Looking Like 2010

by **Wuba** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:13 pm

I think SMU recruiting is in general on an slight uptrend and has been since June got here. When klemm got here and started recruiting we experienced a step change upwards. Now without him we will revert to the underlying trend. It is painful because we all thought/hoped that the klemm level was the new normal.

Would have been better if he had been having all of that success in Texas, because at least the relationships with coaches would remain, even if the current recruits left. However, the great connections he had in LA were a big part of his initial recruiting success, so I understand them having him start there.

by **Rebel10** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:26 pm

CoxMustangFan wrote:I hate to say it, but I'm guessing Lewis is next. I'm not sure what JJ and company have cooking, but this is starting to look a bit like the 2010 class:

2010
1 - 5.7
9 - 5.6
6 - 5.5
9 - 5.4 (and below)

2012 (guess)
1 - 5.7
5 to 8 - 5.6
7 to 9 - 5.5
9 to 10 - 5.4 (and below)

It's well below what we all had hoped for, but in all honesty, it's solid and starts giving the team some much needed depth. I'm personally going to try and keep a lid on my criticism (as much as possible) as I'm sure the other devoted recruits don't appreciate being associated with what fans consider is a "failure class." Hopefully we can limit any further loses in 2012 and have a killer class in 2013.

Pony up!

I know that would be okay in C-USA but is this a good Big East class?

by **Rebel10** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:35 pm

Seems like you have a good bit of blind faith in our recruiters. Oh well, I guess JJ will hire a cracker jack recruiter with major connections.

by **Stallion** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:35 pm

Wuba-it has a lot more to do with the recruiting pool than you seem willing to admit. Look at the schools we compete against. This is a damn good non-BCS job-we should outrecruit most in our CUSA and definitely in the West with possible exception of Houston. Mike Cavan's staff would have clean up with present admission standards. About half or more of June's recruits would not have been admitted in prior coaching regimes

by **Wuba** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:49 pm

I do not think I said anything about the recruiting pool, that is a part of the general upwards trend. Where did I deny that? If I did, I did not intend to.

I am not arguing that we should not be doing better, I am just saying the underlying trend feels like a gradual upslope.

I would not disagree if someone said that the slope of the improvement should be steeper, due to relaxed admissions standards, success on the field providing a virtuous feedback loop to recruiting, now the big east and probably others that I am not thinking of.

One thing about cox's original post. How much star inflation have we seen at rivals since 2010? I know the inflation in recent years has been dramatic, but I do not know if there has been much inflation since 2010 or if it has leveled off since then. Just safer to judge a class based on ranking relative to other schools than number of stars I think.

Of course, a rating system where getting the #5 kicker in the country causes every player in the class to be worth more is not exactly the most reasonable basis for comparison either but I do not know of another way to compare reasonably easily.

by **Stallion** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:08 am

Not much grade inflation since 2010-one of those years-maybe 2011 recruiting year it went down just a tad but within the range of probability. The big inflation was in the 2008-2009 period I believe from memory-I remember being shocked some of our recruits were getting so many 3 stars

by **SMU 86** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:38 am

CoxMustangFan wrote:
Rebel10 wrote:
CoxMustangFan wrote:I hate to say it, but I'm guessing Lewis is next. I'm not sure what JJ and company have cooking, but this is starting to look a bit like the 2010 class:

2010
1 - 5.7
9 - 5.6
6 - 5.5
9 - 5.4 (and below)

2012 (guess)
1 - 5.7
5 to 8 - 5.6
7 to 9 - 5.5
9 to 10 - 5.4 (and below)

It's well below what we all had hoped for, but in all honesty, it's solid and starts giving the team some much needed depth. I'm personally going to try and keep a lid on my criticism (as much as possible) as I'm sure the other devoted recruits don't appreciate being associated with what fans consider is a "failure class." Hopefully we can limit any further loses in 2012 and have a killer class in 2013.

Pony up!

I know that would be okay in C-USA but is this a good Big East class?

It's not Big East champion good, but it will be a good foundation. Remember, as JJ and others have mentioned, the 2013 class will be the first "Big East recruited" class. If that class isn't top 40, I'll be concerned. We just need to secure the commits we have now and pick up a few last minute guys.

Are you saying as it stands right now it will be a good foundation or after the potential other losses it will still be a good foundation?

by **Dutch** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:31 am

Wuba wrote:I think SMU recruiting is in general on an slight uptrend and has been since June got here. When klemm got here and started recruiting we experienced a step change upwards. Now without him we will revert to the underlying trend. It is painful because we all thought/hoped that the klemm level was the new normal.

Would have been better if he had been having all of that success in Texas, because at least the relationships with coaches would remain, even if the current recruits left. However, the great connections he had in LA were a big part of his initial recruiting success, so I understand them having him start there.

It's difficult to say that Klemm would have had that success in Texas. He is from southern cal. Played HS football there and know how to make local small talk there. I am of the opinion that he was recruiting SoCal bc he was more dialed in out there. Just like if you or I had just gotten our first job as a GA at Cal. We would probably feel most comfortable and have the most success if we were sent to recruit north Texas.

Everyone out there would think we were a miracle recruiter for getting a foot in the door in north Texas. Even stealing a few recruits from OSU and Tech and TCU.

by **Wuba** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:20 am

Dutch wrote:
Wuba wrote:I think SMU recruiting is in general on an slight uptrend and has been since June got here. When klemm got here and started recruiting we experienced a step change upwards. Now without him we will revert to the underlying trend. It is painful because we all thought/hoped that the klemm level was the new normal.

Would have been better if he had been having all of that success in Texas, because at least the relationships with coaches would remain, even if the current recruits left. However, the great connections he had in LA were a big part of his initial recruiting success, so I understand them having him start there.

It's difficult to say that Klemm would have had that success in Texas. He is from southern cal. Played HS football there and know how to make local small talk there. I am of the opinion that he was recruiting SoCal bc he was more dialed in out there. Just like if you or I had just gotten our first job as a GA at Cal. We would probably feel most comfortable and have the most success if we were sent to recruit north Texas.

Everyone out there would think we were a miracle recruiter for getting a foot in the door in north Texas. Even stealing a few recruits from OSU and Tech and TCU.

I think your post and my last sentence are basically saying the same thing, right?

by **Rebel10** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:55 am

CoxMustangFan wrote: I believe the kids coming in are better than the kids going out and that's progress.

Really, so SMU replacing a 4 star with a 2star athlete is better just because the 2 star athlete WANTS TO BE HERE? Well if we want to get kids that just want to be here we could go to St Mark HS and load up on kids that ant to be here but are not very talented. I guess you are like the coaches that do not want to have to work hard to get a recruit that is looking at aTm, OSU, Arkansas, TCU and SMU who has no favorites to not working as hard for kids looking at TX State, UTSA, and UNT where SMU is the easy choice. And they want to be here but are not highly talented but okay. You would have loved it here in the Bennett days.

by **Dutch** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:58 am

Wuba wrote:I think your post and my last sentence are basically saying the same thing, right?

i guess. but i'm pleading the 5:00a.m. posting time as my head wasn't awake yet.

by **Wuba** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:00 am

Rebel10 wrote:
CoxMustangFan wrote: I believe the kids coming in are better than the kids going out and that's progress.

Really, so SMU replacing a 4 star with a 2star athlete is better just because the 2 star athlete WANTS TO BE HERE? Well if we want to get kids that just want to be here we could go to St Mark HS and load up on kids that ant to be here but are not very talented. I guess you are like the coaches that do not want to have to work hard to get a recruit that is looking at aTm, OSU, Arkansas, TCU and SMU who has no favorites to not working as hard for kids looking at TX State, UTSA, and UNT where SMU is the easy choice. And they want to be here but are not highly talented but okay. You would have loved it here in the Bennett days.

I thought it was pretty clear from the context that he meant the kids coming in are better than the seniors graduating. Don't let that get in the way of your rant though.

by **Wuba** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:01 am

Dutch wrote:
Wuba wrote:I think your post and my last sentence are basically saying the same thing, right?

i guess. but i'm pleading the 5:00a.m. posting time as my head wasn't awake yet.

Also, if I got a GA job in California I think there is zero chance I would steal recruits from anyone, but I appreciate the vote of confidence.

by **SMU 86** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:10 am

CoxMustangFan wrote:
SMU 86 wrote:
Are you saying as it stands right now it will be a good foundation or after the potential other losses it will still be a good foundation?

The ranges I gave above assume some additional losses (and gains). I believe all of SMU's recruits have other options (or most do), so they could all leave. However, I think the true de-commit activity could center around 4-5 players at this point: Briggs, Burcham, Lewis, Myers, and Palacio (perhaps Hulick, too). SMU will like lose a few of those guys, but SMU will also pick up 7-8. You just have quality student athletes that would LOVE an offer from SMU (like Braden Meador) so we'll have some nice pick-ups before it's over.

Look, I'm not trying to put a nauseating positive "spin" on this class. I just think we have some seriously quality kids coming to SMU. As soon as we all purge the "what could have been" from our brains and embrace the excellent young men still coming to SMU, the better off we'll all be. I believe the kids coming in are better than the kids going out and that's progress.

I guess we will see once we get into the Big East because at this point it is not weather the incoming talent is better than the graduating talent. The question is weather it is Big East talent because there will be no Tulanes or Rices in the the Big East.

by **SMU 86** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:19 am

CoxMustangFan wrote:
SMU 86 wrote:I guess we will see once we get into the Big East because at this point it is not weather the incoming talent is better than the graduating talent. The question is weather it is Big East talent because there will be no Tulanes or Rices in the the Big East.

Very true words. Watching 2013 recruiting will be very interesting, to say the least. Also, how badly will the 5-7 record (my prediction) impact things?? Who knows.

Actually the 2012 will be the class the starts in the Big East as I imagine the 2013 class wil mostly redshirt.