Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The Texas Experiment
FremontTroll
Member Posts: 4,744
The two coaches with Texas connections are GONE (no warning.)
Does this spell the end of the Texas experiment? Or does CP double down and try to hire a new recruiting ace or two from Texas?
Does this spell the end of the Texas experiment? Or does CP double down and try to hire a new recruiting ace or two from Texas?
Comments
But now our Texas guys are gone soooo....is there really value to the work they put in there that is worth continuing or did we just waste a bunch of time and money?
Petersen is still a national name, and he has successfully recruited kids from Texas to BSU who are now in the NFL [citation needed].
The issue with Texas is that every school in the country is trying to recruit kids there. He's not going to hit any homeruns there without a Willie Lyles, but he can get decent athletes that the major schools ignore that can become decent contributors. Victor Aieywa is a great example of the caliber of athletes that he can pull from Texas to UW.
2. For better or worse he's taken tier 2 guys from Dallas, if they develop into studs I think he can really build from that as evidence to other recruits.
Purple colored glasses I know, but you don't just show up in dallas and take kids away from UOklahoma, Texas, ATM, OSU, TCU, Baylor, LSU, Alabama from day one.
However, if you can get a handful of players to supplement your program and/or get an elite player or two, then it's worth the effort if done in moderation.
@LoneStarDawg broke it down about right that you're either going to get 2nd tier guys or elite guys ... probably nothing in the middle. Right now, UW isn't in a position where they are going to successfully pull elite guys out of Texas. There's too many options for these kids in deciding whether to stay in state (2 currently elite programs there in TCU and Baylor, then the legacy that is Texas that still pulls rank in the state), head north to play for Oklahoma that is always in the national picture, or head to the SEC with both an in-state option in TAMU or next door to LSU (particularly true for kids from Houston). Add to that probably another dozen or so schools that recruit the area hard and for UW, you're not high on the pecking order at present. That's ok though for now.
For UW, recruiting has always been about recruiting in-state first and then California second. In-state, generally speaking, we're going to get a good number of our line players and elite athletes in the state. We will never be able to satisfy our needs at WR and DB in state and it is critical that we're in the hunt in California for those players. Where we can get hurt in recruiting is in years where there is a shortage of players on the West Coast at certain position groupings. It's in years like that where having enough in roads in a second talent rich area like Texas can help us (in the short term) stem the tide and still get at least depth players into the program.
The current path that UW is on is moving in the direction of being an elite program in the PAC. Should we get to that point and have the ability to sustain it, then we're able to get into living rooms that we otherwise wouldn't be able to and try to find that difference maker or two in Texas that is interested in winning championships, playing in the biggest games, and perhaps looking for something different than what he's used to. We're probably 3-5 years away from really being able to pull elite guys like that ... but I can see a day where that happens. We've seen high end guys from Texas head to Eugene ... outside of Nike, there's not a single thing that Oregon has that we don't offer something better.
IMO, you definitely will have more success recruiting DFW than you will further south like Houston.
But Toyota is moving NA HQ from LA to Plano, talking 20K white collar jobs.
The Consultation declined to declare independence and installed an interim government, whose infighting led to political paralysis and a dearth of effective governance in Texas. An ill-conceived proposal to invade Matamoros siphoned much-needed volunteers and provisions from the fledgling Texas army. In March 1836, a second political convention declared independence and appointed leadership for the new Republic of Texas.
Determined to avenge Mexico's honor, President Antonio López de Santa Anna vowed to personally retake Texas. His Army of Operations entered Texas in mid-February 1836 and found the Texians completely unprepared. Mexican General José de Urrea led a contingent of troops on the Goliad Campaign up the Texas coast, defeating all Texian troops in his path and executing most of those who surrendered. Santa Anna led a larger force to San Antonio de Béxar (or Béxar), where his troops defeated the Texian garrison in the Battle of the Alamo, killing almost all of the defenders.
For the next month, a newly created Texian army under the command of Sam Houston steadily retreated towards the border with Louisiana; terrified civilians fled with the army, in a melee known as the Runaway Scrape. On March 31, Houston paused his men at Groce's Landing on the Brazos River, and for the next two weeks, the Texians received rigorous military training. Becoming complacent and underestimating the strength of his foes, Santa Anna further subdivided his troops. On April 21, Houston's army staged a surprise assault on Santa Anna and his vanguard force at the Battle of San Jacinto. The Mexican troops were quickly routed, and vengeful Texians executed many who tried to surrender. Santa Anna was taken hostage; in exchange for his life, he ordered the Mexican army to retreat south of the Rio Grande. Mexico refused to recognize the Republic of Texas, and intermittent conflicts between the two nations continued into the 1840s. The annexation of Texas as the 28th state of the United States, in 1845, led directly to the Mexican–American War.