Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:hoopmanx wrote:StangEsq wrote:Is that a confirmed list of offers? Colorado, Gonzaga, Miami(FL), Penn State, SMU, Stanford, Texas A&M, Texas State, Texas Tech, UNLV, UTEP -- some nice programs in there...
no,that's not remotely the true offer list. He had Penn St & Colorado, was waiting on admittance from Stanford. Still, we beat a few BCS squads for the kid. Good stuff
So, what's it say about a coach or a staff from a recruiting standpoint when they're hitting for a high average with top kids on their board? Let's assume they actually have decent players on their board, and aren't doing the PB special who seemed to have an allergic reaction to the Texas 100.
Are kids simply buying what we're selling? Seeing the promise? Recognize the momentum? Huffed paint before committing?
Well, they run a tried & true system that requires certain types of players/skills. Having needs so clearly defined, makes it easier to evaluate prospects. At that point, you have to find 'high major' talent, that could be swayed to a high mid.
In terms of selling, it's a good pitch. Sprint motion is fluid motion, not sets and resets. Every kid gets the ball, has a hard screen to work off, and decides whether to shoot, drive, pass. Who doesn't want the ball in their hands facing, w/a hard screen to work off? the 1-4 has the opportunity to bring the ball up depending on match-ups. As we get better athletes, we'll play w/more tempo. 2/3 match-up & hard man to man.
On top of that, 20 win season last year, very good young roster, Dallas, Crum, Moody improvements, preseason NIT, games vs big 12, mwc, & SEC, Memphis. Toss in an OV, pretty women, the blvd and SMU. That's about all we can do, but it's a better pitch than most. SMU isn't beating UT or A&M for kids, but they are beating a high major or two, for most of their kids the last several years. Put a bunch of those kids together and you end up being a pretty dangerous mid