Zem seems to have a better grasp of LA recruiting than anything else I have seen. He generally seems pretty high on the quality of our recruits and follows Tulane closely. I wonder if he feels that McNeese and Tulane go after the same recruits?

What I find interesting about his latest report is his lack of respect for West Virginia (among others) going after partial qualifiers. He basically insinuates that it seems to be their strategy. I must say (and I never thought I would say this), but, recruiting-wise, Scelfo seems to run rings around RR. RR is getting some recruits, few that would ever get into a Tulane grade-wise, and really has had a hard time with getting blue chips, especially at the QB position, which you think would be a lock for him. In fact, people there tell me that the fans are getting restless, they are now starting to question his ability to build the program. I wouldn't say he is on the hot seat, but he may be after the 2005 season. Perhaps Cam can confirm or deny.

Looks like we may have hired the right guy after all, if program building is the objective.



Re W Va.

You sign 35 players - you know 10 won't qualify, but those 10 are the ones that propel you in the recruiting rankings. Fans like being ranked in recruiting.
Then you play ball with the core of your class.
You hope that some of those that didn't qualify will straighten out in prep or JC, and then come back to you (although if that happens, more schools will wnat them).
If you didn't recruit the props, you'd have the core to play ball with but no recruiting rankings.
It's sort of a waste of energy, but I see why he does it.


Saban built his program at LSU on the same philosophy RR is using. Recruit the bluest of the blue chippers. Dam the grades. Some will pull their grades out in the end and LSU will carry them through their eligibility if they pan out. Guys like Nate Livings and Lester Lavalais may not have grades good enough to get into reform school, but they could play football. Sign 30 recruits a year (20 partials.) If 10 of the partials make it, you have a very solid class. Off the field complications are a risk though. I think I'll stick with Scelfo.

Quote:Saban built his program at LSU on the same philosophy RR is using. Recruit the bluest of the blue chippers. Dam the grades. Some will pull their grades out in the end and LSU will carry them through their eligibility if they pan out. Guys like Nate Livings and Lester Lavalais may not have grades good enough to get into reform school, but they could play football. Sign 30 recruits a year (20 partials.) If 10 of the partials make it, you have a very solid class. Off the field complications are a risk though. I think I'll stick with Scelfo.

I agree with you. While it's great to win, it's also important to me to do it the right way. Would Tulane fans be happy if we took in partial qualifiers, semi-criminals, JC's, etc., but won the national championship? Sure, some would, but, to me, it would be like doing something unethical to make your fortune. Nice to have the money, but a feeling of sleaze about it.
Scelfo does it the right way, recruits the right kind of kids, and doesn't complain about academic restrictions. For that, we owe it to ourselves and to him to allow him the time to build the program to the point of being consistent winners.

Why is it so bad for Tulane to take a JUCO? Wouldn't Tulane only take a JUCO that met their standards or it is rule that privates don't accept JUCOs at all?

I do not know if there are people who want to get rid of Scelfo because he isn't recruiting the right kids or not. When we played Tulane, in football, I noticed that you have just as much talent as UH does. I personally would can Scelfo because he is not utilizing your talent correctly. Same with your basketball coach (You guys should be playing an uptempo game). I think a lot of coaches get jobs at the private schools where the pressure to win is not that high and they coast and do just enough to make the fans happy.

Tulane went undefeated and since the Scelfo has been there he has ran you guys into the ground.

It isn't that Tulane can't, or won't take JUCO's. The problem is that JUCO's generally take a course load of subjects that will not transfer to Tulane. Transferrable hours are hours that meet the requirements toward graduation in a specific descipline. Tulane's academic schedules often require higher level courses than what are available at JUCO's, therefore, not enough transferrable hours.

With regard to Scelfo, he is doing an outstanding job. He is doing his best to recruit players who can play football, as well as meet the rigorous academic demands of Tualne. Yes, Tulane does have the same talent level as Houston, but they are much younger and less experienced. As they grow you will see a great deal of improvement in their play. For instance, Tulane graduated three offensive and three defensive players. Of the offensive and defensive lines Tulane had one senior. The defense was freshmen laden. Many feel that Tulane will have a watershed season this upcoming year, but the following year shoud be even better.

Bowden had inherited a squad stuffed with good players. During Bowden's time at Tulane he prosperred on Teeven's recruits without restocking. When Scelfo took over he was left with huge gaps in the depth of the chart. He has worked to build, not just a team, but a program. And, as he matures he has been developing into a better coach.

I'm not sure if you are on target with your assessment of private schools and their expectations. I do know that each school has a mission and some view the academic side as sacred. They view sports as an adjunct to student life. Others have a looser view.

We both have young teams. We were playing a lot of true sophomores, RS freshman and a couple of true freshmen ourselves.

Thanks for your explanation on JUCOs. As for your statements on Scelfo only time will tell.

We played 11 true freshmen and 5 RS freshmen.