PonyFans.com

SMU LB wrote:

HFvictory wrote:

BTW Tekerrein Cuba commits to TCU last night

over OU, Nebraska, etc.

We did not want him anyway.

But of course you didn't.

Phil does not recruit off Top 100 Lists!!!!! Phil is also the only Coach in a two state area that hasn't gone to a bowl game during his tenure!!!!

Stallion wrote:Phil does not recruit off Top 100 Lists!!!!! Phil is also the only Coach in a two state area that hasn't gone to a bowl game during his tenure!!!!

Delaware and Alaska?
I'm going to use more explanation points - they certainly lend an element of expertise to posts.

If you are so down on SMU football, and especially its recruiting, then why do you spend so much time [deleted] about it? Do you think the coaches hang on your every word? You have averaged over 4% of all of the posts on all of the Ponyfans message boards--if the Ponies [deleted] you off this badly, don't you think there is a better use for your time? When you add the fact that you spend good money to belong to recruiting services with all of the billable time you have ignored while posting over 8000 times in the past few years, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Lawgrad wrote:If you are so down on SMU football, and especially its recruiting, then why do you spend so much time [deleted] about it? Do you think the coaches hang on your every word? You have averaged over 4% of all of the posts on all of the Ponyfans message boards--if the Ponies [deleted] you off this badly, don't you think there is a better use for your time? When you add the fact that you spend good money to belong to recruiting services with all of the billable time you have ignored while posting over 8000 times in the past few years, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

SMU fans enjoy the pain. Being that I was too young to really experience the glory days or even the death penalty, I have always known SMU to suck in both football and basketball. The Sasser/Davis led hoops teams were the greatest successes (and in reality were dissappointments) by SMU in my tenure as a fan. I think, like everyone, he wants SMU to be good but is a bit jaded that we have been so bad for so long. I for one won't even know how to act if we ever climb above bottom feeding status, but anxiously await that day.

If Orsini can make wild claims about his goal of being a Top 25 program then I can sure as hell comment about what is required to get HALFWAY there. Seriously, when Phil falls short of going to a bowl this year - time to pull the plug on mediocrity if he is serious about his goal. Of course, with 6 CUSA bowl games next year, mediocrity is a bowl game.

Stallion wrote:18. Tejay Johnson TCU
30. Jonathan Jones TCU
37. Greg McCoy TCU
41. Josh LeRibeus SMU
45. Jeff Olson TCU
49. Chez Thomas TCU
54. Kris Gardner TCU
55. Derrius Bell SMU
56. Johnny Fobbs TCU
63. Kelly Griffin TCU
67. Logan Turner SMU
69. Youri Yenga SMU
70. Julian Herron SMU
77. Terrance Wilkerson SMU
82. Bradley Haynes SMU
91. Kelly Turner SMU
96. Aldrick Robinson SMU
100. Josh Robinson SMU

I don't care enough to do this, but hang on to this very valuable list and see if there is a big difference between the progress in the number 45 player and the number rated 69 (hee hee) player 3 years from now. I am guessing there is not.

I think transfers and other top recruits not on this list is a bigger problem.

the difference in SMU and TCU's recruiting over the last 10 years has been 9 bowl games. I'm betting that list would show a lot more than you wished it would.

I am guessing we have not done this well on the "list" but only a couple of times in the last 10 years. (which is nothing to be proud of)
I still just can't see there being that big of a gap between a player ranked 45 or 69 in the area, especially in 3 years from now.

And I am guessing that juco's, transfers, and top recruits not in the area have made the bigger difference, but then again I don't have rivals, I only have you.

What we really do not know is the criteria used to rank the top 100. What we know is that out of the several thousand kids playing football in the area...the kids listed are considered the top 100. The list is made up of QB's, LB's, OL's, DL's, WR's, etc. So what is the common criteria that would separate them from each other in a manner that would lead to a ranking? Whether there are only a couple of points between number 1 and number 100 or 200 points between them is not stated. So the true meaning of the ranking is not known. If someone wants to play the rankings number game and say number one is really that much better than number 100 then fine. Someone had to be number 1 and someone had to be number 100 and some self annointed guru or group of gurus has made that evaluation. It is very likely that some other group might have ranked them differently. It's not like God has ranked these kids...and frankly, that's the only expert I would totally trust to know what he is talking about.

Stallion wrote:Which team has gone to about 9 bowls in 10 years, been nationally ranked multiple times, won multiple conference championships, actually dominates the Big 12 in straight up meetings? Recruiting is about building a strong football program not about winnining one measly game every decade or so.

Last I checked this is a "what have you done for me lately world"

Bottomline, our "inferior" recruiting beat TCU the last time we played... I am preaching to everyone.. STOP WORRYING ABOUT what our guys are rated..

For every superstar at UT, A&M and OU, I will name you a guy that came out of nowhere on that team, that no fan was excited about until they started and excelled..

PK wrote:What we really do not know is the criteria used to rank the top 100. What we know is that out of the several thousand kids playing football in the area...the kids listed are considered the top 100. The list is made up of QB's, LB's, OL's, DL's, WR's, etc. So what is the common criteria that would separate them from each other in a manner that would lead to a ranking? Whether there are only a couple of points between number 1 and number 100 or 200 points between them is not stated. So the true meaning of the ranking is not known. If someone wants to play the rankings number game and say number one is really that much better than number 100 then fine. Someone had to be number 1 and someone had to be number 100 and some self annointed guru or group of gurus has made that evaluation. It is very likely that some other group might have ranked them differently. It's not like God has ranked these kids...and frankly, that's the only expert I would totally trust to know what he is talking about.

You make a fantastic point. However, while I think it often occurs that unknown players outpreform "top recruits", the rankings must be given some strong significance as well. Top programs like USC, ND, Florida, Texas etc etc have top rated rated recruiting classes to go with their great poll rankings. We have had recruiting classes rated in the bottom half of football and have had teams that have played at that level. Of course there are always outliers. Some teams with weak classes end up succeeding (Wake) and some teams with superior classes have off years (Miami). I just don't think that its a coincidence that teams that have consistent highly rated recruiting classes end up being pretty good.

PK wrote:What we really do not know is the criteria used to rank the top 100. What we know is that out of the several thousand kids playing football in the area...the kids listed are considered the top 100. The list is made up of QB's, LB's, OL's, DL's, WR's, etc. So what is the common criteria that would separate them from each other in a manner that would lead to a ranking? Whether there are only a couple of points between number 1 and number 100 or 200 points between them is not stated. So the true meaning of the ranking is not known. If someone wants to play the rankings number game and say number one is really that much better than number 100 then fine. Someone had to be number 1 and someone had to be number 100 and some self annointed guru or group of gurus has made that evaluation. It is very likely that some other group might have ranked them differently. It's not like God has ranked these kids...and frankly, that's the only expert I would totally trust to know what he is talking about.

You mean Stallion's not God!

I feel hollow now for saying prayers for SMU each time I pass the Stallion Estates mobile homepark in San Antonio

MustangIcon wrote: However, while I think it often occurs that unknown players outpreform "top recruits", the rankings must be given some strong significance as well. Top programs like USC, ND, Florida, Texas etc etc have top rated rated recruiting classes to go with their great poll rankings. We have had recruiting classes rated in the bottom half of football and have had teams that have played at that level. Of course there are always outliers. Some teams with weak classes end up succeeding (Wake) and some teams with superior classes have off years (Miami). I just don't think that its a coincidence that teams that have consistent highly rated recruiting classes end up being pretty good.

My musings were not aimed at recruiting class ratings, although there may be some similarities. I was specifically addressing the "Top 100" lists that are out there. My point being that we really don't know how much a talent gap exists between number 1 and number 100 if any at all. These are after all the kids picked to be the 100 best players and they could be anything from a QB to a DL and I'm not sure how you differentiate their talent level, i.e., ranking when comparing one position verses a totally different position with different talent requirements. Again, it would be very possible with a different group doing the rankings that the order of ranking 1 thru 100 would be totally different. So then, where is the value of comparison based upon one set of rankings?