Gary Patterson Quote About SMU In Today's S-T

[GoRedGoBlue]

That's simply not the case...

You need bodies as well as stars. Average stars is going to be a better indication of the 'quality' of who signed, but if you only sign 14 players, then with normal attrition, you aren't going to have much of a Senior class in 4-5 years - whereas a team that signs 25 will - all things being equal.

If I sign 20 players that average 2.5stars, and you sign only 15 with the same rating, I signed a 'better' class, right? Now if you only had 15 to give, then you just have to take that into consideration when comparing teams.

Obviously there are other factors to consider, like how many available scholarships you have at any point in time, etc.

[Frog2003]

I agree somewhat, but quantity also comes into play. For example, looking at it very simply, would you rather have a class of one five-star or 10 four-stars? The class with one five-star would have better quality per recruit, but I'm sure you'd rather have the 10 four-stars. Of course this would never happen, and its an extreme example, but it does have some relevance. It does happen where a class may be 10 guys and average 3.8 stars and another class would be 25 guys and average 3.6 stars. In this case I'd rather have the class with the quantity, than the one with the quality. I think the problem is finding the right mix between the two. I know many of the recruiting sites allow you to sort all ranking is all types of ways, be it quality or quantity.

If you have to get 25 guys every year though, something is wrong. 17-20 is what you want if you're going to be balanced. Any more than that, and you're either not graduating players who are quitting, or you're having transfers. I know you can't have exactly 17 players between redshirts, freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors, but still, give me 17 or 18 really good players over 25 ok players any year.

[Mike Damone]

GRGB-

I popped over on killerfrogs to see what they thought about their class and came across your "thread." Please stop that crap, it makes us all look like a bunch of dumb asses. Talking two year old recruiting smack and calling their coach porky in every post just looks stupid after we got beat 44-0 this last year.

I don't care if they like us or hate us, but having you as our lone representative makes us look like a bunch of Aggies. And that's one thing I won't have. I almost expected you to call them uct.

[PK]

Frog2003, look a little closer at our recruiting class. 3 were grayshirts and five were Juco's, that leaves 17 HS recruits for this year. That's pretty much in the range you were talking about, 17-20. We have lost some kids to academics and some who could see that they were never going to play and wanted to go some where else where they would have a better chance to play. I think all schools have to deal with those issues from time to time.

I think we basically filled the spots we needed and greatly increased our size and speed. Some of TCU's best recruits this year may never qualify...only time will tell. Everyone is so wrapped up in bragging rights that it gets rediculous sometimes. The only thing that counts is wins and losses and that's determined out on the field. I'm willing to wait and see how these guys develop rather than throw up my hands and cry "the sky is falling", because some recruiting site says this team or that team had a better recruiting class.

There are thousands of recruits out there every year and these recruiting sites are not able to cover every one of them and even if they could, what are their credentials for evaluating players anyway. A writer for SI stated the other day that he likes to go back every year and see how the top 50 nationally ranked recruits have done after four years. He says about 50% of them are never heard of again after signing day.