Offers/Commitments

[panhandle_pony]

I'm curious if any of you have knowledge as to what might be a standard or typical commitment rate. I see where, not counting verbal acceptances, there are 32 outstanding offers. I would think the coaching staff has some feel for what percentage "hit" vs. "miss", or otherwise the coaches might produce many more offers. I'm sure this is a very inexact science, but was curious as to any historical data that may shed light on this issue.

[Stallion]

SMU was 27 commitments from 129 offers last year
SMU has 5 commitments from 49 offers this year so far

Quite frankly I think a ratio for a school like SMU is deceptive because we are rebuilding and have to be more agressive. I know for a fact that Phil Bennett had a better ratio but he rarely bothered to offer top players. Just for example the great Phil Bennett-"Master Recruiter" when hired only gave out 57 offers in the 2006 class. Looking over that list-only about 3 were Texas Top 100s. Heck only a handful were Texas Top 200 in reality. The key is to have a great ratio while offering the best players.

EXAMPLES: Texas had 25 commitments from 32 offers
Compared to their instate rival Texas A&M got 25 commitments from 109 offers. Obviously, the unavoidable conclusion is that Texas beat the crap out of A&M and basically got just about anyone they wanted while A&M was digging deep off its recruiting board.

On the other hand you could have a nice ratio and still get whipped by TCU like Phil Bennett. Bottom Line-you offer the best players until he fill your class-ratio ain't that important.

[panhandle_pony]

Thank you Stallion, very informative

[expony18]

ratio means nothing unless you're UT, OU, USC, ND, or Florida, and your name carries weight. i didnt realize those statistics, but you're right on the nose about offers/rebuilding. especially after this past year, JJ should be flooding the market with offers (to top talent). its like draft arguments, fill a need v. take best player available. JJ has done a good job of going after players that fit his system and trying to get the best player available. JJ has surprised me with the RB's he's brought in

[Dwan]

I think a better ratio for a school like SMU is commits to visitors. If you can get a kid to be interested enough to visit, that is a minor victory in recruiting as recruits can only take 5 official trips. And then how do you do once you have a kid interested and on campus is a better way to judge a staff at SMU. U take kids like Jessie Scroggins or that 4-star LB we offered this year were/are not in their top 7. It is great we are offering kids like this but if they have no and will never have interest in a school like SMU hard to put that on the staff. BTW, texas is close to 100% on kids they get to visit.

[Stallion]

yea but these days official visits are almost entirely irrelevant. I bet 75% of kids these days commit BEFORE official visits. If you analyzed it based upon unofficial visits it might be interesting. If a highly recruited player hasn't made 6-8 unofficial visits by his Senior Year then he is hurting his chances. Most of the kids a schools signs these days have been on-campus 3-4 times. A side effect of this is that schools have now transferred the costs of recruiting back onto the family of the recruits who often now take long tours around the country to make unofficial trips to get noticed. The official visit is almost an anachronism of a lost era-and should be reformed by the NCAA.

[originaloverthehilltop1]

just for further discussion, how should the ncaa reform visits? the schools are probably ok with having the families pay for at least the unofficials. having the families pay at least some of it will put some damper on the athletic priviledge/entitlement circus as it is...even if its a burden on some families. the ncaa might not see this as needing reform.

[expony18]

and for further discussion, how about an early signing period

[Dwan]

I agree with that. Maybe a better way to look at it is how you do with kids who visit officially or unofficially or how you do with kids who list SMU in their top 7. My point is when you look at the offer to commit ratio for a school like SMU, a lot of those kid dont have any interest in SMU. Does not mean you dont offer them but it is hard to judge how we are doing in recruiting when you include kids who have no interest in SMU.

[westexSMU]

Where also JJ did an exceptional job last year was finding good talent in SMUs touring football camps in different cities. A lot of those recruits got Rivals 3 Star ratings after committing to SMU. I'm sure a ratio would look better considering just how many got offered and committed after attending one of these SMU camps. I am glad to see 2 camps in the Houston area this year which should produce results.

[PoconoPony]

I think JJ and staff have done a great job of identifying talent and making the offers. Problem, as I see it , is that many of the kids are totally unaware of SMU. Virtually all of the Louisiana kids have made the comments that they do not know much about SMU. Because we have been dormant for so many years and buried in C-USA, a big part of the sales pitch is to totally recreate our historic past and start marketing ourselves. Even if we cannot get kids this year it is very much a PR campaign at the various HSs to get name recognition out there and get kids thinking and make them aware. Same holds true with these HS coaches who may have not had any contact for years and need to be reintroduced to the program. The payoff may not be for a few years, but you need to start somewhere. This is going to be a very difficult year for recruiting as we are finally going after the same high quality kids sought by the big boys. Most kids already have preconceived ideas and dreams about playing for the traditional football schools and it will be difficult to change minds this year until kids see a little more success and start keeping track of SMU as an evolving program. Obviously, some kids will see the light and jump on the opportunity to start at a much earlier time in their careers than at other schools. Even this aspect is quickly changing at SMU but for both sides of the line. In the interim, the staff is also trying to scout out some sleepers who are still under the radar and hope their scouting is right and that these kids will ultimately develop as they become more mature. At this point, I am not sure any offers to acceptance ratios are going to be that meaningful. Success will be measured in recruiting enough high quality kids with sufficient potiential to full obvious needs regardless of how the numbers work out.

[ponyboy]

Good post and there are ultimately three measures of recruiting success, the second more important than the first and the third more important than the second:

1) What is the quality of the group that signs in February? Who cares how many we had to ask to get there?

2) How many actually make it to campus with full eligibility?

3) How many, after their careers are over, actually contributed?