Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'On The Field' started by Joe Fan, May 18, 2017.
2 DLs in one day
is that a record?
Asked to leave?
Good thing Charlie signed 5 DTs in 2016.
so much for depth on the line....
I can't find anything on this online.
Academics appear to be the problem with Southall.
Well we have Jamari Chisholm coming in . Also, I'm thinking most of the time only one tackle will be on the field at a time. My impression is we'll have 2 DEs and 4 linebackers on most plays.
In the process of recruiting and evaluating prospective players, it doesn't seem like Charlie spend much time considering whether the kid could 1. qualify, 2. remain academically in good standing at The University of Texas. See the handful of Florida kids that Charlie signed just in 3 short years that never played a snap (or made it to campus) at Texas, as well as the handful of other kids that struggled to qualify to the point that their involvement in the program couldn't be counted on. This short-sightedness by Strong is pure idiocy.
Obviously, you can't pull athletes from the same academic strata as the general student body population at Texas. Academically gifted athletes exist and get recruited hard by Stanford and Notre Dame. There aren't enough of them to go around for academically elite universities that also want to be elite football powers.
Grade attrition gets at lot of high school high achievers who attend UT. I don't think it fair to call it idiocy to take some kids that are athletically gifted who barely qualify academically. Academic support for athletes was good during Strong's tenure. There will always be a few athletes who through inability, or more likely distraction, fail to cut it here.
You want to sign players who can contribute on the field. Spending time, money, and effort (as well as committing a scholarship spot) on a player who won't qualify and repeated doing this with other similar recruits is idiotic. It's absolutely fair to say so. A coach should understand this. And the track record speaks for itself.... Strong signed a lot of guys who didn't make it to campus or even suit up. A couple of his "great" recruiting classes had several players who never stepped foot on campus (see the Florida 5..... only Burt ever put on a Texas jersey).
The University of Texas can and does compete very well for academically gifted athletes. To say we (Texas) cannot compete academically with the Stanfords, Notre Dames (?), or Dukes of college athletics for elite student-athletes is misinformed. That's not me putting on rose-tinted glasses; that's reality. UT is consistently ranked the top public university year-in and year-out, followed closely by UVa, Cal, and UNC. And being public doesn't make you sub-par to private institutions. Texas, in fact, has degree programs ranked much higher than all 3 of those private institutions in many areas. Elite student-athletes frequently chose Texas over Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and the Ivies, etc. Not always. But Texas is always in the competition.
Don't disagree with that, nor with the fact that UT can compete for elite students.
If you think we can win national football championships recruiting only athletes who would qualify for admission based on the same academic criteria my unathletic kid would have to meet, then I vehemently disagree.
If you think the academic success of Charlie Strong recruits is a lot worse than other Texas or Big 12 coaches ... I don't see it. Has someone done some statistical analysis?
Well of course....... no one is advocating recruiting unathletic kids.
I think Charlie's recruiting classes have seen more attrition from academic qualifying than previous classes. Some of this attrition however has occurred before several of these guys even got on campus (different than Southall) so people may not have noticed as much. Many guys just didn't show up because of grades. I don't have hard stats to back this up (although wouldn't be difficult to formulate), just rather an observation of things that have occurred on Charlie's watch.
I think we pretty much get the same amount of attrition each year, other than the purge when Charlie showed up.
i agree. my concern is that it's focused where it was't the deepest position. as little as some may want to admit, a thin middle of the dline might impact outcomes
Sure losses in the DL make us thin. But if those guys can't hack it for whatever reason then good bye and good luck. We don't need a bunch of prima donnas on this team, we need guys that work hard, compete everyday, and want to earn their spot. Obviously, these two think they are better than they are, or want the starting role handed to them. Guys like that fail in the real world everyday.
When Charlie signed five DT's in the "errbody" class, I couldn't help but wonder if we would ultimately lose some of them due to a logjam.
These 2 guys managed to get into school and do fine when Charlie was here not taking a shot at Herman just stating a fact. They were borderline on the way in and worked to make it a few of those other guys you were talking about that didn't make it were transfers some juco and as history shows it's not easy getting a transfer in here reason why we haven't had a qb show up over the last few years. not every school has the same admissions requirements some of these kids get a let offer in the senior year and commit and find out later hey I need this course that doesn't make them dumb that means they took a fluff class instead of something they could have used for the transcript wasn't that the case with the kid who ended up at OU