P.L. Lindley commits to OU

[ponyinNC]

SMU 2011 offer, LB from Round Rock that we were in on early and thought we actually had a good shot at getting. Seems like we have been really battling with the big boys early, but losing. Chet Moss (UT), Joe Bergeron(UT), Josh Cochran (UT)...just to name a few.

Curious to hear what you guys think of all this...are we finally aiming high, maybe too high? When do you think we may win some of these battles consistently?

[BUS]

After we win another bowl game next year. Maybe sooner.

Forgive the pun.

[SMU 86]

I don't think we win these battles consistnetly until we go to several bowls in a row or make it to a BCS bowl. That or if we get into a BCS conference when everyone realigns. But I do believe we will get some here and there (like O'Guin and Fields). But it will be tough since the other CUSA schools seems to be outrecruitng us. We will see how SMU recrutis against other CUSA schools since we have won a bowl this year.

[Alaric]

Was it expected that Lindley would get an offer from OU? We knew Moss, Cochran and others would get big time offers but I thought Lindley was supposed to be a rung below those guys. It's a good debate whether you spend so much time on these guys or not - big rewards if you get even one, lots of opportunity cost blown if you don't get any though I like the signal that you're not afraid of the big boys even if you can't get any right now.

[ponyinNC]

Don't know about OU, but he was planing on attending TCU and Oklahoma State's junior days, and I think we all expected he would get a few Big 12 offers.

Just wondering when we may see results from recruiting these higher prospects that we've been in on so early. UT took a bunch, OU has poached one, etc. I like that we are stepping it up and losing out to the big boys and not lower tier schools, but I hope we actually land one. Drango, Hankins (long shot), Mauro, etc.

[Pony81]

I think we can look at the success that TCU has as a guide to how attractive successful non bcs schools are to the Top 100 Texas recruits. Not much.
We will always be pushing on a rope until we get to a BCS conference.
BUT
We don't need Top 100 Texas talent to win CUSA. The difference between a 4 star and 3 star is measurable but can be overcome with proper coaching and talent evaluation. I put our coaches up against any.
If we can continue to attract 3 stars with the occasional 4 star thrown in, we will be competitive with TCU and certainly CUSA.

[Stallion]

Lindley has made the Top 75 of just about every list I've seen but he's pretty slight and he looks more like a SS and smaller than listed-I was hoping OU would consider him too small for the Big 12 as a LB -but its further evidence that LB is now and has been for a pretty long time about speed-and the days of the big 6-3 or 6-4, 250 LBs in college football are pretty much over.

[ponyscott]

Seriously......Hey guys be cool...this is what happens when you go up against the big guys...we will lose more than we will win, but these coaches are good and can recruit against the best and will give a kid a fair chance to make the NFL with their connnections and position coaching. You have to aim high to get the recruits we want. We will get our share.

[go4it]

Some college football recruiting facts to think about as we analyze the 2010 class and look forward to 2011:

Texas Christian, Boise State and Cincinnati -- all BCS participants last season -- had no single season in the top 45 football recruiting rankings from 2005 to '09. All three programs were ranked lower than 60th as recently as 2008.

Only 39 percent of the 2009 first-team Associated Press All-Americans on offense and defense were rated among the top 10 at their position entering college.

The average number of recruiting stars for a 2009 All-American by Rivals was 3.48.

A team's season can be remarkably different from what recruiting rankings would predict. Eight of Rivals' 15 best recruiting programs during the past five years did not finish the 2009 season in The Associated Press poll: Georgia, Florida State, Oklahoma, Michigan, Auburn, Tennessee, Notre Dame and South Carolina.

[go4it]

[quote="Stallion"]Lindley has made the Top 75 of just about every list I've seen but he's pretty slight and he looks more like a SS and smaller than listed-I was hoping OU would consider him too small for the Big 12 as a LB -but its further evidence that LB is now and has been for a pretty long time about speed-and the days of the big 6-3 or 6-4, 250 LBs in college football are pretty much over.[/quote]

Your comment that LB is now and has been about speed for a long time is true for Big 12 and conferences that focus on stopping spread type offenses. That theory doesn't hold true if you look at last 9-10 National Championship teams and especially the SEC teams. The only exception may be Texas in 2005 (I just can’t remember). Just out of curiosity I looked at the Alabama 2010 recruiting class. They signed four LB’s average size 6’3”/6’4” and 235-240 lbs. They’ll probably be 240-250 by the time they play. The average size of their starting LB's this year was 6'3"/6'4" and 240 lbs.

[Stallion]

I ran the numbers a few weeks ago and posted them here-TCU has had the No. 1 non-BCS recruiting class in the country in average per recruit about 4 times in the last 10 years or so and was in the Top 3 another 3-4 times or so. This doesn't even include Franchione's classes which were most probably at the Top of the non-BCS list. TCU will never rank high in total points because they have averaged taking only about 20-21 recruits over that period. They sign and keep their recruits and develop them. TCU has higher ranked classes per recruit ie players on the field than 90% of the teams on their schedule. Recruiting is relative to the teams on your schedule

You cite no source for your other stats on recruiting BUT just assume that they are accurate. 3.48 would rank with the better recruiting classes in the country. SMU rarely breaks 2.30. And what some of you can seem to never get through your head is that there are only about 35 National Five Star players, thousands of 2 stars and I dunno about 700 or so three Stars ( in Texas alone there are over 250 3 stars-those are ballpark figures but I've very recently posted there were over 280 Three stars and above in Texas alone-so I bet its a pretty good estimate). So that's not a straight math 3.48 because the field of stars is disporportionate. Suffice to say-each and every kid rated 3.48 or above is a Top Prospect-one that SMU has hardly ever if ever signed in 20 years. All studies that have analyzed the NFL Draft each year for about the last 4 years have shown a significant corresponding increasing likilihood of being picked in the NFL at each suceeding star level.

Top 10 at their position-is that supposed to be a statement that recruiting doesn't matter because there are 119 Division 1A teams. Top 10 at their position means for example top 2-3 in Texas. Texas a big state and produces many many 4 stars at every position that don't rate that high. 119 X about 25 per class that's about 3,000 total recruits. Your saying that Rivals ratings aren't important because they can not project All-American based on the Top 3 % of all recruited players 4-5 years later? Please.-that's laughable. It does more to prove my point than yours.

And your list of teams with strong recruiting classes that didn't finish in the Top 25-take a look at those teams-look at the Conferences and schedules they play and tell me it surprising that some of those teams didn't make the Top 25. Last time I looked the SEC alone had 6 teams in this years Top 10 in Recruiting-perhaps as many as 9 10 in the Top 25-they can't all win at the same time. . Doesn't mean they couldn't kick most every body's [deleted] in weaker conferences. Top 25 in Recruiting is completely unreliable in predicting Top 25 in the Polls because of the relative inequality in their schedules. Otherwise tell me if TCU could go through the SEC without losing 4 games. Recruiting is relative to the teams on your schedule.

As for the SEC-you are right they play a totally different brand of football without wide open offenses-but their bigger LBs are some of the best athletes in the country who will end up in the NFL because they have the size but still have the speed to play at the larger size. Not enough of them to go around and the speed guys get recruited by the rest of us because the big guys just can't stay on the field

Finally and most importantthere have been ZERO National Champions in recent years that have not been nationally competitive in recruiting meaning that those unheralded 2 stars that you seem to tout make very little contributions to the Top Football programs.

[SoCal_Pony]

"A team's season can be remarkably different from what recruiting rankings would predict. Eight of Rivals' 15 best recruiting programs during the past five years did not finish the 2009 season in The Associated Press poll: Georgia, Florida State, Oklahoma, Michigan, Auburn, Tennessee, Notre Dame and South Carolina."

You know, I find quotes such as these very annoying as well.

You think this article is factoring in the loss of Matt Stafford a year early??? He was the #1 ranked QB in the nation by Rivals coming out of Highland Park.

OU was ranked #3 in the nation before Sam Bradford went down to injury.

Every other team on your list made the AP poll at some time during the year outside of Tennessee. Tennessee should have defeated Alabama at Alabama except for 2 blocked FGs in the 4th quarter by Terrence Cody.

This is obviously not an exact science, but only someone with a limited statistical knowledge would argue that Rivals ratings are meaningless.

[mathman]

I agree with everything Stallion posted except one. If you look at the link below it states that Rivals only takes into account the top 20 recruits that a team signs. There is a discussion about it below the formula. Guess I am tired of TCU complaining about their ranking because they don't sign as many as other teams do. The link is dated Feb 2009 so I assume that it is still being used by Rivals.

http://life.atlantafalcons.com/topic/38 ... -rankings/

[go4it]

[quote You know, I find quotes such as these very annoying as well.

You think this article is factoring in the loss of Matt Stafford a year early??? He was the #1 ranked QB in the nation by Rivals coming out of Highland Park.

OU was ranked #3 in the nation before Sam Bradford went down to injury.

Every other team on your list made the AP poll at some time during the year outside of Tennessee. Tennessee should have defeated Alabama at Alabama except for 2 blocked FGs in the 4th quarter by Terrence Cody.

This is obviously not an exact science, but only someone with a limited statistical knowledge would argue that Rivals ratings are meaningless.[/quote]

I wasn't trying to make the argument that Rivals ratings are meaningless. Just that good players sometimes fly under the radar and highly rated players frequently under achieve. I used this year’s AP All American selection as evidence “Only 39 percent of the 2009 first-team Associated Press All-Americans on offense and defense were rated among the top 10 at their position entering college.” The stats came from an article in the Birmingham News. Link:

http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/02/many ... lasse.html

I also believe the purpose of looking at recruiting over a 5 year period was so the injury or early departure of a player shouldn’t have a devastating effect on the team’s performance in 2009. Great players have an impact but the point is that with 5 years of top 10 recruiting classes you would think a top 25 finish would be likely and they would have other players to step in. Even in Matt Stafford’s case I don’t believe Georgia ever finished higher than 15th; after back to back to back top 5 recruiting classes.

[Stallion]

Georgia hasn't had back to back Top 5 finishes in recruiting. They had the No. 4 Class when Stafford was the No. 1 QB in the country -probably wouldn't have been top 10 if he wasn't included. There are 3 teams that have at least 3 Top 5 Classes in the last 4 years -USC 1st, 2nd, 8th and 4th; Florida finishing 2nd, 1st, 3rd and 11th; and Texas finshing 5th for 3 out of 4 years. The 4th year for Texas was an unusually small recruiting class of 20 that was still rated in the Top 10 for average per recruit. Then its fair throwing Alabama into the top rung because they have finished No. 1 twice in recruiting and have also has finished 11th and 10th during the last 4 years. So Georgia has its work cut out for it even getting by Alabama and Florida in the SEC Eastern Division. USC had an off year with a freshman QB plus has had so many defections to the NFL that its really hard to know what might have been(after winning 7 straight PAC 10 Championships). Otherwise, it makes perfect sense that UT, Alabama and Florida were fighting for the National Championship. Similar scenarios have played out over the last 10 years or so- USC, UT, OU, LSU, Florida have all won National Championship from nationally competitive elite recruiting classes.

Oh and you also missed on Georgia as they actually have finished well above Top 15 twice in Stafford's final 2 years-10th in 2008 according to UPI and No. 2 in 2007 according to AP-so once again Georgia's series of top classes lead to 2 Top 10 finishes especially when they had the Superstar Highly Recruited QB-when they lost Mr. Hotshot they fell in the toughest Division in College Football.