Bigtime DE now mentioning SMU

by **Pony Fan** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 8:49 am

Texas started this trend with early commitments when Mack Brown showed up and has forced everyone else to follow. I think it is really smart on their part as they don't need to do that as they could get just about who they want if they waited until September to start. WE are the ones who should start early.

by **me@smu** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 10:37 am

That is the truth...UT will get their batch of kids and whether it comes now or later doesn't matter. I would just like us to be out there putting offers on the table to some of these kids.

Rivals.com still shows only three offers by SMU. Even if we have offered to more kids, Rivals.com is showing the top football recruits and these are the kids that will help us return to prominence.

by **Stallion** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:50 pm

I know some of you may find this hard to believe but for SMU to return to a championship level SMU will have to outrecruit some of these programs for at least a good number of recruits. Some of you act like SMU can just wait around and let all those schools get the first choice who they want and SMU can just come in and sign a bunch of 2A and 3A superstars who SMU "discovered" at their camp and nobody else knows about. Good luck with all that. That being said I agree its early but its important that SMU get in on some of these kids now-and that means evaluating, identifying and yes offering a good number by the end of the summer. If we don't you'll know that SMU is likely in for another lean recruiting year.

by **Pony Fan** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:28 pm

Stallion, I totally agree with you on getting started now. I guess in a few years we will then see if this was a "lean" recruiting year.

by **PonySnob** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:59 pm

Judging by our overall lack of success on the playing field, every year has been a "lean" recruiting year.

by **PonySnob** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:00 pm

Judging by our overall lack of success on the playing field, every year has been a "lean" recruiting year.

by **Pony Fan** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:32 pm

Either lean or young the last two years, time will tell..........

by **me@smu** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:33 am

We have been very young and hopefully that has been the drive behind the lack of wins. However, we have also done alot of mining for the undiscovered recruits and keep coming back unimpressed. We need to be willing to recruit against the UTs, A&M and Techs if we are ever going to beat them.

by **EastStang** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:43 pm

I certainly agree that until we get better talent than our opponants we won't beat them. The question is what aren't we doing. We've taken the shackles of the coaches as far as contacting recruits. We've started allowing the recruitment of partial qualifiers. We seem to be more open to recruiting JC's. We've started the process to have a School of Education. We've built a new stadium, state of the art weight room. We have a better student/faculty ratio than any state school. We have hotter babes on campus than any school I know of. We have a coach who seems to connect well with recruits. We need to turn the corner and start winning some games. Once that happens we will start to win some recruiting wars. Until then, we'll get leftovers. It doesn't help that some schools are probably doing some things recruiting wise that we cannot do because we got the death penalty.

by **me@smu** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:17 pm

Speaking of strange recruiting practices: Did people see the ESPN article on the return of Ohio State QB Troy Smith?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2025291

I personally love the part where he takes money from boosters and has to only sit out two games and make restitution. Even better is where Smith admits he doesn't know what the word "restitution" means. Got to love those stringent academic standards.

by **SWC2010** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:43 am

EastStang wrote:I certainly agree that until we get better talent than our opponants we won't beat them. The question is what aren't we doing. We've taken the shackles of the coaches as far as contacting recruits. We've started allowing the recruitment of partial qualifiers. We seem to be more open to recruiting JC's. We've started the process to have a School of Education. We've built a new stadium, state of the art weight room. We have a better student/faculty ratio than any state school. We have hotter babes on campus than any school I know of. We have a coach who seems to connect well with recruits. We need to turn the corner and start winning some games. Once that happens we will start to win some recruiting wars. Until then, we'll get leftovers. It doesn't help that some schools are probably doing some things recruiting wise that we cannot do because we got the death penalty.

I'm with ya on most of these points, Eaststang, but I disagree on a couple:

"We've started the process to have a School of Education." Great news for beyond-- but not much benefit anytime soon...

"We have a better student/faculty ratio than any state school. " Wrong- core freshman classes are packed well beyond any posted SMU ratio...

"state of the art weight room." You've obviously not visited many schools across the state, even Texas State has comparable facilities...

Example: To go further, living facilities on campus are "old school". Go to Ark. The "NON" athletic dorm, where most FB players live is Apt style with individual Liv rooms & baths between the bedrooms.

Example: compare the eating arrangements at say, McElvaney, the closest dorm to Ford Stadium. Did you know they do not offer ANY weekend meals or breakfast? You believe some 300lb guy wants to walk 1/2 mile across campus for food?

Further, TCU has now built a state-of-the-art indoor practice facility next to their FB stadium. Think recruits don't make the comparison when they visit the campus? (BTW, Baylor is doing major expansion of on-campus athletic facilities, as well. And A&M facilites-- well, they make most NFL teams envious!)

The situation has improved, but the coaches still have major hurdles when recruiting against other Texas schools.

by **me@smu** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:18 pm

Think it is a bad sign when an article on Cody Williams entitled "Early offers get majority of Williams' attention" mentions the other two offers but says nothing about SMU???

by **Stallion** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:29 pm

also it is technically inaccurate to say SMU is recruiting partial qualifiers. Technically, we signed 1 recruit who hasn't qualified yet but may before the deadline which is August 1. If he is a partial qualifier on that date he will go to JUCO not SMU. Doubt if we will ever see a partial qualifier enroll at SMU and is really not a big concern because they couldn't pay the tuition anyway.

by **White Helmet** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:47 am

Stallion...partial qualifiers cant afford the tuition? That sounds awful stereotypical are you saying there arent any rich kids that wouldn't qualify? I would think a litigator such as yourself would be above such stereotypical comments.

by **me@smu** » Tue May 03, 2005 3:17 pm

Cody Williams committed to A&M!

Bigtime DE now mentioning SMU

Who is online