"SMU fans shouldn’t be concerned ... "

[NavyCrimson]

Good article from the Examiner.com Los Angeles. Sorry if this has already been posted.

http://www.examiner.com/x-52489-SMU-Mus ... r-recruits

"SMU fans shouldn’t be concerned with low-star recruits"

Everyday scouts from around the country add high school and junior college players to their websites. They list their stats, height, weight, speed, and schools where they are considering playing college football. However, it seems that the only feature that fans and analysts are concerned about is those little stars next to the player’s name. Those stars make or break a programs reputation during the recruiting process and to me it is really unfair.

All I hear from SMU fans on blogs and forums is,” Why don’t the Mustangs have any 5-star or 4-star players coming in this year?” Or maybe my favorite,” Does SMU even recruit anything over a 3-star player?” Well I have your answers folks so take a seat and pay close attention.

The parody in college sports today is at an all time high. Smaller programs are finding a way to compete with the big schools that have always seemed to be untouchable. One reason is that coaches are finding players to fit their system. June Jones is actually a perfect example. He finds guys like Colt Brennen and Kyle Padron who have all the intangibles that will make them great quarterbacks for a run-and-shoot offense. Jones recruits players based on how well they can fit in his offense and defense, not based on how many stars are next to his name. What works for Nick Saban or Lane Kiffin may not be right SMU.

Another important factor is player development. What most of these lower tier programs are doing is building a coaching staff that can turn a 2-star recruit into a 4 or 5-star player. A perfect example is Butler. Brad Stevens took the kids that Purdue and IU didn’t want in high school for whatever reason, and coached them into solid college basketball players. I believe being able to see potential and finding a way to bring it out of somebody is far more important than babysitting high profile athletes.

Then, there are these one-and-done or three-and-out programs that basically provide a stepping stone to the pros. The high profile recruit normally doesn’t have his school’s best interest in mind. He is trying to stand out amongst his teammates and try to stay injury free so he can go on and make Millions (see, Kentucky). Also, team chemistry is thrown out the window when you know a guy won’t be around long enough to unpack his dorm room. Trust me; some of these highly publicized players are nothing but talented trouble (see, USC), and if you SMU fans are fine with that you have a really short memory.

Now, please understand that I am not saying that the lower star recruits will go on to have better college careers then the higher star players. Having the luxury of being selective with higher profile players is something that programs should look to strive for. My point is that SMU fans should not question the fact that their recruits are all 3-star players. If the success continues to come for this program those 4 and 5-stars will be sure to notice, and I believe that some 4-stars have shown interest already for the 2011 class. But for now do your homework and pay attention to the potential SMU has coming in and don’t be concerned with what you think is missing.

[panhandle_pony]

I totally agree with your thoughts navycrimson. A great college football example to compliment your post is Boise State. Look at their "star" ratings over the past 3 or 4 years - certainly not what Texas, LSU, Alabama and others have for their marquee players, but they fit the system.

[BUS]

With JJ and staff we recruit well and coach them up.
Better IS better.
Go Mustangs
BEAT tech

[PoconoPony]

Coach them up just like Doh!!!!!!!!

[BUS]

Not exactly
Better IS better.

[ponyscott]

Way to go Navycrimson to stick your neck out on this and good points, but don't forget the BS that happens when a lower tier D-1 school like SMU gets a commitment from an athlete that may be a 3 star, but even if they have an outstanding year they never get a higher ranking ( that may be deserved) because they chose SMU.
Its getting even more and more political every year, but Kudos to coaching staffs like SMU that don't give a crap about the ranking as much because they find kids that have a 'good motor' and attitude and find them earlier than other coaches ( see the 2011 kids who may not be ranked yet but they are real D-1 finds).

[NavyCrimson]

" ... but don't forget the BS that happens when a lower tier D-1 school like SMU gets a commitment from an athlete that may be a 3 star, but even if they have an outstanding year they never get a higher ranking ( that may be deserved) because they chose SMU."

Very good point!

[Billy Joe]

I believe the star rankings are largely based on the number and quality of offers a recruit receives.

[NickSMU17]

We should be concerned when commitments look elsewhere.....


check rivals...

[Stallion]

I love when people yap on about things they obviously don't know a thing about. I don't know the EXACT number but I guarantee SMU had in the neighborhood of 8 players last year alone (and many more in prior years) whose ratings were upgraded thereby exposing his argument as complete an utter [deleted]. As to all those 4-5 stars that are allegedly upgraded unwarrantedly for schools like Texas-care to give me an example because they all have 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 offers. The fact is there is no player SMU has signed in recent years that truly has the offers to establish they are true 4 or 5 stars.

[couch 'em]

You guys load up an entire team with all June Jones-selected 2 stars and 3 stars, and I'll load up an entire team of 5 stars, and let's see who has the better team.

[PonyKai]

You guys load up an entire team with all June Jones-selected 2 stars and 3 stars, and I'll load up an entire team of 5 stars, and let's see who has the better team.

Didn't they try that in the 2007 Sugar Bowl?

[PerunaPunch]

I love when people yap on about things they obviously don't know a thing about.

As much as I hate agreeing with Stallion, he's 100% right. These examiner.com people obviously know very little about collegiate football, recruiting and even less about SMU. They're just hack bloggers trying to generate traffic for their sites. This is the web equivalent of getting spam email.

[Alaric]

The fact is there is no player SMU has signed in recent years that truly has the offers to establish they are true 4 or 5 stars.

Ryan Clark 4 stars DB Corsicana, TX, Navarro J.C. 6'1" 195 4.5 4 stars 5.8.

Tech dropped him when it become apparent he would have great difficulty qualifying. We signed him and he didn't qualify. His signing, however, renders your statement untrue. Other than Ryan Clark, I think you're right. Come on guys, JJ would love to load up his team with 4 & 5 star guys.

[PonyKai]

The fact is there is no player SMU has signed in recent years that truly has the offers to establish they are true 4 or 5 stars.

Ryan Clark 4 stars DB Corsicana, TX, Navarro J.C. 6'1" 195 4.5 4 stars 5.8.

Tech dropped him when it become apparent he would have great difficulty qualifying. We signed him and he didn't qualify. His signing, however, renders your statement untrue. Other than Ryan Clark, I think you're right. Come on guys, JJ would love to load up his team with 4 & 5 star guys.

I seem to recall a couple people over on Rivals stating that the four star rating really wasn't warranted...that a player like Darryl Fields had a much better case for being a legitimate four star than Ryan Clark did.