PonyFans.com

Getting back to the point - I know his clips were from last year - but he seems to be a bit light for D-1. We need more size at LB. Has he put on a few lb's since last year?

ponypunk wrote:First of all, I work for a company that deals with intellectual property so I have knowledge of what I am taking about. Second, it was not public info yet. Third, why don't you go post on the rivals board where you got the info from and see how the publisher feels about you doing that?

I am sure your employer is very proud of the work you do on ponyfans. Do your postings earn you extra stars at work?

The information is public as soon as the recruit tells someone about it. Are you now trying to say that when a recruit talks to a reporter, that information is somehow private just because the reporter has a pay site, but if the recruit instead spoke with a reporter who has a free site, then the exact same information, which originated from the recruit, is private and protected. Alternatively, if one was to read something on a pay site about a recruit, then call the recruit to confirm, then post information - that would get around the intellectual property that you seem to think exists. You still haven't explained what you think is intellectual property in this scenario. A report wasn't reprinted. Is it the recruit's words? Do you think his statements of an oral commitment is intellectual property or is it a report on what a recruit said that is the intellectual property? Again, nothing has been reprinted. A breaking story is not intellectual property. Information about Watergate was first published in a newspaper that readers had to pay for, was it therefore an infringement on the writer's intellectual property for someone who paid for and read the newspaper to talk about it with someone who had not paid for the newspaper? Isn't the goal of any reporter to inform the public and get people to talk and think about what they are reporting? Your misguided beliefs concerning intellectual property are simply inconsistent with the idea of reporting.[/quote]

My argument for keeping it private is different, it is based on my interest in SMU's success.

iI believe It is in SMU's interest to have people like Rivals and Scout covering the team. For an 18 year old kid getting contacted by someone who covers SMU full time helps keep SMU at the top of his mind and shows him that people are as interested in SMU football as they are in bigger programs (who all have subscriber based sites too).

If you agree that having people at rivals and scout covering smu helps with recruiting, then the question is how do we make sure they keep them in business? If people do not have to pay subscriber fees to get the information that rivals/scouts digs up then the sites will go out of business.

If the sites go out out business then smu's recruiting is hurt. At least that is the way I see it.

PonyPunk,

I know you are trying to keep the traffic away from the pay sites by doing that. Both publishers have asked kindly members not to do that. There is a ponypunk on rivals that posts and he would not do that so you are obviously using that screenname to mock rivals I believe. You probably have other screennames as well. But what you are doing is unethical. Bottom line God does not like ugly.

Beard is six foot one, 220 lbs as a high schooler. Right now, he is as big as all of our starting linebackers except for Fleps probably. He has an entire offseason to live in the weight room...could easily be 230-235 with hard work by next year. I think this year we have seen that speed at the linebacker spot is just as important if not more important than size...especially in C USA west with these wide open pass first offenses. Look at Chase Kennemer and Jagared Davis, neither one of those guys are over 220.

Ponypunk, I wouldn't worry about it this time but next time, consider that our Rivals and Scout coverage is an incredible nice service we've never had and putting them out of business would suck for all of us. If more people would sign up, we'd help guarantee even more coverage.

we are doing all right at LB-highly improved and good enough for first place in CUSA West in fact. But just for moment try to rise up from your CUSA mentality and take a look at what TCU does at LB and on defense. That's where I want SMU to be. I want some payback time. I want to compete for the Top 25 and I want to lay some BCS schools out. And I want to beat the hell out of TCU when they are on top-which they will be for the forseeable future. We've got a lot of room for improvement from that perspective but we also probably have the best group of prospects to work with that we've had.

Alaric wrote:Ponypunk, I wouldn't worry about it this time but next time, consider that our Rivals and Scout coverage is an incredible nice service we've never had and putting them out of business would suck for all of us. If more people would sign up, we'd help guarantee even more coverage.

rivals is great. don't think scout has broken 1 news story in as long as i have been using both of them. worthless

SMU2007 wrote:

Alaric wrote:Ponypunk, I wouldn't worry about it this time but next time, consider that our Rivals and Scout coverage is an incredible nice service we've never had and putting them out of business would suck for all of us. If more people would sign up, we'd help guarantee even more coverage.

rivals is great. don't think scout has broken 1 news story in as long as i have been using both of them. worthless

I would not say they are worthless? They do recruiting stuff to, which all the more guys there are to talk to players the better. Who cares if one site has it an hour a head of time. I just want recruits to feel the love. Plus they post more team stuff than the other sites. I'm down for all the coverage we can get. They have broken a few stories just not as many as Rivals.

In addition the DMN has really stepped up their coverage this year. I wonder if we could get the FWST to cover us next year?

I am pretty sure i read They offered him as a RB . But I am sure he will play LB.

me@smu wrote:Posting the actual article is wrong but reporting the name of a commit isn't wrong as long as you give credit where it is due.

Exactly - especially when those sites do so much free advertising here.

Stallion -

question for you - do you think our (relative) success causes a quandry for our coaches about the talent they might be able to get now vs what they offered (and got) last spring? Not sure we can do anything about that - but if there are any bumps like grades or conduct i could see us pulling away quickly thinking we can reload with an upgrade.

I'm not going to comment specifically-but generally-recruiting can be ---- uh just sit back and watch. One thing we know is that for the 44th straight year those picking over on the availiable scholarship debate win again.

Fresh wrote:

me@smu wrote:Posting the actual article is wrong but reporting the name of a commit isn't wrong as long as you give credit where it is due.

Exactly - especially when those sites do so much free advertising here.

Actually, that is a misconception. The site publishers do not do any advertising over here. Some members that belong to both sites post the info over here. But the site owners do not do that.

Scout has this guy at two stars with multiple BCS offers??

He will be re rated at the next review session. Should be a 3 then.