I have a friend who used to be a scout for big time football programs, and he told me that mack's whole recruting strategy is a big reason we keep losing these kids to ou, lsu, etc. That whole "We are Texas" and kids should beg to play for us motto does not matter to an inner city kid whose family most likely did not attend college and did not grow up rooting for UT. I would say for the most part the people who watch college football and breathe and die UT football are the people who come from college educated families and whose family members attended UT(unless you live in Austin, in which case everyone likes the longhorns since there are no other hometown sports to cheer for). Kids in Houston and Dallas are bigger fans of the nfl, nba, moreso than college football because those are their hometown teams.

I think that Mack needs to change his recruiting philosophy and go after the best players available in the US, sure he will lose some battles but he will also win some. Carroll, Stoops, and Meyer get big time oos recruits every year but they also lose some big ones but it does not affect their recruiting strategy. Mack seems to get his feelings hurt when these guys choose to go somewhere else. My friend also told me that he was recruiting a big time kid from texas who chose OU because he was baffled at the thought that Mack did not want him if he visited other schools, so he committed early to OU just to spite Mack Brown.

We seem a bit arrogant to outsiders, I hear.  I remember when we used to argue around these parts (some still do) that Mack can't coach.  After all, he's actually okay.  

But one thing we used to know was that Coach February could recruit.  Now, we know better.  Oh, well ... we're Texas.  

Those who study Mack closely know that he has certain numbers/stats that guide his coaching philosophy (arguably to a fault), namely winning explosive plays and turnovers.  The team is coached around that basic philosophy, and it's a pretty proven formula.  

I am betting here that he has done some of the same cost-benefit/numerical analysis re: recruiting. That is, there is a diminishing return on going after out-of-staters at some point, unless certain factors are present.  

Could we do more out-of-state?  Perhaps.  Maybe we would have done so this year, but for D. Scott's mama.  

And by the way ... parental influence is big in a lot of these deals.  

And who said that Mack is the problem re: losing players to OU.  I seem to recall that their roster has been loaded with Texans since the leather helmet era. And LSU has always had a lot of players from Texas, as well.    

While its true that the recruiting services find the top talent, no one needs them to do that.  Mack recruits a particular type of player - one with decent to strong academics, a team-first approach, and a good character person.  Last time I checked, Rivals isn't ranking guys based on what type of citizens they are.  This is one of the biggest pluses to developing that type of in-state network - Mack does a lot for the local coaches and in turn they do a lot for him.  Their is no way to take this sort of philosphy out of state - you just don't have the man power to do it. Plus, what is the point?  There are always a handful of 5* and dozens of great 4* athletes in the state, and we don't get all of them as it is.   To that end, the Texas arguement is why spend all those resources to "discover" a guy out of state, when instead you can "develop" those in-state guys through summer camps and relationships w/ HS coaches?

If your argument is we have to increase the pool of candidates, then the response is the further you get from home the less likely someone wants to come to you.  Why broaden your search for diminishing returns? If the opportunity/cost to a national recruiting approach is better evaluation and selection of local talent then I would make the same choice every day of the week.

Lastly, take a look at the AAS Fab 55 for the past few years.  Guys that became superstars were not always in the top 10 or 15, and conversely guys that were did not always pan out.  The same can be said of the national lists or even more so.  In the end its personal evaluation from coaches that matter, not necessarily what a recruiting service says.  I'd put more stock in a class like this year's - one filled with high quality 4 star guys and several underrated 3 star guys - then in a similar class comprised of out of state players because there will always be more doubt that the out of state guys will pan out than the in state guys. You've seen the local guys, they're already a part of the family and not to mention you know who they were competing against.

i feel, as well as some other sources I have talked with, that Mack has gotten kind of lazy with recruiting after winning the mnc. Mack used to be the main one recruiting these prospects now it seems like its more of the assistant coaches handling the recruiting. Why was Kennedy calling D. Scott days before signing day when it would obviously be more effective to have the head coach give the final pitch to a top recruit. It seems like the top recruiters like Carroll and Meyer have a more one-on-one relationship with these blue chippers. Russell Shepard was saying how Rich Rodriguez was at one of his practices watching him throw and Meyer was contacting him directly. Id like to see Mack do the same. But then again what do I know

"We brought in 22 young men and signed 20 of them, and that’s just phenomenal that our coaches have done such a great job of evaluating exactly who they want."

....I can't help but wonder how great this class might have been, had we invited 40 fine young men to visit our fabulous campus and city.

No one is going to argue that N.C. is a great place for recruiting. M.B. was a good recruiter before he got to Texas - how'd he build that reputation before he came to a talent rich state?

Is that we have a family environment. Mack Brown is a good man, a family man, and he takes care of the kids. Mack is not known to be a cuthroat coach who has a "do whatever it takes" attitude.

What does this mean? That the type of players we are recruiting, the ones that will be interested, are kids with strong family ties. What does that mean? That it will be difficult to get them to move too far away from where they're from.

The kids that are willing to go anywhere to play ball are the kids that have a "do whatever it takes" mentality that wanna play for similar minded coaches, i.e. the Pete Carroll, Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops and Steve Spurriers of the world.

Only recruiting Texas has its issues. Like someone said, we are much less flexible when it comes to positional need. But at the same time, when we don't go out of state that often, it is easy for Mack to sell a "you are so special to the University of Texas that we were actually willing to go OOS to get you, where we would have normally not done it for anyone else".

We all agree that recruiting all over the country would provide more flexibility, but at the same time, is much less reliable. We can't pretend that we can recruit the entire country and still maintain the same control over Texas. The uncertainty of the quality at a certain position in state is about the same as the uncertainty of getting a highly touted OOS prospect.

Also, one other reminder: one of the main reasons OU cleaned up the elite prospects in Texas is because OU will have a lot of players leave after this year, and there will be playing time opportunities for a lot of players (Good, Washington), whereas UT was stacked at those particular positions. Look at the OU depth chart and you'll realize rather quickly why Good and Washington were interested in committing there.

PB,

Excellent analysis.  Not only does Mack's philosophy hint of complacency, but also arrogance and laziness.  First, it is arrogant to tell a recruit that if UT is not their one and only choice we are not interested in them.  Second, if you recuit only those players dying to come to UT, that makes your job alot easier.  You don't have to sell the program, you don't have to woo the player.  And speaking of wooing, I wonder if Mack Brown had the same philosophy when he was dating.  Would he refuse to ask a girl out unless she had interest in no one other than him?  As you said, limits the pool of prospects.

I would have to agree with Mack for the most part. Recruiting for UT is different. Texas has rich history, resources of every type - and plentifull to boot, as well as being the flagship program in the most athletically talent laden state in the nation. For these reasons, I think it is good that he plays up the "stay at home and represent" angle. In my view it is a good process to weed out the kids that are "me first" types. He wants & gets the kids that feel humbled and honored to wear the Burnt Orange.

As a former athlete, I was recruited by D-1 schools (though not the caliber of UT) to play baseball. I would have given my left **** to  play at UT.  My feelings were that as a Texan who learned to play in Texas little leagues, played in Texas high schools, was coached and taught by Texas people in general, that I owed it to my tutors. It would have been the best way to say "Thank You" to those who brought me up, by staying in state and playing for the flagship.

Perhaps Im different or old fashioned, but I beleive that for the most part (and there are exceptions) that kids who have that overwhelming feeling of "owing their state" are less selfish by nature, and therefore make better players and teamates.  

As all here know, there are exceptions to most rules, but if what was mentioned about a couple of OU recruits not liking the fact that Brown plays up the "stay at home" card is true, then what does that say about THEM? Frankly, if you are an athlete and have not developed any allegiance to a team that reps your home turf, you are more than likely a selfish prima donna who needs the "your the greatest", or the "we need you more than you need us", or the "your so special" treatment. Let the other guys get the "me first" players, and we'll get the "I will run through a brick wall for Texas" guys.

P.S.  I would like to know which school the scout mentioned in an earlier post works for. Frankly, criticizing Brown with regards to recruiting is pretty silly.    

While I agree with your general premise, the graph is speculation at best.  I understand you were just trying to make your point without an awkward sentence or two, but a nice big disclaimer stating "NOT REAL DATA" would've been nice.

It would have avoided me (math major) going into hysterics.