Why our recruiting policies are killing us

[ALL4SMU]

I just read that Texas now has 9 commitments for the next recruiting classs. We wont even be able to get a commitment until after January, will we? This is crazy....Other teams have such an unfair advantage.....zSorry, I just thought I would vent a little!

[swann]

we do have tougher academic standards, but wins with the new stadium will do much more than any policy change

[MustangMan]

Well said, Swann. Win a lot of games, and the recruits will line up to come to SMU.

Also, ALL4SMU suggested we won't have a commitment until January at the earliest. But rumor has it we already have offered a lot of players. Can't they commit if they realize SMU is where they need to be? That would be a huge jump-start for the recruiting and enthusiasm.

[No Quarter]

On this and other SMU boards I see the repeated comment that the present university policy keeps a lot of potential players from considering SMU. I have no doubt it is a hinderance.

But it is not all a free ride. A kid can visit a school on his own if he is interested, and whether or not there is a recruiting angle involved.

Can anybody name a significant group of players who went elsewhere and contributed to the football or basketball programs who really truly would have enrolled at SMU had the policy been different?

[graypony]

It was mentioned above that UT already had 9 commitments. I wouldn't make a great big deal about commitments now.

I do think that a program can run a risk of missing someone by offering so early. A kid may just not grow any bigger or have that great of a senior year. A sr year may reveal some weaknesses about a player that might have been hidden by a great supporting cast of seniors the year before. One example that I know of was about a MLB who lost all four down linemen that played in front of him the year before. As it turned out, the down linemen were so good that they tied up blockers that were trying to get to the MLB. This freed the MLB to make tons of tackles in his jr year. He looked rather ordinary in his sr year after the graduation of the defensive linemen.

In a large 5A school, there could be a tremendous athlete that blossoms his sr year, but because of the depth of a good 5A program, he went unnoticed by even his own coaches in practice the year before.

I am sure that these are "can't miss" prospects that UT has offered to, but I do think that a school can tie up too many scholarships and miss out on a late bloomer or overestimate a kid's ability and make a commitment too early.

Futhermore, and a very practical point as I observed when we went through this process 2 years ago, just because a kid says he commits to a school does not mean that the school has offered. A school cannot, by strict NCAA rules, comment on any individual athlete. I know for a fact that there are times that the coaching staff would like to say that an athlete that has committed publically to them has NOT been offered. By NCAA rules, they cannot say anything.

Don't be surprised if only 4 or 5 of those 9 commitments sign on the dotted line, or even get a chance to sign with UT, on the first Wednesday in February.

With all that said, it would greatly help SMU if they could offer kids before the middle of January. After 6 semesters of HS, an academic committee shouldn't need a 7th semester to decide if a kid is eligible to be a student at SMU.

[couch 'em]

we do have tougher academic standards, but wins with the new stadium will do much more than any policy change

Wrong. Thank you for holding SMU down for 10 years.

[Samurai Stang]

we do have tougher academic standards, but wins with the new stadium will do much more than any policy change

Wrong. Thank you for holding SMU down for 10 years.

An outstanding find. Such unfounded optimism.