re: Recruiting Texas: Longhorn vs Aggies

quote:

---

I love how if someone is defending a position on these boards it gets dismissed as "being defensive." Obviously that's what happens in a disagreement.

---

Just as much as you love to dismiss a point as "ridiculous?" I'm honestly curious as to how you weigh the two in your personal intellectual calculus. I bet there's a fascinating chain of philosophy underlying your reasons.

because:
A) if it really had any effect, then I have no idea how places like auburn or bama still recruit like they do

B) you act like we cant say the same thing. just because manziel was in the press, over bull shite mind you, it doesn't mean that we cant show how we can do the same and look out for the players

quote:

---

because:
A) if it really had any effect, then I have no idea how places like auburn or bama still recruit like they do

B) you act like we cant say the same thing. just because manziel was in the press, over bull shite mind you, it doesn't mean that we cant show how we can do the same and look out for the players

---

A) that's not how syllogistic logic works. Just because Player A / Player A's parents have different priorities (or different emphases on the same priorities), that doesn't mean Player B/Player B's parents own priorities are invalid. More to the point, I was in no way suggesting that would be the totality of Strong's hypothetical sell. Just an aspect, taking advantage of the fact that he is (claiming to) run a tight ship.

B) I acted in no such way. This is why I say y'all are being defensive -- you're pulling out arguments I never made and using them as criticisms. I merely pointed out that it was a strategy suited to Strong's philosophy. And, seeing as he's a first year coach for his current school, it's a strategy that absolutely applies since there's no evidence to the contrary at his current school. I wasn't in any way commenting on the state of TAMU, the moral foundations of its football program, or the approach Sumlin would or wouldn't take in recruiting. Go back to my first reply. It was entirely addressing the potential means of making a virtue out of what was a seeming liability on the recruiting trail. Nothing more.

quote:

---

I acted in no such way. This is why I say y'all are being defensive -- you're pulling out arguments I never made and using them as criticisms. I merely pointed out that it was a strategy suited to Strong's philosophy

---

im not saying you said that, im saying that it was poor strategy because WE could do the same thing. strong being able to show he runs a tight ship isn't mutually exclusive. that's why its stupid strategy to take, because we can do the exact same thing. for them to make any actual in roads on recruiting, they need to win 10+ and we need to win less than 8. unless that happens, there is nothing they can do to gain back momentum over us this year

quote:

---

ut can match or exceed any spending initiatives that aTm has going on right now.

---

Maybe they can spend more, but we will still have nicer stuff. They are landlocked down on the 40 acres. They don't even know where they will shove the basketball arena, let alone the palaces we are building. College Station has a lot of farmland begging to be yet another athletic facility.

quote:

---

He's not selling this to the recruits, he's selling it to their parents. That may or may not pay off, but it's definitely not as crazy as it sounds. He gets the parents' attention and he minimizes the chances of off-the-field incidents in the program. If he want to (semi-) neg recruit, all he has to do is sit in the parents' living room and point out (and this is just me hypothesizing, not attacking y'all) stuff like Manziel's off-field news items and talk about how he's going to run a much tighter ship.

---

Without going into your example (as that almost derailed the thread), I do think you miss a key point here:

Strong HAS TO convince the parents that he runs a tight ship, as they are sending their children to the big bad Austin with a million temptations just on sixth street alone.

Meanwhile College Station is a pure college town, a bubble where EVERYONE, not just the coach, has an eye on their son.

I think this is why we are witnessing the rise of college towns in recruiting. The internet has made rural areas feel connected and urban enough, so now being able to avoid the obvious downsides of a real city (such as crime) makes a college town an easier sell.

quote:

---

I love how if someone is defending a position on these boards it gets dismissed as "being defensive." Obviously that's what happens in a disagreement.

---

It's the way you guys go about it.

quote:

---

I'm just curious as to what specifically would be used as a negative recruiting point, because I don't see it. The generic term "off-field issues" does not suffice.

---

a&m doesn't care about learning. They let Manziel take all online classes.

a&m won't protect your son from partying, drinking, vegas, blah blah blah.

Let's see how many top 10 guys will be at the sips junior day

1. Sheffield - invited, not attending
2. Mack - invited, not attending
3. Jefferson - invited, not attending (going to Lubbock instead)
4. Teuhema - decommit, not invited
5. Lodge - invited, not attending
6. Stidham - invited, not yet sure if attending
7. Murray - already eliminated and so not invited
8. Jamabo - unsure on invite, not attending
9. Thompson - invited, not attending
10. Anderson - invited, not attending

quote:

---

a&m doesn't care about learning. They let Manziel take all online classes.

---

This is the first reasonably possible thing that's been mentioned.

:okaysuregif:

quote:

---

Without going into your example (as that almost derailed the thread), I do think you miss a key point here:

Strong HAS TO convince the parents that he runs a tight ship, as they are sending their children to the big bad Austin with a million temptations just on sixth street alone.

Meanwhile College Station is a pure college town, a bubble where EVERYONE, not just the coach, has an eye on their son.

I think this is why we are witnessing the rise of college towns in recruiting. The internet has made rural areas feel connected and urban enough, so now being able to avoid the obvious downsides of a real city (such as crime) makes a college town an easier sell.

---

That's an interesting point, and I can't disagree there except to note that the Sips had no problem recruiting top talent under Mack "What, me worry?" Brown, so while you make a valid observation, it's not necessarily a necessity for Strong to take that approach, just highly intellectually-defensible. Then again, I'm not sure Mack even knew there was anything besides porn on the Internet -- I suspect his assistants did most of the evaluations and Internet research, i.e. trolling the recruiting sites. Strong is likely a lot more keyed into the dynamic you describe.