it has and will have more experienced upperclassmen next year which is actually a positive for most programs. About 50 out of A&M's 85 man roster is going to be relatively inexperienced at the BCS level. Texas will only have 13 first year freshman and should return 72 who already have experience in the program-those numbers suggest a breakout season and I guarantee you if UT doesn't show continued progress based on that experienced a team then he will be retired next year

Stallion wrote:A&M has 16 recruits ranked between 5.4 and 5.7 (for ease let's call them "Low 3 Star"s. That's half their class. UT only had 6 Low 3 Stars. Low 3 stars take up space on the 85 man roster. They aren't high quality recruits for a national BCS team. It should be evaluated from the 85 man roster.

Over 2 years it becomes even more obvious. A&M and UT have signed roughly the same numbers -actually A&M has signed 50 and UT 43-but A&M has 29 Low 3 stars while UT has only signed 17 low 3 stars. Same will hold true if you checked 2011 and 2010.

Quality in a Football program is more important than quantity in any particular year because all teams have to be below 85 scholarships in all years. They don't have freshman football teams any more so focusing one big class is irrelevant. In fact there is a greater chance that those Low 3 Stars will never get off the bench because of other higher quality recruits at their same position. Having the 9th highest average quality recruiting class in the country and the best in the Big 12 is not a disaster as long as you recruit quality every year

We'll see what happens next year but signing lower number over the last 2 years indicates that UT has had a young team which it has and will have more experienced upperclassmen next year which is actually a positive for most programs. About 50 out of A&M's 85 man roster is going to be relatively inexperienced at the BCS level. Texas will only have 13 first year freshman and should return 72 who already have experience in the program-those numbers suggest a breakout season and I guarantee you if UT doesn't show continued progress based on that experienced a team then he will be retired next year

How many "low" and "high" 3-stars have we signed the last 2 years?