Maybe a dozen or so gullible Longhorn fans bought the Brew's hogwash??
But the evidence is in, Bob_Loblaw:
1. Texas recruited well when the Brew was down there...and they've recruited every bit as well, if not better, since he left in 2001...
2. The Brew recruited OK while in dinkytown, but not appreciably better than Mase before him, or Jerry Kill since...
The one thing Brew had us focusing on was his ability to reel in the big fish...well, I will wait to see how many of his Gopher recruits (i.e. the electrifying Harold Howell) get an invite to Indy.
But with the evidence presented so far, it is clear the Brew oversold himself to the Minnesota masses in a borderline criminal way.
He couldn't recruit...he couldn't coach...he wasn't "one of us"...glad he's in Starkville...good riddance
Why are you trying to convince me? I simply said what they think. It's like if I said that the Manson Family thought that if they killed a bunch of people in LA, it would start a race war and bring on the apocolypse and you responded to me by showing me reasons why that is absurd.
I was simply speaking to the tone of what I've heard from most of die hard Longhorns' fans. I wasn't speaking to the validity of their belief. If you have a problem with their belief, log on to their site and talk about it amongst them.
As far as the "dozens" comment, well, that's a bizarre way to look at that thread. It's a somewhat random sample of Longhorn die hards, if we started a thread about Brew and 30 people ripped on him out of 35 people in a thread, I don't think you'd come to the conclusion that just 30 Gopher fans disliked Brew. It's a sample of the larger population.
OK, on to the logical fallacy of your argument.
I'll start off by saying that I don't think it matters if Brew is in Austin, I think they'd always recruit really well. That said, I don't follow it closely enough to know about the key recruiting battles that some of them claim Brew could have helped on. I'm with you though, I doubt their classes would have been much better with Brew.
First, you claim that they've recruited better since Brew left than they recruited with Brew there. That's fine, the recruiting rankings show that exact thought.
However, Texas (with players who were recruited after Brew left) has been worse than they were while playing with players who were brought in while Brew was the coach. With players brought in while Brew was there, they won a Nat'l Championship. Texas was more succesful from 2000 - 2005 (teams dominated with players recruited while Brew was there) than they were before or after.
Therefore, if you judge recruiting by the product on the field, you're wrong. Those teams were better recruited than they've been since.
However, since you argue that recruiting is as good if not better now, you have to be using the first criteria to judge recruiting (rankings).
Now, oddly, you have flipped that criteria in your second bit of "evidence". You are now arguing that Brew didn't outrecruit Mason and Kill by much. That's a completely valid argument, but it's using the second criteria of judging recruiting (on field results).
It's illogical to use a different standard for judging different things to prove your point.
Either you judge recruiting by the recruiting rankings, and therefore Brew was a considerably better recruiter than Mason or Kill.
OR
You judge recruiting by the on-field results, in which case Texas recruited much better with Brew than without him.
