247sports.com
i sold baylor tickets in boykins senior year a week before the game for $350/ ea. - weather was so awful at kickoff they were giving tickets away.
The weather was awful but it just became part of it and it was one of my most fun experiences at a TCU game. It gave me the sads this year thinking of how far the program had fallen when we couldn’t come close to that crowd for our last home game against UT in the foreseeable future on a beautiful day. I hope that we get that back soon.
Moronic take. That's not all he beat up on.
There were very few (if any) 2 stars on those 2014-2017 teams. Those were very talented teams comprised of fairly highly recruited players. If there was a notable exception to that it would probably be Doctson.
My then first grade daughter and I stayed until the bitter end. Most fun I’ve ever had at a TCU game.
Doctson and Derrick Kindred
When we were built on "Texas two-stars"? That was the overwhelming number of wins. From 2001-2007 or so when Patterson was "building" the program, our P5 wins were what? Northwestern 3-9 in 2002, 6-6 in 2004), Vanderbilt (2-10), Arizona (2-10), Texas Tech (8-5), Oklahoma (8-4), Iowa State (7-5), and Baylor (4-8 in 2006, 3-9 in 2007). Losses to Nebraska, Texas Tech, Texas, and Texas A&M? If I recall, we only beat two teams in those six years that finished the year ranked (Louisville in 2001, OU in 2005).
I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone has ever said recruiting doesn't matter. If so, point it out and I'll enjoy some crow.
The underlying message here sure appears to be that 2* / 3* teams were stronger than teams filled with highly recruited athletes, if that's not the case then disregard. I think it's pretty clear the opposite is true, and the teams and classes that we put together back then are not at the level we would need them to be today, regardless of the chip on their shoulder, because the level of competition ramped up significantly in 2012 (as we saw in 2012 and 2013, obviously). Sure, there are the occasional diamonds in the rough, just as there still will be today, and nobody got more out of them than Patterson, but they are the exceptions rather than the rules.
I'll agree with you for certain that GP got more from less than any other coach out there. As I stated above, even with the low-starred players we held our own in the BigXII for the first few years (certainly better than was expected) with no appreciable increase in "star power." I don't think anyone claims those teams were stronger, but if you look at the statistics, it's hard to argue against the fact that the more stars we've had, the lower we've performed. I am firmly in the camp that Patterson didn't adapt to that caliber of player well enough to get what we expected, much less what we needed, out of them. I don't think that means the teams were "stronger", but one could argue that they were "better."
Heard it said quite often back in 2009 and 2010 that those teams were as good anyone in the country and the Top 5 rankings they had were very well justified. And I'm not sure there was a 4 star kid on those teams. If there were, it was very few of them. Are we now conceding that those teams really weren't all that good if we now say that you need 4 and 5 star kids in order to compete with the elite teams? That's what doesn't really compute.
You heard me say that? Where?
Not you. Just TCU fans in general.
I definitely took the "any given Saturday" view of those teams, but would put our Big 12 rosters against just about any of them save maybe for 2009.
A lot of teams you listed there that weren't New Mexico or Wyoming.
