BillySee58

Commits to Texas State

Correct. Provided that all 12 of our scholarship players with eligibility left stay on the roster for the 2018-2019 season.

Appears to be for next year

To add some updates with the spreadsheet now that the roster has been updated: - Devlin Isadore and Devin O'Hara are both listed as being on scholarship but neither are. - Conversely, Quinn Shanbour is on scholarship. He is also a redshirt junior after receiving another year of eligibility. - Terrance Johnson and Julius Combes are both listed as being on scholarship but neither are. - William Lemasters is listed as being on scholarship but he is not. At least to my knowledge. - Kway Hill is no longer on the roster. I'm sure there are plenty of walkons no longer on the roster, and new ones we need to add, but I didn't go through them all. - Wylie Reinhardt had to give up football due to injury - Kel Straubmueller is listed as being on scholarship but I am not aware of when that move to put him on scholarship happened if it did. Does anyone know if/when that was announced? - The fall-enrollee signees have been added. This includes junior DB Kemon Hall who apparently will be a blueshirt, meaning he will be a scholarship player this season. - Grad transfer OL Riley Mayfield joins the team on scholarship as a redshirt junior - JUCO transfer OL Sosaia Mose joins the team on scholarship as a redshirt sophomore - We announced 16 high-school signees on signing day. One is already on the spreadsheet in early-enrollee Cade Pearson. The other 15 have been added as well. They are: DB Cameron Johnson DL Tony Krasniqi DL Dion Novil LB Kody Fulp LB Chris Thornton OL Jacob Brammer OL Manase Mose OL Dakoda Newman OL Brian Parish RB Evan Johnson RB Tre Siggers S Tyreke Davis S Makyle Sanders WR Jaelon Darden WR Greg White - Also, freshman DB Jordan Roberts and freshman OL Brendon Weatherspoon are both reportedly joining the team as blueshirts as well. So they should be listed as scholarship players as well. By my count we have 73 scholarship players this year. 18 of which are offensive linemen. That means 1/4 of our scholarship players are offensive linemen.

Wow. Interesting pickup. Not much on him online, but looks like he averaged 13 points/game, 10 rebounds/game, 41% on threes at 4 attempts/game (good quality and quantity), and 1.7 steals/game. At 6'6" it sounds like he can play 2-4

Commits to SMU

Replace "bring in" with "sign" and I think you get what Brett is trying to say. He uses the two interchangeably, and we didn't sign a JUCO or transfer QB since Isadore is a walkon.

Oh dang. Never saw that. Thanks for the heads up

Wow. So we're going into this season with 2 scholarship QBs. A true freshman and a true sophomore. That's definitely a fact about this team that is flying under the radar.

We only have 2 scholarship QBs from the current roster that will be back in 2018. Makes sense. Wouldn't be shocking if it was a JUCO, since if Pearson redshirts you'd be looking at two freshmen (Pearson and Martin) behind a junior in Fine. Do you know if Devin O'Hara is on scholarship?

He is, which is why I referenced his feet and shoulders. That's the reference point. So yeah, it should be a little because he is throwing right but the extent that we see is a long motion. That arm angle, with a clean pocket, illustrates the habitual nature of the motion imo. And the rest of his highlights.

Still waiting for the day where you can reply to me in a non passive-aggressive manner or without mocking me. But yeah, admittedly that was a lazy comparison to a QB who had a release that was about as long just in a different motion, yet had success here. This is a good shot of his release. We see his arm, while facing the opposing team's end zone, doesn't just go a long way back toward his own end zone, it also goes very far back towards the sideline to his back. We see his feet and shoulders squared up to the middle of the field, but the ball still clearing the back of his helmet in this shot directly behind him. That's where his "wind-up" occurs more so than bringing the ball down like you see some former QBs with pitching backgrounds do. You can still notice it from the sideline view, but not nearly as clear as this end zone shot. I wonder if there isn't any blueshirt contemplation. The players they have not announced in the past have often been blueshirts or blueshirt candidates who we ended up as regular signees on NSD (like Novil and Fine). Although with Junius King they tweeted out his area code like a week late.

Respectfully, he does it every throw from the pocket. Reminds me of Derek Thompson's release.

Oh boy. Try six. As @MeanGreenTexan pointed out recently, the whole snatching up recruits late who saw a bunch of their offers dry up has been happening since before Littrell. You and I could've signed Siggers and Darden over Grambling and Texas Southern. That's par for the course, something I've advocated us saving spots for at the end for years, but should not be relied on to save a class. No, it's like saying "Man, I love this kid we just signed, but it doesn't make me feel anymore confident in our coaches abilities to win recruiting battles than signing a kid who never had another FBS offer would." Good pickups, but don't prove our coaches can win recruiting battles. I feel like we can both agree on that. Where the disconnect seems to be, as evidenced by your "what is the fricking difference," response is why that matters. It matters to me because if our coaches are relegated to only players no one else wants, then we aren't going to be as successful as we would be if we are able to get players higher on our board who other schools want as well. Maybe in some cases we prefer players with no other offers over a player who does have some. But it doesn't matter who we prefer if we are relegated to players no one wants because of recruiting ability. Those three guys would've gone FCS had we not swooped in late, which means that even FCS schools get these type of players whose stock drops. An FCS class is made up of players who never received FBS offers and a few who did but those schools stopped recruiting them. That's eerily similar to what we have going right now. I don't want our class to resemble an FCS class, but that's what it is going to look like if we continue to only be able to get guys with no other FBS offers and guys who see their stock drop to the point where we are the only FBS team actively recruiting them. Thats why it matters to me. If it doesn't matter to you, great. I'm not trying to persuade you. Just trying to explain my point. Again, we both agree that when it comes to evaluating the player as a recruit, it doesn't matter which schools who offered are still recruiting them. The offer list accumulated over the cycle can't be discredited when evaluating that recruit. And I think we agree that the schools that are currently recruiting the recruit we get to commit show our coaches ability to win recruiting battles. And offers from schools that are no longer recruiting them don't indicate that we won a recruiting battle against that school. If that doesn't matter to you, cool. I'm not trying to get it to matter to you. Just trying to get you to stop misinterpreting my posts. If you make passive-aggressive comments at me without tagging me in the post, while misinterpreting me, I'm going to clear up my message.

Total offers used to evaluate players as recruits. Active offers used to evaluate coaches recruiting abilities. Not sure how many times this needs to be explained to you for you to understand. Up around 5 attempts at this point. Still trying because you are a loyal poster and I really want you to get.

They are. But when identifying potential all-CUSA recruits, I think it's relevant. A good offer list out of high school shows that the player has talent and has skills that numerous coaches believed would translate to the college level. A full season's worth of starting experience shows that the player is not a bust on the college level, and will be able to pair identified talent with substantial experience heading into a season. That combination gives a player a solid chance at having an all-CUSA season. Regardless of who offered them as a transfer. Both criteria have to be there. Good offer list out of high school means nothing to me until that player proves they can lock down a starting role here. So far only, of our AQ/P5 transfers, only Trice paired these two. He was all-CUSA. Terrell, Feldt, Stradford, Wallace, etc did not and were not all-CUSA candidates.

Generally, yes. For every recruit, no. My point was that to compile a list of offers for every CUSA signee, I'd have to look at all four sites to get an accurate list. Because 247, while the best at tracking G5 recruiting, is not going to have every single offer that the other three have for every single recruit. Just like the others will miss plenty that 247 shows. I have believed 247 is the best for about four recruiting cycles now. Over those four I have found 247 to be the most accurate out of the four major recruiting sites. But far from accurate enough to believe that they catch every single offer that goes out and that other sites never have offers 247 doesn't. You're making it sound like I have attempted to completely discredit the other three and believe 247 to be the end all, be all. As I said above, 247 is generally the best and most accurate, but it's not like I encourage people to not look at the other ones at all. For some recruits, the other sites are more accurate than others. I think all four should be looked at when evaluating a recruit. Both the offer lists they all have and the ratings they all have. Please, show me what post(s) you are referencing. No arguments here. I believe the more highly recruited signees we get, the better chance we have at getting all-CUSA players. Our small sample size of being in CUSA for four years indicates this theory has some substance behind it. But as you saw in other players, there is also substance against it. Never will be an exact science. Never did Anthony Wallace meet both of my all-CUSA criteria. Did he have a "B" or better offer list? Yes Did he ever enter a season at UNT with a full-season worth of starting experience under his belt? No He never started at Oregon, and he played 9 games and had 25 tackles as a junior here. So entering his senior season he did not have a season's worth of starting experience entering the year, thus wasn't deemed a potential all-CUSA guy by my parameters. So not sure why he would have you disagreeing with me. If he would've come in and started 12 games as soon a season he got eligible, then he would've been seen as a likely all-CUSA guy heading into his senior year based on my parameters. Gotta have both.

He was an A+ recruit out of high school. Who offered him when he decided to transfer doesn't change that. Again, this list was designed to determine all-CUSA potential in our players. If a player had an A+ offer list out of high school, and had a year of starting experience, then that player would have a good chance of being all conference the next year. This was the case with Trice, and what did end up happening. If we get another player with a similar offer list who then starts an entire season for us, I would give them a good probability to be all-CUSA in that second year as well. Just like Trice.

Did I say anything to the contrary? No I didn't. But the emphasis you put on this is as if a recruits eliminate us immediately once they find out we haven't had a draft pick since 2004. It doesn't help, but it's not some impossible disadvantage to overcome. Not when recruiting against G5 schools, it shouldn't be. Ah, location. So if that could've been helpful in us getting Goree, why wouldn't that be helpful in getting other current high school recruits? That is an advantage more than it is a disadvantage, then and now. But that wasn't even in our favor in the case of Goree. Carthage to Denton: 199 miles Carthage to Ruston: 113 miles Getting Rutherford didn't hurt, but Goree sounded sold on us, from all his interviews.You can string off names of recruits that we beat for LAT and UTSA, but he isn't the coach here any more. We all know why. We do all know why. Because he was horrific at recruiting. And despite being horrific at recruiting, he was still able to beat out La Tech and UTSA on a somewhat regular basis. He was a horrific recruiter whose first roster that had only recruits signed by him went 1-11. And if a recruiter that bad was still able to beat out UTSA and La Tech, what does that tell you about the recruiting ability of a coach who can't do that? Todd Dodge signed the #1 class in the Sun belt and #86 in the country back in 2008. Unfortunately he was an awful coach who was coaching with a staff of high school coaches and was not fit to run a college program. There's no reason a good coach can't replicate those results with an actual college staff, an actual college stadium, and a better conference.

Back in 2014 I started looking at offer lists in our recruits, how their careers went, and which ones became all-CUSA. This is also when I came up with my letter-grade system. C = recruits with no other FBS offers C+ = recruits with one other FBS offer B = recruits with two to four other FBS offers B+ = recruits with two to four other FBS offers but having at least one noteworthy offer (i.e. Houston, Boise State, P5) A = recruits with five to nine other FBS offers A+ = recruits with 10 or more other FBS offers Note that this is based on all offers received throughout the cycle. So for people who say I discredit expired offers when saying that 16 of our last 17 commits had no other schools actively recruiting them when they committed to us, here is where I do factor those expired offers in. Through the 2014 season I noticed that 7/8 (87.5%) of our all-CUSA players at that's point were B or better as recruits. Lemon was an A, Bellazin was an A, Trice was an A+, Y'Barbo was a B+, James Jones was a B+, Orr was a B+, Akunne was a B, and Chancellor was a C. I also noticed that these players had at least one year of starting experience or playing time equivalent heading into their all-CUSA season. I have since evaluated our classes based on what percent had B or better offer lists. I felt like at that point I had determined the criteria for players of ours most likely to be all-CUSA. At this point I was encouraged at looking at offer lists for teams across the conference, and all-CUSA players across the conference. I realized immediately that the time it would take to look at offers reported for every CUSA signee across all four recruiting sites would take time that I was not interested in investing. For example, I'm guessing you were looking at 247 for the offers you pulled. You have Darrell Brown as unrated with no other offers, but ESPN shows he had an East carolina and Missouri offer. Because for G5 recruits the offer lists are almost never consistent across the four major recruiting sites. I also noticed that most of the schools in our conference play in low population, low exposure areas. Which means Aaron Jones and Jordan Howard are not going to get the recruiting exposure playing in El Paso and Gardendale, Alabama that our recruits in DFW and Houston do. Because of that, I felt like comparing offer lists was more relevant comparing our classes signees to schools from areas of similar recruiting exposure, which is Rice, UTSA, FIU, and FAU. I found it less relevant with USM, WKU, and the like. Heading into 2015, I looked at the afore mentioned criteria and saw no one on that roster fit this criteria. Our experienced guys weren't recruited highly, and the guys who were did not have the experience. At this point I said "uh oh." The red flag had been raised and I thought we would see no all-CUSA players on our roster, which I felt would spell disaster. When ever I posted about it, I was written off, but I really was not shocked at our 1-11 season with no all-CUSA players. I thought three wins was likely given this criteria, and felt like less was absolutely realistic. I also felt like given the fact that our highly recruited players were slated to get experience in 2015, 2016 was always set up to be a year of marked improvement. Finally, I care less about offer lists for QBs, because fitting a system matters so much, WRs because small guys get overlooked yet don't need to be big to make plays, and DBs for similar reasons. It still matters to me, but less those positions than others. And the exposure that a recruit's high school generates also should be factored in when comparing offer lists. All of this personal research is what has led me to putting so much emphasis on offer lists.

It matters, but your posts seem to indicate that NFL players drafted and history are the end all, be all factors for recruits. Then why did Tee Goree choose us over Colorado, La Tech, and UTSA among others? Or why did Chris Miles choose us over La Tech and Houston? Why did Nate Brooks choose us over La Tech? I could string off a lot of names recruits we beat La Tech and UTSA out for during the Mccarney years. This isn't some impossible matchup. Nor is UTSA just because they don't have a history of losing. Good recruiters can win these matchups. They have them. Evidence implies we don't. Good recruiters can sell kids on their program even if they have things going against them.

Then you probably shouldn't be saying that my claim is just to discredit our recruiting. Again, missing the point here. We are not evaluating the recruits in their entirety. I do that separately. What is being evaluated is our coaches abilities to win head-to-head recruiting battles, which is why we look at the kids' recruitments at the time of commitment. Again, I do this separately. I am looking strictly at ability to win recruiting battles, so I will only look at pertinent information there. A Texas Tech offer 20 months ago doesn't qualify there. I factor in those offers when comparing the class to those of prior years in my letter grade rating system. I don't discredit them when evaluating the player, but I do when evaluating the coaches abilities to win recruiting battles. Because they didn't beat those teams out just like we didn't beat out Nebraska, Tennessee, Auburn, and Florida State for Kevin Dillman. Please, enlighten me on when I stated that I have some solution that the coaches haven't thought of? Rate the classes years later. I'm looking at the coaches and their ability to win head-to-head recruiting battles, which is immediately known. We will find out their evaluating and developing abilities later, which I completely concede to and is why I'm looking at head-to-head recruiting results now. Brammer, Parish, Roberts, Gieser, Tibbs, Thornton, McGee, Novil, Siggers, Darden, White, and then the 6 commitments we have received for the 2018 class, which includes Gage because we are looking at players who have committed. These are our last 17 commitments we have received.

What about that doesn't make sense? Did I ever say those guys couldn't play? Did I ever say they never held another FBS offer? Did I ever say I opposed those signings? As a matter of fact, I've been encouraging those type of signings before you even started posting on this board. Again, evaluating the coaches, not the players here. This has been explained to you a handful on times both directly and indirectly. The point is, we're getting guys by default. Some where big-time recruits at one point, and some weren't. I believe that every class we sign at UNT as long as we're in CUSA should include guys like Darden and Siggers at the end, and a few project guys with no other offers like Thornton or Novil. But when time after time we get guys almost exclusively uncontested (hence the 16 of last 17 stat to illustrate substance behind that claim), that raises concern that we are limited to only players no one else wants. And there's nothing wrong with people having that type of concern because it has been formed through evidence.

Dude, I just told you that it started after dead period ended, yet you're still bringing up recruits who committed before (Guyton, Davis, Fulp). I didn't say Littrell has never signed a kid who ever held another FBS offer. But since dead period ended we have received 17 commits, and 16 were uncontested as far as having other FBS schools actively recruiting them. Look how old Brammer and Parish's offers were, and the fact that they only had one official visit lined up after dead period tells you what the state of their recruiting was when they committed to us. By all means, wait to evaluate the class. I'm not trying to convince anyone to do otherwise. And I'm not trying to say these players are not FBS quality or were never offered by another FBS school. But this is quite the streak where we are getting players by default and that's unsettling to me. If you want to unconditionally praise Littrell, I'm not trying to stop you. Just presenting facts, and preventing you from misconstruing the fact behind what I posted, whether you want it to be the case or not.

Cameron Johnson is not among the last 17. Neither was Pearson. The last 17 have all come since dead period ended in January. When Siggers committed to us on January 31st, he had our hat, two FCS schools' hats (I believe Grambling and Texas Southern), and a Texas Tech hat on the table. His Texas Tech offer had come roughly 20 months prior to that date. If anyone thinks Tech was actually still recruiting him at the time, then they got duped by a 17 year-old putting a hat on a table. http://247sports.com/Player/Tre-Siggers-83677/TimelineEvents Jaelon Darden decommitted from UNLV on December 7th. After that he received just one offer, from Texas Southern. He was set to make his commitment on twitter, then a last minute offer from us after Trevone Bradley told our coaches he was going to Houston the night before NSD caused Darden to cancel his announcement and re-evaluate things. He then chose us over Texas Southern. All the offers you mentioned were from long before. http://247sports.com/Player/Jaelon-Darden-86078/TimelineEvents And White was committed to Grambling when we flipped him. And not because he wanted to play FCS ball over Ohio and Tulane, only to then change his mind when we came in. Again, outdated offers. http://247sports.com/Player/Gregory-White-81322/TimelineEvents Decent pickups. Players who FBS coaches did believe were good enough to play at this level. But players who our coaches were able to sign because they had no other FBS competition.