The CardBoard
Series with Northwestern extended - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Series with Northwestern extended (/thread-3097.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Series with Northwestern extended - LuckE2Bhere - 06-23-2012

(06-21-2012, 11:02 AM)oman link Wrote:[quote author=LuckE2Bhere link=topic=5701.msg44430#msg44430 date=1340294435]
So Texas didn't "want" a 5-Star QB named Andrew Luck (or Ty Montgomery or Stepfan Taylor)?  If not, their recruiting department needs a serious upgrade in the talent-evaluation area!  If they don't "offer" you, does that really mean that they didn't "want" you (isn't it possible that they may have sincerely recruited you, and then learned that you really want to go somewhere else, before they've extended a formal scholarship offer)?
I don't think Texas considered Montgomery (edit: they went for Jaxon Shipley and have a couple other nice receivers from that year) or Taylor (edit: doesn't look like they picked up anyone that year) but I doubt they were without someone highly rated those years at those positions.
[/quote]

Do you have some basis for your suggestion that they didn't "consider" Montgomery?  I would find that quite surprising, given his physical attributes and rankings (even at the time).  Again, there's a big difference between not "offering" someone (for a variety of reasons) and not "wanting" or even "considering" them.  I really doubt that they considered themselves complete at the WR position by virtue of the fact that they were apparently "[going] for Jaxon Shipley".

Re: Series with Northwestern extended - washingtonismoney - 06-23-2012

Montgomery was not a super-elite prospect. He was the #30 WR for Rivals and a four-star, but not among their top 250 players. For ESPN, he was the #35 WR and a four-star, but again not one of their top 150 players. He was a low four-star for 247. Scout liked him best, as the #27 WR.

That year, Shipley was regarded as the ninth-best wideout in the country by Rivals and the sixty-second best player overall; he was considerably less well-regarded by ESPN, as the #36 WR and a four-star; Scout, however, ranked him as the #6 WR; 247 thought he was the 30th best player in the country and #5 WR.

That being said, Texas did take another wideout who was ranked worse than Montgomery; however, he was 6'3" or 6'4", meaning Texas could have been looking for a tall WR to fill out their class.

Anyway, Texas didn't really want Montgomery. They didn't invite him to their junior day, nor did they offer him. That's pretty persuasive evidence for me that they didn't want him.* They would've gone after him if they did; they think they can get just about any Texan they want, and their record reflects that. But that's fine, of course; there are too many good Texan football players for them all to go to Texas, and we happen to have gotten our fair share of those players. I'd prefer to supplement those guys with Texans that Texas wants, but we can't have it all.

* (Curiously, none of the Texas schools offered Montgomery.)

Yeah, WIM, it's not the HIGHEST of bars to clear - Redrum - 06-23-2012

...but actually making a scholarship offer-- which Texas didn't in Montgomery's case--  is a pretty good definition of a school's "interest" in a player.

Another very simple standard:  Name a recruit  1) that picked Stanford  and  2) Texas went after with the full Mack Brown press?
I can't think of one...which might be a brain problem w/ me....but I can't think of one.

Re: Series with Northwestern extended - yvonne - 06-23-2012

Interest in a player is a nebulous concept and one that is difficult to measure. To assume offers correlate with interest would mean that all schools make offers to all players they like at any position. That's simply not true. Schools make offers based on many variables, such as needs, reasonable chances of acquiring the player, systems.

Re: Yeah, WIM, it's not the HIGHEST of bars to clear - washingtonismoney - 06-23-2012

(06-23-2012, 11:20 AM)Redrum link Wrote:...but actually making a scholarship offer-- which Texas didn't in Montgomery's case--  is a pretty good definition of a school's "interest" in a player.

Another very simple standard:  Name a recruit  1) that picked Stanford  and  2) Texas went after with the full Mack Brown press?
I can't think of one...which might be a brain problem w/ me....but I can't think of one.

Andrus Peat...but he wasn't a Texan.

Other than that, no. That likely reflects the fact that Texas and Stanford are fishing in different pools--Texas barely recruits outside of Texas; when we recruit in Texas, we've given game efforts at a lot of top-tier Texas prospects (e.g. Jake Raulerson and Durham Smythe this year) but generally are happy to compete for the very good second-tier Texans. Eventually, I hope we'll break through for one of those elite Texas guys, but I won't count on it until it happens.

What?? - Redrum - 06-23-2012

Condition A:  Texas is "interested in"  Player A.  Step 1: It evaluates his tape and  Step 2: Coaches attend his games.  Step 3: They invite him to UT football camp and  at one of Step 1, 2 or 3 offers him.  Then spends time wooing him and, when he commits, making sure he doesn't wander off the ranch. 

Condtion B:  Texas is "interested in" Player B.  Enough to evaluate on tape,  maybe even invite him to camp for a closer look... but doesn't offer for whatever reason and moves on to players that fit Condition A. 

Which condition or player -- in the context of recruiting wars-- best fits the definition of "interested in"?  You could argue that Player B is actually a "Texas reject",  (not that it matters if he can contribute to Stanford.)

So, what Texas player that fits Condition A at  UT Austin has Stanford ever ended up taking from Mack Brown?


Re: What?? - 97fan - 06-23-2012

(06-23-2012, 12:54 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Condition A:  Texas is "interested in"  Player A.  Step 1: It evaluates his tape and  Step 2: Coaches attend his games.  Step 3: They invite him to UT football camp and  at one of Step 1, 2 or 3 offers him.  Then spends time wooing him and, when he commits, making sure he doesn't wander off the ranch. 

Condtion B:  Texas is "interested in" Player B.  Enough to evaluate on tape,  maybe even invite him to camp for a closer look... but doesn't offer for whatever reason and moves on to players that fit Condition A. 

Which condition or player -- in the context of recruiting wars-- best fits the definition of "interested in"?  You could argue that Player B is actually a "Texas reject",  (not that it matters if he can contribute to Stanford.)

So, what Texas player that fits Condition A at  UT Austin has Stanford ever ended up taking from Mack Brown?

I don't think that Stanford has ever gotten a Texan who met Condition A. But not all players fit either Condition A or Condition B.

Condition C: Player makes clear to recruiters early in the process that he is only interested in serious academic schools, and he doesn't put UT in that category. He then commits to Stanford in the summer before his senior season, and makes clear to other schools that his recruitment really is OVER, and that he doesn't want to be bothered with phone calls, camp invitations, etc.

Condition C is Andrew Luck. You can't really say that Texas didn't want him because they were never given any real chance to sign him.

Re: What?? - washingtonismoney - 06-23-2012

(06-23-2012, 12:54 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Condition A:  Texas is "interested in"  Player A.  Step 1: It evaluates his tape and  Step 2: Coaches attend his games.  Step 3: They invite him to UT football camp and  at one of Step 1, 2 or 3 offers him.  Then spends time wooing him and, when he commits, making sure he doesn't wander off the ranch. 

Condtion B:  Texas is "interested in" Player B.  Enough to evaluate on tape,  maybe even invite him to camp for a closer look... but doesn't offer for whatever reason and moves on to players that fit Condition A. 

Which condition or player -- in the context of recruiting wars-- best fits the definition of "interested in"?  You could argue that Player B is actually a "Texas reject",  (not that it matters if he can contribute to Stanford.)

So, what Texas player that fits Condition A at  UT Austin has Stanford ever ended up taking from Mack Brown?

Like I said, no Texans. But you didn't specify that going in. Going in, it was just 'recruits.' To which Andrus Peat pretty clearly fit.

Re: Series with Northwestern extended - LuckE2Bhere - 06-23-2012

(06-23-2012, 07:56 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Anyway, Texas didn't really want Montgomery. They didn't invite him to their junior day, nor did they offer him. That's pretty persuasive evidence for me that they didn't want him.

I didn't invite Kathy Ireland to Homecoming, nor did I offer her a wedding ring... guess that proves that I didn't want her!?!

Re: Series with Northwestern extended - washingtonismoney - 06-23-2012

(06-23-2012, 02:26 PM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:I didn't invite Kathy Ireland to Homecoming, nor did I offer her a wedding ring... guess that proves that I didn't want her!?!

The situations are slightly different.

Re: Series with Northwestern extended - LuckE2Bhere - 06-23-2012

While Garvin makes a very good point, the bottom line is that none of us know who Texas did or didn't "want" (and even if you could ask Mack Brown today, he might not necessarily tell you the truth). 

Re: Series with Northwestern extended - oman - 06-23-2012

(06-23-2012, 06:01 PM)LuckE2Bhere link Wrote:While Garvin makes a very good point, the bottom line is that none of us know who Texas did or didn't "want" (and even if you could ask Mack Brown today, he might not necessarily tell you the truth).

So what we have to go on, like in virtually everything else, is scouting services and recruiting services and tweets and the flotsam and jetsam of the web.

We have those on Dunham Smythe, for example.

We don't have them on Ty or Stepfan.  Or Jordan Williamson, an Austin Westlake kid, as far as I can tell.  Or the 2012 commits from Texas.


But I do think your way of looking at this is healthy and optimistic!