PonyFans.com

reddevil wrote:

Mexmustang wrote:Those of us that are complaining are not concerned with getting players from any state that are highly ranked recruits--that would not make sense.

First, we were concerned about was the very late start we made recruiting in Texas this year. In early May we were not just second, third or fourth in Texas' offers, but a distant last of all Texas teams. At the same time one coach had as many offers out outside the state as all the other coaches did put together. In short, many of our coaches were not pulling their weight. It was evident at our Junior Day, which was poorly attended, that not enough personal contact of high school players and their coaches had been made prior to that weekend. Even our remote camps were not as well attended as in the past. It all came down to getting a late start and not putting forth the effort in last fall and January-February. We need to work on our high school relationships, it is the high school coaches that drive to the "unofficials", the Junior Days and Camps. It is the high school coaches that alert teams to their players and players to possible schools.

Second, we have too many coaches that do not participate in recruiting at all--they are position coaches with NFL experience that go home the last game of the year and return for Spring practice, only to disappear the last day of practice until the Fall. We see this as an opportunity to get some young Texas assistants to join the staff, with the energy and desire to move up in the coaching ranks, not just put in their time to retire.

The good news is that Adrian has been promoted, and I understand in May there was a coaches meeting to address this lack of coordinated effort. Good things seem to be happening, but a little late. However, if you look at the offers we currently have outstanding for the next recruiting class 2013, we have almost as many offers out today to Texas players, than we did active offers the first of May of this year, to the 2012 class.

Another point that buried in what Mexmustang is saying, is that we are being too reliant on Klemm. Without a doubt Klemm has been huge for us and has done more than anyone could have dreamed of with respect to the Cali recruits. However, if you listen to what the Cali recruits say, their interest and commitments have more to do with a relationship with Klemm, not their view of SMU. I don't think it is wrong to say that Adrian Klemm has a big-time presence in Cali, not necessarily SMU. If Klemm moves on to greener pastures (and there has been some rumblings), our connections to Cali are likely gone and we are back Reinbold's connections in La. and our sub-par efforts in Texas. The long-term success of SMU football will at some point depend on its connections in the state of Texas. Once we have a stronger reputation in TX, the Adrian Klemms of the world can come and go, but we will still be able to recruit. This is why offering kids in TX is so important, it helps build the reputation and presence of the team, at a time when SMU has a coach with a national reputation and has been in the media. Today, the point isn't necessarily what TX top 100 recruits commit to SMU, its what relationships we are building within the state of TX for the long term benefit of the program. Rightly or wrongly, some TX hs coaches may see SMU's lack of interest in their players as insulting, which will hurt our long term success. This is why the recruiting effort in TX and offers, up until May, has been so troubling. I think all are very pleased about the recruits we are picking up in Cali, but nothing about recruiting Cali prevents us from working harder to improve our presence in TX, which means sending out more offers in TX. We don't want to be known as the one college team in TX that doesn't care about TX hs football as much as it cares about recruits outside of TX.

reddevil wrote:

Junior wrote:Yes, I think the Texas recruiting grounds are definitely important to our long-term future, but we just don't seem to have the traction here.

I don't see how we can afford at this point in our re-growth to spend x% of our total recruiting effort in Texas to get a much smaller return on that same percentage recruiting effort in California. We seem to be getting a much better return on that investment out there for the time being.

These two points are mostly accurate. We don't have much traction in TX, which is the problem.

It is important to focus a good percentage of our recruiting efforts were we can expect to see a greater return. We are getting a much better return in Cali. However, Klemm is the only one who is recruiting Cali. So where is the rest of our recruiting effort? This is were the problem lies. If we need to focus the majority of our efforts in Cali because we have traction there, fine. We can build our program with Cali players and we can work on gaining traction in TX by showing TX players sustained success (This will likely only work as long as we have Klemm). However, this is not what we are doing from the perspective that only one coach seems to be recruiting Cali. This approach means there is a lot more effort that can be devoted to recruiting or simply building our profile in TX.

reddevil wrote:

Junior wrote:Yes, I think the Texas recruiting grounds are definitely important to our long-term future, but we just don't seem to have the traction here.

I don't see how we can afford at this point in our re-growth to spend x% of our total recruiting effort in Texas to get a much smaller return on that same percentage recruiting effort in California. We seem to be getting a much better return on that investment out there for the time being.

These two points are mostly accurate. We don't have much traction in TX, which is the problem.

It is important to focus a good percentage of our recruiting efforts were we can expect to see a greater return. We are getting a much better return in Cali. However, Klemm is the only one who is recruiting Cali. So where is the rest of our recruiting effort? This is were the problem lies. If we need to focus the majority of our efforts in Cali because we have traction there, fine. We can build our program with Cali players and we can work on gaining traction in TX by showing TX players sustained success (This will likely only work as long as we have Klemm). However, this is not what we are doing from the perspective that only one coach seems to be recruiting Cali. This approach means there is a lot more effort that can be devoted to recruiting or simply building our profile in TX.

Mexmustang wrote:It comes down to effort and teamwork. If all the coaches sit in their office except for Jeff and Adrian on a weekend when the top 90 recruits in the nation come to SMU, someone doesn't need their job at SMU.

Stallion wrote:"Is it possible that June has, rightly or wrongly, intentionally divided the workload for running the program in a way that does not include every coach spending the same amount of time/energy recruiting?"

Some of us disagree but I think this is a very real possibility. I haven't checked lately but I believe it to be true that Klemm has offered in excess of 60% of the offers extended by the staff. The numbers in Texas are just so abnormally low that I refuse to believe that assistant coaches are just neglecting their jobs, MexMustang disagrees with me I think. Maybe a combination of both. I think we both agree there are a large number of Coaches on this staff who were hired with little expectation of doing much recruiting.

mrydel wrote:I do not think Gansz could have been expected to do much this year. He was recruiting for UCLA up to about the time he came to Dallas. So he arrives in a new area, half way across the country and the recruits with whom he is familiar need to be told that he lied about UCLA and SMU is the best option for them. The experts always say a kid should pick a school for the school and not the coach because you do not know if the coach will be there for the duration. Well I just do not see how Gansz was to jump into Dallas signing kids with no contacts, or sway the kids he had recruited for UCLA to change. Tough timing. Hopefully next year he can be an active recruiter.

Pony_Law wrote:So I was checking out Rivals 100 and I did not see our name listed. I thought we got a recruit on this list? I think Stallion et all would be happy if for everyone not comitted SMU was listed as having an offer out to the guy, i don't know how much time/effort should be made with all of these guys but I think we should at least be broaching the subject of having them come to the best city in TX for college.

Stallion wrote:"Is it possible that June has, rightly or wrongly, intentionally divided the workload for running the program in a way that does not include every coach spending the same amount of time/energy recruiting?"

Some of us disagree but I think this is a very real possibility.

PonyGirl wrote:

Stallion wrote:"Is it possible that June has, rightly or wrongly, intentionally divided the workload for running the program in a way that does not include every coach spending the same amount of time/energy recruiting?"

Some of us disagree but I think this is a very real possibility.

Of course it is.

The idea that every coach has the same recruiting responsibilities is crazy. Not everyone at my office has the same duties, and there are few, if any, workplaces where every employee is required to do the same things.