|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Jun 2, 2010 14:40:53 GMT -8
The three San Diegans in the Class of 2011 Top 250 are Vista High cornerback Stefan McClure, ranked No. 131; San Diego Point Loma defensive tackle Christian Heyward, No. 160; and San Diego Cathedral Catholic defensive tackle Mustafa Jalil, No. 192.
San Diego State head coach Brady Hoke has offered all three of the San Diegans, which follows his pattern of offering the best talent from San Diego in an effort to compete with BCS schools.
ASR has previously written about all three players and asked about their interest in San Diego State.
McClure (5-11, 170) has 10 offers, including Pac-10 schools with football and track and field programs. McClure said he is interested in seeing SDSU keep local four-star talent home, but the Aztecs don't have a men's track and field program, and he wants to compete in football and track in college. McClure told ASR, "That's hurting San Diego State a lot to not have a track program or any plans to start one in the future."
Heyward (6-2, 269) has 17 offers, but he said he's open to staying home. He told ASR, "I've talked with Coach Hoke and coach (LeCharls) McDaniel. I want to get to know the coaches and check out the facilities and the education. I want to know what kind of people they have running the program and feel comfortable with them."
Jalil (6-4, 300) is a story SDSU fans would rather not be reminded of. He committed to SDSU in November, 2009 before de-committing in April for Cal.
|
|
|
|
Post by nebraztec on Jun 2, 2010 16:20:34 GMT -8
Jalil wanted to become the best rated "d" tackle in the country. But it seems like ever since he commited to Cal his ratings have gone down. Now he's not even the highest rated tackle in town let alone the country. Somewhere along the line his head got screwed up. But best of luck kid---we could have used you!
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Jun 2, 2010 17:07:15 GMT -8
Jalil wanted to become the best rated "d" tackle in the country. But it seems like ever since he commited to Cal his ratings have gone down. Now he's not even the highest rated tackle in town let alone the country. Somewhere along the line his head got screwed up. But best of luck kid---we could have used you! It's called karma! |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuphilip on Jun 2, 2010 17:19:57 GMT -8
Im sure tom would appreciate it if you do not post his articles in its entirety
|
|
|
|
Post by Old School on Jun 2, 2010 20:33:57 GMT -8
Jalil is one flaky kid with a big mouth. He'll be great in sales.  Oldie Out |
|
|
|
Post by wolfstartec on Jun 3, 2010 6:05:55 GMT -8
Our chances in landing any of the first two players are...
|
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Jun 3, 2010 6:34:47 GMT -8
Our chances in landing any of the first two players are... Rather low for McClure unless title IX is revoked and SDSU forms a mens track team within the next few months. Heyward sounds like we have somewhat of a shot (at least Hoke is talking to him) but who knows. Also I would imagine that Hoke has not given up on Jalil and it would not suprise me if SDSU shows signs of improvements that we may hear rumblings about him again. |
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Jun 3, 2010 6:57:47 GMT -8
Jalil is one flaky kid with a big mouth. He'll be great in sales. Oldie Out Who cares about Jalil? What really matters is the great photo Oldie psotted. That's going to be the wallpaper on my laptop for the forseeable future. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 3, 2010 10:38:22 GMT -8
The issue of SDSU's not having a men's track team is interesting. If it were determined that a significant number of top recruits are lost because we don't have such a team, we might seriously want to consider what it would take to start one. Here's a question for all of you. How many participants would we need for a men's track team. Ten? Fifteen? Twenty? Or  Since we are in Division I in all sports, must a school offer scholarships for a track team? If so, how many? I'm pretty sure that it's okay to award partial scholarships. Would some track athletes participate without even a partial scholarship? Worth thinking about. As for Title IX, the thing is probably here to stay. Only if there were a credible threat of the extinction of college football, with the resulting demise of all minor sports teams (i.e, just about every single women's team except, perhaps, basketball) would the champions of Title IX wake up to reality. AzWm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 11:33:57 GMT -8
The issue of SDSU's not having a men's track team is interesting. If it were determined that a significant number of top recruits are lost because we don't have such a team, we might seriously want to consider what it would take to start one. Here's a question for all of you. How many participants would we need for a men's track team. Ten? Fifteen? Twenty? Or Since we are in Division I in all sports, must a school offer scholarships for a track team? If so, how many? I'm pretty sure that it's okay to award partial scholarships. Would some track athletes participate without even a partial scholarship? Worth thinking about. As for Title IX, the thing is probably here to stay. Only if there were a credible threat of the extinction of college football, with the resulting demise of all minor sports teams (i.e, just about every single women's team except, perhaps, basketball) would the champions of Title IX wake up to reality. AzWm When I ran track, I was not under scholarship. From what I remember, there were something like 6 scholarships on the men's side. And yes, some people were awarded partial scholarships but mostly, people were non-scholarship. There were lots of people on the team: at least half a dozen sprinters, 3-4 middle distance guys, another group of distance runners including the cross-country team, 2-3 triple jumpers, 2-3 long jumpers, 1-2 high jumpers, 1-2 decathletes, 3-4 high hurdlers, 1-2 400 meter hurdlers, 1-2 shotputters, 2-3 hammer, discus and javelin throwers...in other words, most of the team was non-scholarship. I don't know about title IX - it might not be just the number of scholarships handed out to male athletes but also the number of participants. If a large men's team is assembled, it might require a large expansion in women's teams/sports. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 3, 2010 11:47:00 GMT -8
nielsbohr writes . . .
I don't know about title IX - it might not be just the number of scholarships handed out to male athletes but also the number of participants. If a large men's team is assembled, it might require a large expansion in women's teams/sports.
I believe you are correct on that point. So, theoretically, you could have a men's track team, none of whom receive scholarships, coached by an unpaid, volunteer walk-on coach, and Title IX would still demand that the school add more women's teams to "balance" the opportunities. I find this really offensive.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 3, 2010 11:47:06 GMT -8
It's easy to think of skill positions in football going to schools to run track, but throwing shot and discus is something some big uglies consider too. Not sure if the still are, but UCLA has had one of the best throwing programs in the world.
|
|
Since we are in Division I in all sports, must a school offer scholarships for a track team? If so, how many? I'm pretty sure that it's okay to award partial scholarships.