It’s a bit harder to keep up with our recruits on this board vs. the old board. When I look at who we have committed, we have 1 recruit from Texas in the 2017 class and 1 in the 2018 class. Overall, I still don’t get the impression that we are recruiting Texas as heavily as we should. Comparatively, OU has 9 from Texas in the 2017 class and Okie Light has 10.
Seems like that could be the difference maker. JMVHO
You could still add a couple of kids from Texas in Chevin Calloway and Malik Young to go along with Maleek Barkley
They have two commits for 2018 and obviously half of them are from Texas in linebacker Bumper Pool.
But I get your point.
Seems like Louisiana has replaced Texas as the main supplier, but it doesn’t mean it will stay that way
Yes, it does seem like our Louisiana recruiting is solid; but it always seems like we’ve gotten good recruits from LA in the past. I know CBB has said he was going to increase the emphasis on Texas. I just wonder about that since 19 kids are leaving Texas headed into the state of Oklahoma to play football and we have 1 this year with a couple more maybe and 1 next year. I haven’t looked up the rosters, but it seems like when we’ve had good years that we had a roster full of Texas kids to go with a strong in-state class. Would you ask CBB about that sometime? Thanks
First, since we moved to the SEC, we don’t play in Texas as often, like in the past. Both OU and OSU play in Texas numerous times, and have deeper recruiting roots then we do. We signed 4 from Texas last year, I figure that’s more the norm in the future. Hopefully we close with a couple more this year.
[quote=“RICEPIG1”]
First, since we moved to the SEC, we don’t play in Texas as often, like in the past. Both OU and OSU play in Texas numerous times, and have deeper recruiting roots then we do. We signed 4 from Texas last year, I figure that’s more the norm in the future. Hopefully we close with a couple more this year.
[/quote]A&M to the SEC, people always either forget or under estimate the effect that had, IMO.
[quote=“dm919”]
I think what happened there is that A&M is getting players now that used to go to UT or OU. They’re not taking them away from us, they’re taking them from the big dogs in state. Of course, so was Baylor under Briles. Of course, if top talent is going to Baylor or UH or A&M instead of UT or OU, it also means they’re not going to Fayetteville.
[quote=“SwineFusion”]
It’s hard to understand how A&M are getting those players when OU has 9 coming in next year. There is so much talent in Texas that UH, Baylor, UT and A&M can get their recruits (they can only sign 25) and there’s still enough for Arkansas and the Oklahoma gang.
[quote=“dm919”]
Look at the sheer number of D1 recruits in Texas (225 4 and 5 star recruits from 2013 to 2016 - second highest to Florida), I sincerely believe its more about an effort by this staff than playing in Texas. We get our game in Dallas but we get a lot of visibility as well.
When the majority of your defensive players are from the state of Texas you will not have a good defense. Pick and choose carefully razorbacks.
There is little doubt that we are under-recruiting Texas. Then again FL and LA are being recruited better than at any time in our program’s history.
Generally, assistant hires are to blame or deserve the credit for changes in geographic emphasis. CBB hires guys with coaching experience in Maine, NJ, Michigan, and Buffalo. Not saying that is good or bad, just saying that kind of hire does not lend itself immediately to Texas success. Decisions have consequences.
I suspect that hiring an old big 12 head coach as your DC will boost Texas recruiting. CPR doesn’t have to look at a map to know where Katy or Temple are located. He probably knows over 100 Texas HS head coaches personally on a first name basis.
You want to see more Texans on the roster? Then hire more assistants like PR who have some history in this part of the world.
Personally, I don’t care where the players come from as long as they are SEC-caliber players who can help the team win. That said, certainly Texas has plenty of those kind of players and has been a pipeline for Arkansas for a number of years. Do believe we need to keep cultivating that area, but in the long run, let’s recruit the best wherever they are, especially in Arkansas.
[quote=“SwineFusion”]
[quote=“dm919”]
I think what happened there is that A&M is getting players now that used to go to UT or OU. They’re not taking them away from us, they’re taking them from the big dogs in state. Of course, so was Baylor under Briles. Of course, if top talent is going to Baylor or UH or A&M instead of UT or OU, it also means they’re not going to Fayetteville.
[/quote]Oh I agree. The old trickle down theory in which A&M was not a player in recruiting until they came to the SEC and not too debatable really when you look at their players they had in the Big 12. Anybody else pulling from the same pool — well finish the thought – doesn’t help us. LSU and AR were once the closet SEC teams. But no more. Just my opinion. Gotta recruit better in TX, no doubt, though, fully agree, just tougher now.
[quote=“dm919”]
People want to play down the A&M angle but the facts show it is a problem, go back and look at how many more recruits that sign with them, had visits/offers from us since they have joined the league compared to before. It’s not rocket surgery, but people would rather believe whatever they can make up in their own head.
[quote=“hawginbigd5”]
And you’re doing a fine job of proving that yourself.
I looked back at our 2011 signing class, the last before A&M came on board. Five players from Texas. Four of them basically never played. A dud is a dud, whether they come from Dardanelle, Dallas or Daytona Beach. The only Texan in that class that made a major contribution was Tevin Mitchel, and he’s an Arkie legacy (dad from Pine Bluff; yes, I know he played at OU, but same applies to Keith Jackson who has now sent us two of his kids). We don’t need duds from anywhere.
People who claim A&M became a recruiting force when and because they joined the SEC have not followed recruiting for very long. Their entire analysis of A&M seems to be the last 10 years, many of which Mike Sherman was the coach. If you have the information available to you from the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, and early 2000’s you will find that Texas A&M has been a major player in recruiting for a long time. Numerous top 10 and occasional top 5 classes filled their rosters. Joining the SEC was not some magic elixir that unleashed the Aggies on the rest of the world. To me, all it’s done is made them realize just like the rest of us, it’s hard to win in the SEC. They had the planets align perfectly their first year with Manziel, but even then they didn’t win the division. If you’re going to use the argument “well, look how we’ve done against them since they joined”. Well, we’ve only beat Mississippi St. once since A&M joined, and I don’t think that had any bearing on anything other than we’ve been down since 2011. I would submit that A&M hasn’t been as good they last 3 years as they were in 2010 or 2011, when they were still a Big 12 team, and they didn’t know they were fixing to join the SEC then, so that wasn’t a recruiting factor.
’
All these awesome defensive recruits from the state of Texas yet, not one team in the Big 12 who rely on getting kids from Texas have the athletes on defense needed to win the SEC West…includes Texas AM
Reading comprehension is tough I grant you, I said look at the kids A&M has signed that had offers and visits with us since they joined, not how many recruits we signed out of Texas before then.
People forget what a force Texas A&M is on the collegiate level. Not only athletics but from a shear money standpoint. Look at endowment numbers for schools. Pre A&M Vandy was way ahead of Florida for the title in the SEC. Like triple Florida actually. A&M is an entirely different money level. Far more than double Vandy. Lets put some zeros up for reading comprehension. 2015 endowment level: A&M $10,477,000,000. Vandy $4,134,000,00 Florida has a mere $1,556,000,000. Ah, but A&M has so many students. Check the facts but I will tell you it doesn’t get better for other SEC schools when you break it down on a per student basis.
What does this mean to athletics? I sure don’t claim to know the inner workings of each schools money but wow that’s a lot of difference. Only six schools have more endowment than A&M and it doesn’t take a scientific rocket to guess 4 or 5 of them. Try Harvard, Yale, Texas, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. That’s some elite academic company.
Huge money, huge donors, huge facilities, not so huge results. IMHO, it’s only a matter of time.
Yep.
You haven’t mentioned Alabama in this comparison. How do the perineal National Champs fare in endowments, if endowments mean anything to the success of the sports programs?