Texas' approach is completely inefficient and, I'd say, ridiculous. When you do what they do, you are forced to make extremely early calls on 16 to 17 year olds and virtually bypass chances for guys who develop late.
It's a terrible plan and their rigid approach trickles to everything they do.
Texas really doesn't do that anymore...they had a string of success with it, then a string of flops and failures and now they have a balance, it seems.
Out of 15 total commitments for their 2013 cycle, they had 11 of them happen before the kids went into the summer between their junior and senior seasons. Another commit happened in October. That's 75% of their class.
Out of 28 total commitments for their 2012 cycle, 13 of them happened in the February of the year prior. 18 of them happened before summer. That's 2/3s of their class.
Out of 22 total commitments for their 2011 cycle, 17 of them happened in the February of the year prior. 100% of them happened before the kids' senior seasons.
You just kind of proved my point. Not sure if that was your intent.
2/3 and 75% of their class may be a lot, but that's a lot better than the 100% they were rolling with prior to 2012.
Miami had ~60% of their class wrapped up in 2012 before senior year football start, for a contrast. And down here is a completely different high school football culture than that in Texas.
I only proved your point if you have a distorted definition of "have a balance" (your words). 73.3% (to be exact) of Texas' class was done before the Texas kids had finished their junior years (in Mid June). That is not balance. It's simply "better" than 100%, which is over the top ridiculous.
Miami had 4 of 18 of the players they ultimately signed happen before July of 2012 (the time measured for Texas, for consistency). Your numbers are completely off. That's 11%.
Don't know if your intent is to troll. I realize that's sometimes your game around here, or so you've claimed in that recent thread. If so, I'm not interested.
No trolling. I think you're idea of what "normal" is around the country for top teams is a bit distorted.
When your number is at 100% and you come down to 60-75% of your class that is more of a balance. Considering the culture of Texas high school football and Texas' own methodology in recruiting, how you can say it is anything but, strikes me as odd. Any school's normal (good) recruiting class should have most (>50%) of their class committed prior to the start of the fall semester...some random recruiting classes:
'13 Alabama - 15 of 25 commitments.
'13 Michigan - 21 of 27 commitments.
'13 TAMU - 22 of 31 commitments.
'12 LSU - 16 of 24 commitments.
'12 FSU - 12 of 19 commitments.
'11 Auburn - 13 of 25 commitments.
Just a random sampling. I am sure there are some that drop into the 40-50% range with strong closes. But, 60-75% isn't abnormal...hence, when I said its more of a balance.
Also, what is the difference between July and August? There is none and its arbitrary...both schools had X number before the season started (FWIW, Texas didn't have any commits in July/August/September). FWIW, the 2012 Recruiting Class is where I based my numbers...Miami had 19 commitments before they started fall semester in a 33 kid class.
Miami's 2013 Class had low numbers...6 commitments before the start of fall semester...with a bulk of their class relying on commitments from South Florida players to commit late (I think we learned what that experiment yields)...which goes into my comment about culture. South Florida and Texas high school football culture while both important, don't strike me as similar.
I also don't understand your comment on Texas' recruiting being inefficient. Their method strikes me as being efficient. Inefficient would be recruiting a bulk of your class throughout the entire process. Lets not forget, with that recruiting method they won a National Title and had one of the best runs of the 2000's and produced a ton of NFL talent...plus, its not like those late-in-the-game recruiting battles for James Kirkendoll and Robert Killebrew yielding much of anything.
