Page 1 of 3
Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:45 pmby Mike Damone
Not sure if I can post this link, but here are the bios from smumustangs.com. If not supposed to be here, delete it.
http://smumustangs.com/football/history/2004/2004SigningDay.pdf
<small>[ 02-04-2004, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Mike Damone ]</small>
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:02 pmby Dooby
Bennett Lands 13 High School Standouts & Three Junior College Recruits
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, February 4, 2004
Coach Bennett Press Conference - COMING SOON!
DALLAS, TEXAS - SMU football coach Phil Bennett added 16 new scholarship players to the Mustangs’ 2004 roster on Wednesday, Feb. 4. SMU signed 13 high school players and three junior college recruits while also announcing that three players who walked-on in 2003 were awarded scholarships following the fall semester.
All 13 high school players, two of the three junior college recruits and all three new scholarship players hail from Texas, keeping with Bennett’s pledge of heavily recruiting the southwest.
"I said the day I was hired that we wanted to recruit Texas and a 300-mile radius around Dallas. I think we did that with 18 Texas kids and only one from outside the region. You have to have good relationships with the high school coaches in Texas and in the region and we do. That certainly helped this year and it is something that we will build on as we continue towards our goal of winning championships at SMU."
While this season’s class lacks the size of the 2003 group, when SMU signed 23 players, Bennett is extremely pleased with the quality of players coming to the Hilltop.
"We are very happy about this class," said Bennett. "Skill position players were a priority for us this season, whereas linemen were our focus in 2003. We signed some kids that we think can be special players. I have to give a lot of credit to my staff. They did a very good job in their evaluations and were very persistent with these kids. Once we get kids on campus we have a lot to sell - the great academics, the facility, the campus, the city.â€
Nine of the 19 players earned All-State honors during their prep careers and 15 were recruited by schools that are members of BCS conferences. The class includes five defensive backs, four running backs, three wide receivers, two quarterbacks, two defensive linemen, one offensive lineman, one linebacker and one tight end.
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:20 pmby Sam I Am
Rivals rates SMU class as 74th best in college.
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:35 pmby Mike Damone
That is our ranking as of now, but they haven't added either of the guys that committed yesterday or either of the juco QB's. Not that they'd be that highly rated, but would at least add to our score on there. And what about the reciever that sat out this year from Grand Prarie. Shouldn't he be on our list as well?
If Penn State got to sign a guy who didn't attend any college this year and it counted in rankings shouldn't this guy.
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:00 pmby Dr Jeske
Yes it will allow us to pass North Texas....oh boy
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:15 pmby EastStang
I'm sorry but anything higher than 60 is a disappointment. We were 0-12 last year. We need some studs to turn that around to a winning season. Where did UTEP, Tulsa, TCU, and TT end up?
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:18 pmby JasonB
When you sign a small class like this, you have to really examine other things than the recruiting rankings to determine where we sit in comparison with the other schools.
Saying we are 74th doesn't do the class justice. We actually did a decent job. Only a couple high profile guys, but all of the players are decent recruits.
Don't forget that while last years class was top-heavy, a lot of very good players, there were also several players who were not heavily recruited at all. This years class has a lot of balance to it.
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:26 pmby Fooball
If you use the Average Stars of our commits from Rivals, the result gets even worse. Ranked 83rd with an average of 2.09. Ranks us behind UNT.
Not sure if that gets any better with our late recruits either. I guess other late recruits for other schools could lower their averages.
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:42 pmby echothat1
Look, our class outranks a lot of schools who would torn the shreds out of our disgrace of a team last year. I think 74 is not bad considering the dismal year we just got off of. I'm actually surprised anyone wants to play for us...
I'll commend Bennett on his recruiting efforts...I just hope I can say the same thing about his coaching next year...unlike this past year. :no:
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:55 pmby JasonB
Fooball, you also have to look a little deeper.
NT has a JUCO rated as a three star, and then one three star HS recruit. Their "three star" JUCO was offered by Kansas and that is all, but almost all JUCO recruits are rated as three star by the Rivals system. Their other three star player is a quality running back, but doesn't have the same accolades V Chase has.
If you look at the rest of their recruits, most of them are offered by 0 other schools. Most of the SMU "2 star" recruits were offered by BCS colleges.
So, yes, their average star rating is higher, but the only reason for that is rivals refuses to give players it hasn't heard of a 1 or 0 star rating.
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:59 pmby JasonB
Another interesting comparison - Baylor is really in trouble. They signed King, who was a three star (according to Rivals) JUCO QB. Other than him, they had all of maybe 5 recruits offered by BCS schools, and only ONE of those (bluitt, LB) was offered by multiple BCS schools. They have a horrible recruiting class.
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:24 pmby Dooby
<img src="http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/img/02-04/0204allen.jpg" alt=" - " />
Demyron Martin (left) from today's DMN.
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:31 pmby Mike Damone
ranking still moving. Now we're down to 80. But if it makes you feel any better, Boise State is 82 and Miami-Ohio is in the 90's.
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:03 pmby Stallion
another factor-at 0-12 we essentially were forced to scramble because those bluechips with a lot of early offers basically dropped SMU like a rock. For example, at least 8 of our 13 HS kids were unknown to the recruiting services at the start of the season. Heck, 4 of them were unknown last month. Martin and McCray emerged in the Playoffs. But some of those kids included Martin, Griffen and Haynes who were also offered by top BCS schools. I'll give Bennett some real props for either excellent early talent evaluation or for finding those guys and holding on to them. He seemed to be on some other late bloomers or sleepers who the big boys also wanted. P.S. I told you we were going to finish in the 80's several weeks ago using the "GoRedGoBlue" Total Points formula. The only formula that will make us look reasonably good is to average out the secondary more precise rating which Rivals does not do.
<small>[ 02-04-2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Stallion ]</small>
Re: Signings
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:14 pmby Mike Damone
Stallion- One other thing is that rivals was much more critical this year than last in their rankings. Last year, a player was either a 2-star or 3-star, no in-between. I think 3 or 4 of our guys would've been 3-stars last year because they would've rounded up Henderson, Martin, and Mckinney, and Lindley.
This class is not going to set the world on fire, but the one thing we do continue to do is improve team speed. And that is one thing you can't have too much of.
<small>[ 02-04-2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Mike Damone ]</small>