https://247sports.com/college/texas/Arti...-111830399

Doubt Littrell leaves, but would be very intriguing to see Wilson there. Especially if they kept Traylor. Those two on the recruiting trail would be able to pull in some very solid players.

It would not be a good sign to see CUSA head coaches leaving to lead other G5 programs. I expect coaches to jump at cartel jobs, but we need to be able to compete with and hold our own against the SB, AAC, MAC and MW. I hope UTSA and UNT step up with big money to keep those guys. If we can't go head to head with them, we're in trouble.

(12-06-2017 03:47 PM)monarx Wrote:  It would not be a good sign to see CUSA head coaches leaving to lead other G5 programs. I expect coaches to jump at cartel jobs, but we need to be able to compete with and hold our own against the SB, AAC, MAC and MW. I hope UTSA and UNT step up with big money to keep those guys. If we can't go head to head with them, we're in trouble.

I was thinking this way too.

I don't think either would be a good fit for the SMU "culture". I'm not worried at all about Littrell leaving for SMU and I doubt Wilson would go. I think they both have bigger opportunities in their futures.

I think Frank Wilson has eye on the SEC only. Taking a pit stop at SMU is not going to do anything for him when he is already paid very well at UTSA. But who knows, right? He may not be fond of UTSA's new AD or something else entirely.

SMU was paying Chad Morris $2,095,793

Seth Littrell, $991,416
Frank Wilson $1,137,500

SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

(12-06-2017 04:29 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  SMU was paying Chad Morris $2,095,793

Seth Littrell, $991,416
Frank Wilson $1,137,500

I wouldn't think it's a big enough jump for either of them. It's probably easier to recruit to SMU than UTSA though.

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

SMU is basically a Big XII school stuck in a small conference because of that death penalty. They have money, academics, and were always strong in the Southwest Conference. On the other hand, Rice and Houston have always sucked.

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:29 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  SMU was paying Chad Morris $2,095,793

Seth Littrell, $991,416
Frank Wilson $1,137,500

I wouldn't think it's a big enough jump for either of them. It's probably easier to recruit to SMU than UTSA though.

Maybe the AAC over CUSA I would think but not SMU over UTSA. When ever I read quotes from UTSA commits they always mention the coaching staff first and playing in the Dome.

Well, one of those coaches has contacted us.

Hint: only three initials in their abbreviated name

(12-06-2017 04:58 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Well, one of those coaches has contacted us.

Hint: only three initials in their abbreviated name

Seth? Well he wouldn't have to move

(12-06-2017 04:53 PM)Digi368 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:29 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  SMU was paying Chad Morris $2,095,793

Seth Littrell, $991,416
Frank Wilson $1,137,500

I wouldn't think it's a big enough jump for either of them. It's probably easier to recruit to SMU than UTSA though.

Maybe the AAC over CUSA I would think but not SMU over UTSA. When ever I read quotes from UTSA commits they always mention the coaching staff first and playing in the Dome.

If anything it's SMU over UTSA. If Wilson is trying to recruit Louisiana..People in Louisiana don't know UTSA. They know SMU.

(12-06-2017 04:50 PM)RougeDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

SMU is basically a Big XII school stuck in a small conference because of that death penalty. They have money, academics, and were always strong in the Southwest Conference. On the other hand, Rice and Houston have always sucked.

The lack of fans is SMU's biggest downfall.

(12-06-2017 03:47 PM)monarx Wrote:  It would not be a good sign to see CUSA head coaches leaving to lead other G5 programs. I expect coaches to jump at cartel jobs, but we need to be able to compete with and hold our own against the SB, AAC, MAC and MW. I hope UTSA and UNT step up with big money to keep those guys. If we can't go head to head with them, we're in trouble.

You're missing the point - what's not a good sign is when other G5 schools are paying their HC's 2 or 3 times the amount than what CUSA coaches are being paid.

USM is paying Jay Hopson 500k. What's the ROI? 15-10 record, 2 consecutive bowl appearances (1 win, other TBD)...not a bad ROI when you consider how much he's being paid relative to some other conference members and G5 schools.

(12-06-2017 06:16 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 03:47 PM)monarx Wrote:  It would not be a good sign to see CUSA head coaches leaving to lead other G5 programs. I expect coaches to jump at cartel jobs, but we need to be able to compete with and hold our own against the SB, AAC, MAC and MW. I hope UTSA and UNT step up with big money to keep those guys. If we can't go head to head with them, we're in trouble.

You're missing the point - what's not a good sign is when other G5 schools are paying their HC's 2 or 3 times the amount than what CUSA coaches are being paid.

USM is paying Jay Hopson 500k. What's the ROI? 15-10 record, 2 consecutive bowl appearances (1 win, other TBD)...not a bad ROI when you consider how much he's being paid relative to some other conference members and G5 schools.

USM gets no help from the state (literally and figuratively), while many other schools are propped up by state mandates, oil money and state bail outs.

(12-06-2017 03:47 PM)monarx Wrote:  It would not be a good sign to see CUSA head coaches leaving to lead other G5 programs. I expect coaches to jump at cartel jobs, but we need to be able to compete with and hold our own against the SB, AAC, MAC and MW. I hope UTSA and UNT step up with big money to keep those guys. If we can't go head to head with them, we're in trouble.

If the pay levels were even or even close to even, I agree. Unfortunately they aren't.

(12-06-2017 04:50 PM)RougeDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

SMU is basically a Big XII school stuck in a small conference because of that death penalty. They have money, academics, and were always strong in the Southwest Conference. On the other hand, Rice and Houston have always sucked.

.
What am I missing when you say "have always sucked"? I know Rice has had some really good teams but it has been a while and Houston has also had some terrific teams, even recently. Not a Texas native so you are suggesting from a money and academics point? Which I know Rice is a fine academics university. What are you saying then?

(12-06-2017 06:41 PM)Franko Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:50 PM)RougeDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

SMU is basically a Big XII school stuck in a small conference because of that death penalty. They have money, academics, and were always strong in the Southwest Conference. On the other hand, Rice and Houston have always sucked.

.
What am I missing when you say "have always sucked"? I know Rice has had some really good teams but it has been a while and Houston has also had some terrific teams, even recently. Not a Texas native so you are suggesting from a money and academics point? Which I know Rice is a fine academics university. What are you saying then?

The only time SMU has been good in the "modern era" (and he even that was 30-40 years ago), was when they were paying players.

Their historic record is below .500, about 20-30 basis points higher than Rice (aka not much). TCU has also been terrible for much of their existence, with no Top 25 finishes from 1959 to 2000.

(12-06-2017 04:58 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Well, one of those coaches has contacted us.

Hint: only three initials in their abbreviated name

I could see SL being the pick of those 2. I think Wilson's star is fading some. Littrell has done a heck of a job at nt.