Ganaway to Rice

by **Ganaway Fan** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:49 am

He was interested in SMU. The fact that he had an awesome SR. year as a running back and the fact SMU still wants to redshirt him and use him as a defensive player is what has killed his interest in SMU. Not to mention the fact that the Houston coach called him every Saturday after Terrance's games and just talked with him about his performances. He never heard from the SMU coach until he found out Terrance had gone to visit Houston. You can make it out to be however you want it, but the bottom line is that SMU has not sold Terrance on coming to SMU. An oral commitment is just that, an oral commitment. I promise you that other coaches don't stop recruiting a kid just because they orally commit. They keep recruiting until that kid is inked. But, put the blame on Terrance. I promise you he is a big man and can carry the load.

by **LA_Mustang** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:55 am

If true, the lack of communication from SMU is very disturbing.

by **mustangnation** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:18 am

OC Mustang wrote:
Ganaway Fan wrote:
Current STUDent wrote:
Stallion wrote: BTW Ganaway is the newphew of Philadelphia Eagle LB Jeremiah Trotter.

Even more interesting.

Terrence's mom and Jeremiah are brother and sister. Terrence is the 9th of 11 siblings. Jeremiah is one of the reasons SFA recruited him so hard, but I think Terrance wanted the opprtunity to attend a "bigger" school. From what I hear, the SFA coach that recruited Terrance is now the offensive coordinator at Iowa St., and that is how Iowa St. became interested and offered Terrance.

By the way, not sure if he has ever made an unofficial visit, I assume he has, but Terrance has never even had an official visit to SMU. It really surprised me that SMU had not arranged this if they were so interested. But, I guess this is where a couple of the guys come back with the "honoring your commitment" garb.

Respectfully, and I do mean respectfully...why did Terrence accept SMU's offer? If you mean by not taking a visit, Terrance had never been to the campus? Really? That just doesn't sound like Bennett & Staff. Don't they make a big ta-do about their summer camps? As for official visits, it is as incumbent on him to make the effort as it is the coaches. Not knocking him; he is clearly an exceptional player and student. However, he accepted the offer to come to SMU very early. What was SMU, the fallback? That would suggest that he was as enthused about being at SMU as you suggest SMU was about keeping him. I still hope that SMU wins out; however, this isn't fraternity rush, and even in rush, both sides ought to be each other's first choice.

If it is true that Bennett and his staff did not keep in contact then they deserve to lose Ganaway. It is one of the most basic business practices to keep in touch with your contacts and/or customers. If you don't then they will go somewhere else.

by **JasonB** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:53 am

IF Bennet and staff did, indeed, not continue making contact with Ganaway, could it be that it was "by choice". How many players the last few years have complained about losing contact with us, or that we stopped calling? That isn't Bennett's personality...

Just saying, that maybe there are some other factors involved here that we don't know about.

by **Ganaway Fan** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:28 pm

JasonB wrote:IF Bennet and staff did, indeed, not continue making contact with Ganaway, could it be that it was "by choice". How many players the last few years have complained about losing contact with us, or that we stopped calling? That isn't Bennett's personality...

Just saying, that maybe there are some other factors involved here that we don't know about.

That might be true, I don't know. I know Ganaway's stock did nothing but rise after he committed to SMU with the year he had as a senior. I don't see anything he has done to make anyone not want him. But, like you say, some things could have changed on SMU's end. I am not blaming anyone. I just don't think what SMU is wanting to do is a good fit for Terrance, and obviously, neither side is willing to change their future plans to acoomodate the other. I hate it, whatever "it" is. I would love to see Terrance in an SMU uniform.

by **OC Mustang** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:58 pm

Ganaway Fan wrote:He was interested in SMU. The fact that he had an awesome SR. year as a running back and the fact SMU still wants to redshirt him and use him as a defensive player is what has killed his interest in SMU. Not to mention the fact that the Houston coach called him every Saturday after Terrance's games and just talked with him about his performances. He never heard from the SMU coach until he found out Terrance had gone to visit Houston. You can make it out to be however you want it, but the bottom line is that SMU has not sold Terrance on coming to SMU. An oral commitment is just that, an oral commitment. I promise you that other coaches don't stop recruiting a kid just because they orally commit. They keep recruiting until that kid is inked. But, put the blame on Terrance. I promise you he is a big man and can carry the load.

I didn't blame anybody; don't read more into it than there is. Clearly SMU should've followed up. However, follow my logic. This is not a one-way street. And once a player commits, why would a coach feel like he has to continue selling? Of course Houston is going to continue calling; Terrance hadn't committed to Briles, so of course he going to show him attention. And since Terrance didn't commit to Houston anyway, the lack of perceived interest by SMU after the fact might have troubled him, but did he care enough to follow up himself about it? I dunno, maybe call the coach that recruited him. Maybe he did, but he hasn't said that publicly. Again, I dunno.

SMU's coaches were a little tied up this season. I don't blame Terrance for changing his commitment. He wants to play running back. That's cool. But although I agree that I see some signs that I don't like vis-a-vis followup, I simply fail to see any perceived slight that SMU might have carried on with Terrance. They thought he was sewn up because he said he was by his commitment.

by **Stallion** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:05 pm

Don't see that there is any possible reason for SMU to be less interested in Ganaway today than they were when they offered. It would have been difficult for anybody to have a better season as chronicled here on getoveryourselfStallion.com. But to assume a player who committed in the summer is a "done-deal" is laughable.

by **RE Tycoon** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:09 pm

Stallion wrote:as chronicled here on getoveryourselfStallion.com.

Did they go ahead and rename ponyfans? I must have missed that.

by **OC Mustang** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:53 pm

Stallion wrote:Don't see that there is any possible reason for SMU to be less interested in Ganaway today than they were when they offered. It would have been difficult for anybody to have a better season as chronicled here on getoveryourselfStallion.com. But to assume a player who committed in the summer is a "done-deal" is laughable.

As practical matter, you are absolutely and indisputably correct.
But a slight? I don't think SMU was trying to do that, and I infer, rightly or wrongly, from the aggregate of Ganaway Fan's posts that SMU's lack of follow through may have been perceived that way.

And I just don't see that.

by **PonyPride** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:17 pm

Current STUDent wrote:.... Did they go ahead and rename ponyfans? ....

Uh .... no.

by **JasonB** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:30 pm

We have never heard a complaint before about our coaches not following up. Every recruit that comes in here makes a point of saying they were treated like family.

All I am saying is that if he stopped hearing from the coaches it wasn't because they stopped "following up" or didn't do their due dilligence. Something else is going on. Either he told the coaches flat out that he didn't want to play on the defensive side of the ball and they said the only way you get a ship is iff you switch, we won't let you play RB (which is something our coaches haven't ever done - they have always told recruits they will have a chance to try to make a particular position) or there is something else going on here. Our coaches wouldn't just ignore a guy and let him slide off to another school. They haven't done it in the past, and they certainly wouldn't start with a player who exploded this year.

by **Ganaway Fan** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:28 am

Here is a video clip of the 417 yd & 6TD game.

I just received a Ganaway highlight DVD for the 2006 season and thought I would put some the games on Google Video. I have only done this one so far, but plan on doing more. Hope you enjoy.

Not the greatest quality, but not too bad either.

This was the 9th game of DeKalb's 2006 season. DeKalb and Clarksville faced off for the district championship as both teams came into the game with identical 7-1 overall records and 4-0 district records.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2201087728530159530

by **RE Tycoon** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:48 am

Looks like Terrance likes the sweep. He would fit right in with ol'e Phil, especially on 4th and 1.

by **hum12** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:22 am

nice moves --- shifty. why not try him at RB? why are you posting this, just to tease us? so cruel!

by **mavsrage311** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:56 am

not trying to criticize Terrance, but I was browsing through the list of SMU recruits sticky thread on the top of the recruiting page and found this quote from him...

"Iâ€™ll play anywhere they put me at. I just want to play football. I bring good quickness and I can make plays on the run." -DeKalb athlete Terrance Ganaway

With that attitude, you'd think he'd be okay with playing safety, oh well

Ganaway to Rice

Who is online