Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/26/16 at 10:59 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
Is this true?
no
Posted on 1/26/16 at 11:07 am to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
No doubt they're paying people big time but I do think Freeze is a good recruiter
It's a combination of both. I agree.
Read The Meat Market. Freeze was far and away the best recruiter on Ogeron's staff. Ogeron basically worshipped at Freeze's altar when it came to recruiting. That's the only reason he was on that staff. For being a religiosity-flaunting weird beaver-looking dude, he has crazy recruiting mojo just on his own, without bagmen. But to recruit at the level they are, particularly nation-wide, given their location and history - both of losing and extreme racism - they're definitely paying people.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 11:33 am to Warrior Poet
quote:
Edit: I upvoted your post because I love pussy
Posted on 1/26/16 at 11:42 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The problem is development though, a new OL coach isn't gonna come in and correct shitty technique and mediocre strength in 6 months.
Ok, don't laugh but:
Isn't the big advantage of Sumlin's offensive style is that it is a way to mitigate the need for OL talent? Isn't that why certain coaches like Sumlin love techniques like the HUNH for example? Because it undoes the DL depth advantage for the other team?
I mean I get that Sumlin was trying to move in a direction where we played tougher and ran the ball but what stops us from going "Nope, nevermind" and going back to what works until we get the talent in place?
I apologize if that question is super dumb.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:05 pm to cardboardboxer
We lost all identity on offense the moment Kliff left.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:18 pm to WRTC
Fair enough.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:22 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
mean I get that Sumlin was trying to move in a direction where we played tougher and ran the ball but what stops us from going "Nope, nevermind" and going back to what works until we get the talent in place?
I thought it had to do with scoring too quick and not having alot of T.O.P. so the defense was gassed?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:23 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:09 pm to Old Sarge
Holy frick I am glad I stepped away from recruiting for this year.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:34 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Isn't the big advantage of Sumlin's offensive style is that it is a way to mitigate the need for OL talent? Isn't that why certain coaches like Sumlin love techniques like the HUNH for example? Because it undoes the DL depth advantage for the other team?
This is true, but Spavital abandoned this philosophy.We haven't played HUNH since 2012. Watch Manziel during the 2012 game against Bama. He gets up to the line and the play resumes between 5-10 seconds after the ball is set and look at how fast he releases the ball. Then watch Kyle Allen. Allen normally starts the game off fast, but you can tell that he wasn't comfortable with it. By the 2nd qtr he is normally letting anywhere between 15-30 seconds bleed off the clock.
Another element missing from the offense that A&M ran the first couple of years is the employment of "platoons" of WRs. Kingsbury and Beaty had 3 rotations of 4 WR sets. They would swap them in like hockey line changes and teams would absolutely get gassed by the second half.
I'm not sure if we can recruit those type of athletes anymore and expect them to sit. I know this was an issue for KD Cannon (Baylor) and Tyrie Cleveland has also made statements concerning perceived A&M WR depth.
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 1/26/16 at 2:51 pm to cardboardboxer
How much of Texas' recruiting success has to do with the cost of living stipend the athletes get paid? I believe there's was one of the higher ones in the country and a&m's is one of the lowest (at least in the sec, not sure nationally)?
Just curious. Not sure how much, or if it does change the process. I would guess it doesn't have a huge impact.
Just curious. Not sure how much, or if it does change the process. I would guess it doesn't have a huge impact.
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 1/26/16 at 2:57 pm to Chill98
quote:
I'm not sure if we can recruit those type of athletes anymore and expect them to sit.
Just goes to show you how far behind Bama we are, they get those type of athletes and they not only sit but they red shirt
Posted on 1/26/16 at 3:44 pm to PhilipMarlowe
It's having a huge impact.
Unfortunately, the issue is political and changing our stipend would require the university powers to go against their central marketing strategy for the school.
To explain:
The university has organized a lot of its propaganda around the "value, ROI, etc" of the A&M degree by comparing the cost of attendance figure - an estimation of which they have deliberately rigged to be as low as possible - to the earnings of graduates.
They set this in motion as their marketing strategy long before the NCAA allowed full cost of living stipends so the negative consequence to football was unintended and unforseen.
So while the university has been going around gloating about how A&M offers the best return on your tuition dollar, rival football programs have been doing the opposite to our recruits by showing them how much less they will be getting in the form of stipend money.
We're at an impasse, because while schools like Alabama broke the sound barrier in revising their cost of attendance when they saw how much Auburn and others had filed for and realized they'd be at a big disadvantage, changing ours would require the university to toss out its whole marketing campaign because if we exaggerated our cost of attendance figure like our competition has in order to level the recruiting playing field, we'd alter the math on the "best return on investment" campaign and no longer have "best value" to tout as a university.
What's even worse is that instead of being honest and winding up in the middle of the pack, or trying to be as expensive as possible in order to offer the biggest stipend like some of our competition, we had already made every effort to have our number be as low as possible. So the gap is really big.
Unfortunately, the issue is political and changing our stipend would require the university powers to go against their central marketing strategy for the school.
To explain:
The university has organized a lot of its propaganda around the "value, ROI, etc" of the A&M degree by comparing the cost of attendance figure - an estimation of which they have deliberately rigged to be as low as possible - to the earnings of graduates.
They set this in motion as their marketing strategy long before the NCAA allowed full cost of living stipends so the negative consequence to football was unintended and unforseen.
So while the university has been going around gloating about how A&M offers the best return on your tuition dollar, rival football programs have been doing the opposite to our recruits by showing them how much less they will be getting in the form of stipend money.
We're at an impasse, because while schools like Alabama broke the sound barrier in revising their cost of attendance when they saw how much Auburn and others had filed for and realized they'd be at a big disadvantage, changing ours would require the university to toss out its whole marketing campaign because if we exaggerated our cost of attendance figure like our competition has in order to level the recruiting playing field, we'd alter the math on the "best return on investment" campaign and no longer have "best value" to tout as a university.
What's even worse is that instead of being honest and winding up in the middle of the pack, or trying to be as expensive as possible in order to offer the biggest stipend like some of our competition, we had already made every effort to have our number be as low as possible. So the gap is really big.
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 1/26/16 at 3:54 pm to Cooter Davenport
I seriously doubt it has a big impact
Posted on 1/26/16 at 4:19 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
I seriously doubt it has a big impact
Go to 100 HS students and tell them on top of a full ride they can get a $4,300 stipend at one school while at the other they get a $3,500 stipend.
Hmm... gee... I wonder which one 95% of them are going to pick?
That doesn't even get into the fact that the majority of college aged kids would think living in Austin would be way more fun than College Station. Let's be honest. Austin straight up has more to do that younger people like to do. Texas being able to legally pay players more than we can makes an athlete's decision all that much easier.
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 1/26/16 at 4:33 pm to Dr RC
LSU is kicking everyone's arse on the trail and they have the third or fourth lowest in the SEC IIRC and a few hundred dollars more than us. They've gone to head to head with Texas and Bama for a bunch of kids and won. Kentucky has the next lowest to us and is #22 in the country in recruiting (coming off a 5-7 season)
The other top two classes (Michigan and OSU) also have very low stipends. Michigan's is the lowest in the Big Ten and lower than ours by quite a bit.
If it mattered that much schools like Louisville and Tech that have high numbers would be doing much better than they are. It's no different than kids who say how good the business program or engineering program is at whatever university matters in their recruitment, and they end up going to Bama or FSU instead of Stanford or Notre Dame. 95% of high school kids are dumb and aren't going to take shite like that into account.
This has nothing to do with the stipend and is also an overrated aspect of recruiting. Alabama pulls in top classes to Tuscaloosa and Florida State pulls in top classes to Tallahassee. Winning and the momentum around your program are 95% of the battle and it will always remain that way
The other top two classes (Michigan and OSU) also have very low stipends. Michigan's is the lowest in the Big Ten and lower than ours by quite a bit.
If it mattered that much schools like Louisville and Tech that have high numbers would be doing much better than they are. It's no different than kids who say how good the business program or engineering program is at whatever university matters in their recruitment, and they end up going to Bama or FSU instead of Stanford or Notre Dame. 95% of high school kids are dumb and aren't going to take shite like that into account.
quote:
That doesn't even get into the fact that the majority of college aged kids would think living in Austin would be way more fun than College Station. Let's be honest. Austin straight up has more to do that younger people like to do. Texas being able to legally pay players more than we can makes an athlete's decision all that much easier.
This has nothing to do with the stipend and is also an overrated aspect of recruiting. Alabama pulls in top classes to Tuscaloosa and Florida State pulls in top classes to Tallahassee. Winning and the momentum around your program are 95% of the battle and it will always remain that way
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 1/26/16 at 4:34 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
You never explained who your Avi was
Posted on 1/26/16 at 4:38 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
Winning and the momentum around your program are 95% of the battle and it will always remain that way
Very very true
Posted on 1/26/16 at 4:41 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
I seriously doubt it has a big impact
REALLY?
You are going to offer a friggin broke high school kid living in a claptrap house or apartment with his momma thousands more dollars a semester for one school over another and it won't matter. Pshhhhh! Dream on, dream on, dream until your dream come truuuuuuuuuuuue!
Page 174 of 226
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News