Recruiting Class Rankings SMU and TCU

[Corp]

...or we have a senior laden team and they are in a rebuilding year.

I'm sick of people parroting the notion that TCU was an inexperienced team.

Au contraire,

More than 2/3's of their entire roster is composed of Freshmen and Sophomores.

There's only one starting Senior in their five man defensive backfield. Check it out.

[ebrooks11]

...or we have a senior laden team and they are in a rebuilding year.

I'm sick of people parroting the notion that TCU was an inexperienced team.

Au contraire,

More than 2/3's of their entire roster is composed of Freshmen and Sophomores.

There's only one starting Senior in their five man defensive backfield. Check it out.

So why is there entire roster 2/3's Freshman and sophmores? Were they not given any scholarships 3 and 4 years ago, or were the kids that are or were going to be Juniors and Seniors just not good enough to cut it? So basically we would have destroyed them if they started their upperclassmen.

Thanks for claryfing Carp.

[Stallion]

they graduated 28 Seniors last year

[ebrooks11]

they graduated 28 Seniors last year

So how about the recruiting class that would be seniors this year?
Were they not good enough to play? Could they not cut it in the classroom?
They have had the same ability to recruit the last 4 years just like us and we won.
The excuse of experience is a dumb one. If you had recruited the right players and developed them then you would not have to play youngers one. Right?

[goldenstang]

Their senior are not good, ours are. That is not our fault.

[goldenstang]

they graduated 28 Seniors last year

A Killerfrogs thread has posted 2011 roster numbers:

TCU - 46 Fr, 28 So, 24 Jr, 18 Sr
SMU - 52 Fr, 19 So, 25 Jr, 20 Sr

Boy, we have WAY more experience. Looks like we beat their arse with comparably aged players.

Just thought of this but some of those guys are walk-ons, so that may skew those numbers a bit.

[CalallenStang]

I checked the starting lineups as reported on the SMU-TCU boxscore, and SMU started 10 seniors. Guess how many seniors TCU started?














10

[GiddyUp]

I checked the starting lineups as reported on the SMU-TCU boxscore, and SMU started 10 seniors. Guess how many seniors TCU started? 10

I think most are complaining about not having their key starters. Two off the top are Dalton obviously and Kerley. I don't know who else were playmakers last year. I'm not even sure Stallion was excited we won b/c he loves them

[ponyscott]

I checked the starting lineups as reported on the SMU-TCU boxscore, and SMU started 10 seniors. Guess how many seniors TCU started?

That's so good to know as my TCU friends are really playing up the fact we beat up on those young players....BS! And how many are RED shirt freshman or sophomores that had a redshirt year?














10

[The PonyGrad]

Pretty eye opening.


I had bought the whole narrative.

[ponyscott]

Pretty eye opening.


I had bought the whole narrative.

So did EVERYone...Patterson whining again.

[Stallion]

Traditionally experience is determined at least by KNOWLEDGEABLE College Football Fans by returning starters and maybe take a look at Lettermen too
Returning Starters:
SMU: 17-1(Beasley) but really plus 2 (Wilkerson + Lereibus) or 18
TCU: 11-1(Tanner Brock) or 10

Counting Walk-ons/Roster-how embarrassing

[SMU 86]

...or we have a senior laden team and they are in a rebuilding year.

so........ experienced, inferior talent beats less-experienced, better-talented teams?

Dude we barely but them in OT. You are posting like we blew them away. They are more talented just less experinced in the secondary. They scored 23 points in the 4th qtr on us. They have also beaten like 10 of the last eleven times we played them. Not sure what your point is. Our talent level is somewhat catching them but it is not to that level yet. Mack Brown has talent but look at what happens to him. In order to say "experienced, inferior talent beats less-experienced, better-talented teams" or "the rankings are not reliable.......or, we have better coaching. or, both" it would have to happen on a regular basis and not just 2 times in 12 years.

[cutter]

...or we have a senior laden team and they are in a rebuilding year.

so........ experienced, inferior talent beats less-experienced, better-talented teams?

Dude we barely but them in OT. You are posting like we blew them away.

wasn't my intent. but, we were clearly dominating them through 3 quarters, and withstood their return charge through the remainder of the game. we won.

Not sure what your point is.

I don't recall either. but, you sound a little agitated.
It was bye week dialogue.
and, if you read the beginning of the thread (to which I was merely responding to), someone appeared to be casting the results of the game in terms of the comparative quality of the recent recruiting classes. further, amid persisting claims of various froggies that it was only the inexperience of their team that allowed our victory, I raised the question.
I don't think I ever implied that a single victory erases a long-standing domination by a team/institution committed to building a winning tradition. but, it is clear that now that smu has made such a commitment, it is a competitive rivalry. and, we won this game. with 'lesser quality' athletes. with our coaching staff. with not much difference in player experience (as others have noted above). why not ask the questions?
I apologize if you are offended; is is not my intent. but, as others have pointed out.....this is a message board open to free dialogue, is it not?

[SMU 86]

No problem.