PonyFans.com

And someone said that the SMU coaches were not going after non qualifiers anymore. Evidently that is not true.

Good. If they identify a player who can help and there's a chance he could qualify, I'm glad they're going after him. Some will make it, some won't, but it's the right move.

they aren't nonqualifiers until August 1-but what appears to be happening is that with a 25 man hard limit on SIGNINGS that school aren't willing to take a chance to see if they'll qualify because then they can only admit 24 etc. In the past signings were unlimited as long as only 25 ENROLLED. Two years ago it was 28 signings giving you a buffer of 3 non-qualifiers. I bet some schools will wait until after that May 1 date to first see if these kids qualify and then offer if they still have space. But it appears right now that if you don't have your academic requirements in place by signing date your chances are greatly diminished

Right, but some suggested that we only going after all these players with better grades now which is not true.

SMU 86 wrote:Right, but some suggested that we only going after all these players with better grades now which is not true.

It was JasonB. He was suggesting that since Klemm left were were not going after people that had not qualified. But so far it is now 2 or 3 and counting in this class. Keep up the good work coaches as giacfsp has stated.

why drag Klemm into this discussion-there is a long list of non-qualifiers recruited by other coaches too. We don't actually know if all the remaining kids are qualifiers-can't really tell on a sliding scale until they complete senior year or a kid could blow a core course. I'd bet we'd still take a gamble on a great recruit who was close but say needed a final good semester or improve his score a little. Kind of like 4th down-does the benefit exceed the gamble

Stallion wrote:I'm pretty sure they changed their scoring system in some respects with the harder 25 scholarship limit. They reported they simplified it in some manner. I'm not sure how-does your system still work. Anyway it doesn't change the FACT that when you average out recruits- hit Avg. link they are 13th. Rivals allows you to take at least 2 different looks at a Class-total points and average. If they take 33 with 8-9 extra this year at a lower quality than an opponent over 2 years you still have the 50 or so recruits in the program in 2 years with UT higher in quality.

I did update my model for the new Rivals scoring system. It is much better in my opinion, looks at rating instead of stars and does not get carried away with bonuses like the previous system. Different points for each rating and the only bonuses are for players in the rivals top 250.

You have a good point about looking across multiple years. On the other hand, a class with higher average stars is not always better. Imagine a class of 12 4-stars vs a class of 11 4-stars and 5 3-stars. Is the first class better just because it has a higher average?

Rebel10 wrote:

SMU 86 wrote:Right, but some suggested that we only going after all these players with better grades now which is not true.

It was JasonB. He was suggesting that since Klemm left were were not going after people that had not qualified. But so far it is now 2 or 3 and counting in this class. Keep up the good work coaches as giacfsp has stated.

Actually it was jones who said last year that we didn't have to go after academic risks anymore. He made a big deal about it at the signing day event. I was just saying what he said. Obviously this year we took stabs at some players the difference being that we are finding out now and moving on instead of hoping they qualify at some point before school starts.

We are finding out now because the recruiting rules have changed on over-signing this year and you need to know if someone is qualified or not before signing day. Had those rules not been in effect we would still have signed them hoping they would have qualified later as we always have done in the past. 3 is just about the most in any class June has had.

Jones had 7 non-qualifiers I think one year. Probably would have been more under this rule and policy. A lot of kids have to wait to see if they make it

Grant Carter wrote:

Stallion wrote:I'm pretty sure they changed their scoring system in some respects with the harder 25 scholarship limit. They reported they simplified it in some manner. I'm not sure how-does your system still work. Anyway it doesn't change the FACT that when you average out recruits- hit Avg. link they are 13th. Rivals allows you to take at least 2 different looks at a Class-total points and average. If they take 33 with 8-9 extra this year at a lower quality than an opponent over 2 years you still have the 50 or so recruits in the program in 2 years with UT higher in quality.

I did update my model for the new Rivals scoring system. It is much better in my opinion, looks at rating instead of stars and does not get carried away with bonuses like the previous system. Different points for each rating and the only bonuses are for players in the rivals top 250.

You have a good point about looking across multiple years. On the other hand, a class with higher average stars is not always better. Imagine a class of 12 4-stars vs a class of 11 4-stars and 5 3-stars. Is the first class better just because it has a higher average?

Either class works for me.