Putting Recruiting Into Context

[Water Pony]

Here is an comment from a from FoxSports writer on recruiting:

"'Tis the time of year for all the recruiting gossip and rumors to be circulating. Let me caution all the recruiting gurus and all that read every word that is written about this part of college football, which has become a sport of its own. While being highly ranked in the recruiting standings is nice, it means very little. In modern times, we have done an injustice to recruits as well as well as universities themselves by over publicizing recruiting results. The players' abilities get totally blown out of proportion. The coaches are then put under undue pressure for having all the talent, but yet unable to win the national championship. Texas is a great example of this. Mack brown has recruited very well for the Longhorns, but yet people keep ripping Brown for being unable to win the national championship because of all the "great players" he has. Who says they are that great? Recruiting should be divided into three areas. First is the evaluation. Is the player that good and will he fit into our program? Who cares what some magazine says about the player; how good is he in reality? Secondly, the actual recruiting. This is the sales part of the game. Third is, once the player is at the school, developing him or assisting him in reaching his maximum potential. Yes, recruiting in itself has taken on a life of its own, whether you like it or not."

Thoughts?: Seems that the right coaches with student-athletes, who are committed to working their butts off, can close the "recruiting" gap. For non-BCS schools, we must acknowledge that the TOP 15 schools get the headlines and we must create our own success. This year, Miami (OH), NIU, Tulsa, Memphis, Navy, Bowling Green, Boise State, So. Miss, etc. make the case that Top Recruiting Classes are only one element of how to succeed.

:hmm:

[Mike Damone]

BS- recruiting absolutely matters. Recruiting rankings are usually pretty accurate. Sure things happen, players get overlooked, overrated, and injured, but look at the top recruiting classes over the last five years and look at the top teams. More than just coincidence.

And Texas does have great players. That's why they only lose 2 or 3 games a year playing in the Big XII and have numerous players drafted every year.

<small>[ 01-21-2004, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Mike Damone ]</small>

[Stallion]

there is nothing more nauseating than someone who doesn't follow or care about recruiting talking about how recruiting doesn't matter-and based upon the universal assumption that Mack Brown can't coach then recruiting must be ESSENTIAL since UTs record over the past 5 years is probably in the Top 5 in the Country. Seriouly, their pathetic last 5 years is somewhat comparable to the greatest 5 year period in SMU history. How did they do it if Brown can't coach? Its called R-E-C-R-U-I-T-I-N-G. And it is by far the most essential factor in building a program.

<small>[ 01-21-2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Stallion ]</small>

[gostangs]

Plus - if stallion spends so much time on recruiting, it must be vitally important.

Seriously - if everything else is broken but you recruit well - you win a bunch of games a year. If everything else is perfect and you don't recruit well, you may not win any.

[GoRedGoBlue]

Originally posted by gostangs:
Plus - if stallion spends so much time on recruiting, it must be vitally important.

Seriously - if everything else is broken but you recruit well - you win a bunch of games a year. If everything else is perfect and you don't recruit well, you may not win any.

Mack Brown wins at Texas despite himself, because of the great talent he has recruited. It's the Barry Switzer theory: better players, better teams.

There are a few examples where solid, but not great talent is able to play as a team and overcome.

BOISE STATE hasn't had a 3-star recruit (Rivals) in the past 3 years, yet they are a 3-year 11 win team or better (13-1 this year, and 3 straight Top20 finishes). At the same time, Baylor clearly outrecruited BSU in those same years.

Having said that, which talent would you rather have: 5 4-stars, 10 3-stars, and 10 2-stars OR 25 2-stars? Obviously, I'd rather have the former.

Better ingredients, better pizza.

Pizza, Pizza!

Avoid the Noid (the Mustang Maniac!!)

<small>[ 01-21-2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: GoRedGoBlue ]</small>

[SoCal_Pony]

Originally posted by Stallion:
there is nothing more nauseating than someone who doesn't follow or care about recruiting talking about how recruiting doesn't matter

Having visited this board for the past couple of years I can tell you my biggest surprise is the rah-rah mentality exhibited by so many of you, which plays itself out on posts such as these.

I was expecting countless Stallion-type posters who were genuinely angry with our administration for its lack of commitment; instead his views appear to be almost in a minority.

Unfortunately for us, firing Dement, Cavan, Bennett or Copeland will not solve our problems, as they run much deeper than any one individual. (I might add that I believe all of the above are competent people).

Our problems are two-fold.

1)Undergraduate enrollment is 6 times less than UT’s (our 1,000 loyal BB supporters would sell-out Moody if our enrollment equaled UT’s).

2)A President and Board, frozen by the DP, still hesitant 17 years after to fact to honestly address our inequities.

Until Problem 2) changes, there will be countless more 40-point loss moments in football and now basketball, more 7 TD catches in 3 quarters of play, and more intramural/rock band defections, than conference championships or post-season appearances.

This is the sad state of affairs at SMU

[Water Pony]

I agree that firing the above leaders won't fix our issues but your Problem #2 needs a specific perscription. Yes, our enrollment is a faction of UT but that isn't the problem. That is the situation. The classic BCS vs private school dilemma will remain. Let's turn it to a positive.

What are the great inequities that you refer to at this moment in our rebuilding? It appears that Turner is doing an excellent job as President and has a committment to athletics.

The comment from other posts that there is no "commitment" is simply ranting and nothing more. Lately, there is no evidence of a lack of support. If anything, the opposite is true.

That doesn't change the reality we live with, but remember, we earned our current situation. That doesn't mean it is a permanent condition unless we restart the hiring/firing cycle again and again. Phil, Jim and Gerald need our support, not shots from the hip.

The answer to our problem is wins and credibility. We need to earn trust with the alumni, students, fans, recruits and the media. I can't imagine crediblity will improve with a house cleaning. Can you imagine what recruits would think then?

We have taken it to the bottom in FB; now let's find those who want to be Mustangs and difference-makers. We don't lack for much at this moment, except those willing to be part of this new Herd. This approach or model has worked in other places (NIU, Navy, K State, Northwestern, Oregon State, etc.) , which had worst histories that ours.

I do not accept that there is no commitment, I do not accept that the coaches and AD are incompetent and I do not accept that our situation will remain as it is. We will never be UT. Who the hell wants to be. We certainly can be successful with great regularity, but we aren't going to be a Top Ten program every year.

Money and power have created a short list with very few schools. We'll get to play in the sand box and win. But we can't own the sand box.

Go Mustangs!



<small>[ 01-21-2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Water Pony ]</small>