Order Mason now to

[LA_Mustang]

I think SMU took quite a beating from the media too.

LB did the same thing and got a little bit of a negative response from the media but two years later we are a top 25 team and it is never mentioned. Coaches have to have a thick skin.

[PSCA]

No IMO. If a coach(s) want to rid themselves of a player(s) for one reason or another ... they can and do get creative in accomplishing that. While a scholie is a year to year deal .. it is universally accepted/understood that it really is a 4-5 year agreement. Schools do not want the rep or publicity of singing and discarding players at will if/when they do not think they fit the scheme or they change minds on the kid. This is not good for recruiting, so they get creative to accomplish this and it happens regularly New HC, staff or coach coming in, they get a pass on this (one-time) usually.

Walk-on's that are put on scholie down the road ... they fully understand this is a year-to-year deal. But, to burn a RS because it is a bad season, or you now think the kid lacks talent ... in a season that you know a new HC and staff is coming in, and they should have the opp to evaluate the kid(s) ... is boarder line purposeful sabotage IMO. Unless there is a LEGIT competitive reason to burn a RS, you are taking your frustration and current situation out on the kid(s). It is your problem not theirs. As someone has point out, a Fresh/Soph still has a lot of upside development potential, and the new staff should have that opp.

[footballdad]

I think SMU took quite a beating from the media too.

LB did the same thing and got a little bit of a negative response from the media but two years later we are a top 25 team and it is never mentioned. Coaches have to have a thick skin.

Cannot just pick and choose which scholarships to renew and kick kids to the curb. Let that get back to some of the area high school coaches who we desperately need to recruit, and see how quick that backfires!

Either have to allow them to transfer willingly if they want to continue playing ball elsewhere, or allow them to finish their degree 'on scholarship' even if they are not on the roster. Kids with academic issues or failed drug tests are fair game.

[smustatesman]

Give the ones you want gone pot brownies. Then have them tested for drugs. Then let them transfer to TCU, Texas or another agricultural based football school/team.

[sbsmith]

Give the ones you want gone pot brownies. Then have them tested for drugs. Then let them transfer to TCU, Texas or another agricultural based football school/team.

Don't those teams like good football players?

[PSCA]

Oh ... I do not think they sing to these kids .... another one of my many fat finger typo's .... sorry

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

I think SMU took quite a beating from the media too.

Yes exactly.

If our new coach can't get better recruits
than June's No Stars
then we are in major trouble!

Sure there could be a few...very few...needles in a haystack,
that turn out to be great players....from no star to super star...it happens...but really?

most of these guys are not going to take us where we want
to be.....so I think we should HELP the next coach by easily
reducing a year of what June gave them.

Yeah some may be convinced to leave but some wont,
and it would sure be nice to have those spots not being filled with dead-weight
when the new guy might be adding some really special players by then.

I would burn most of the June red shirts and let the new guy get his own players!
Ask most coaches...
ya want your own players?
ya want June's no stars or your own?
cut your losses with June's "great recruiting classes" the last couple of years.
this is really a no-brainer!
Burn the red-shirts!

[mrydel]

You can burn all you want but we can still just sign 25 a year and have 85 total. Attrition will take care of most of that and the rest will get the message.

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

You can burn all you want but we can still just sign 25 a year and have 85 total. Attrition will take care of most of that and the rest will get the message.

It would still help to get rid of spares
or why would any new coach ever run off people?

June had terrible recruiting classes...
but OMG lets not limit the damage to 3 years!

but look I know you wouldn't agree with anything I said...
even if it was "the sun is hot".
it's obvious no matter what I say
you'll have a hard-on to run in screaming NO NO NO
LOL
so as we have done from the beginning and probably will forever
we will agree to disagree.

[Digetydog]

You can burn all you want but we can still just sign 25 a year and have 85 total. Attrition will take care of most of that and the rest will get the message.

It would still help to get rid of spares
or why would any new coach ever run off people?

June had terrible recruiting classes...
but OMG lets not limit the damage to 3 years!

but look I know you wouldn't agree with anything I said...
even if it was "the sun is hot".
it's obvious no matter what I say
you'll have a hard-on to run in screaming NO NO NO
LOL
so as we have done from the beginning and probably will forever
we will agree to disagree.

You don't get it. Each year, a team can add a maximum of 25 players. Beccause schools are also limited to 85 scholly players, they never want to lose more than 25 kids in any one year.

Getting below 85 scholarships is stupid.

[ALEX LIFESON]

I think SMU took quite a beating from the media too.[/quote]
I believe the beating was from dropping outstanding commitments, not from dropping scholarships. The kids with commitments found it difficult to get picked up elsewhere due to timing and the fact they were not highly recruited.[/quote]

I remember listening to the Ticket or the Fan, and they had some representatives from south Dallas on the air going nuts, about some of the CURRENT players that didn't have their ships renewed. But I could care less was the media says, if I did, I would believe that Obama walks on water.

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

You don't get it.

Ok I am stupid....you did better on the SAT
blah blah whatever....do your insecurities feel better now?

But please do explain if it is does not help in any way
why do new coaches often "run off" spare players?

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

if I did, I would believe that Obama walks on water.

He certainly didn't last week!

[Digetydog]

You don't get it.

Ok I am stupid....you did better on the SAT
blah blah whatever....do your insecurities feel better now?

But please do explain if it is does not help in any way
why do new coaches often "run off" spare players?

Because they have better players ready to take their place. When you have a full roster, it works.

But, we will only be able to add a maximum of 25 people. When you consider the existing open spots (about 15) in next year's class, we can only run off a maximum of (about) 10 players before we end up with a roster under the limit. With a talent deficit at most positions, having a "small" roster size is stupid.

Plus, most of the top recruits in the 2015 class are committed. Getting 25 to switch now would require cash payments.

2016 is when the big recruiting class should arrive.

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

Getting 25 to switch now would require cash payments.

25?...How many red-shirted freshman do we currently have at SMU?
that we could go ahead and burn their red-shirt?
to get rid of some spares a year earlier than currently scheduled.