PonyFans.com

It is barely February, and we are already jonesing on a prediction thread....it is going to be a silly-good year on Ponyfans, and watching this team surprise us, others, and themselves.

7 wins and a bowl game win, and I will be ecstatic! Definitely possible but anything can happen - injuries, etc. Arkansas St is going to be tough. We need to win all home (AAC) games. That will be critical.

No expectations.

ericdickerson4life wrote:No expectations.

channeling your inner jstang...

lollaperuna wrote:SMU would be insane to fire CM next year for anything other than murder or rape. Way too much butt hurt on this board over the blowouts that occurred last year and the fact we didn't go for it every fourth down. Real easy to forget that the man was handed the keys to a Yugo and in year two of a complete overhaul he lost his starting QB and RB.

I think we are going to see big improvement this year, but Stallion is right about expectations being a tad too high.

Fireable offenses = murder , rape , having negotiations with another school become public during
the season * I'd have fired his [deleted] last year....sorry I'm tired of coaches doing this !!




* see dumpster fire known as Baylor University

ponypatrick wrote:

lollaperuna wrote:SMU would be insane to fire CM next year for anything other than murder or rape. Way too much butt hurt on this board over the blowouts that occurred last year and the fact we didn't go for it every fourth down. Real easy to forget that the man was handed the keys to a Yugo and in year two of a complete overhaul he lost his starting QB and RB.

I think we are going to see big improvement this year, but Stallion is right about expectations being a tad too high.

Fireable offenses = murder , rape , having negotiations with another school become public during
the season * I'd have fired his [deleted] last year....sorry I'm tired of coaches doing this !!




* see dumpster fire known as Baylor University

Fireable offenses? Those are resume builders for Baylor. They need coaches with previous "experience".

TidePony wrote: 8-4 is absolutely possible.

6-6 and a complimentary bowl game allows Chad to escape the Hilltop, SMU promises the new guy an IPF and renovation of the offices begins.

ponypatrick wrote:Fireable offenses = murder , rape , having negotiations with another school become public during the season * I'd have fired his [deleted] last year....sorry I'm tired of coaches doing this !!

Then you are delusional. We are not a large school. We are not in a P5 conference. We have a history of mediocrity and poor fan support. As alumni, we may love SMU, but why should new coaches have such great dedication to SMU?

I don't get all the anger about talking to another school. If someone offered you an extra $2M dollars to do the same job somewhere else, are you telling me that you wouldn't at least hear them out? AND, he stayed. I think that shows at least a little bit of dedication. I never thought he was interested in Baylor. It was a negotiating tactic. He got himself a raise and an extension. He got his coaches a raise. He got guarantees on the IPF. Well played.

I think getting angry is fine, it just needs to be directed in the right direction, if Chad leaves, the idea we promise the new candidate an IPF is laughable, it's the same promise made to June and Chad. Somehow our promises don't ring true. Chad has been pretty vocal about what he was promised from day one. It is highly unlikely anyone will ever believe us again.

Mexmustang wrote:I think getting angry is fine, it just needs to be directed in the right direction, if Chad leaves, the idea we promise the new candidate an IPF is laughable, it's the same promise made to June and Chad. Somehow our promises don't ring true. Chad has been pretty vocal about what he was promised from day one. It is highly unlikely anyone will ever believe us again.

Explain to me how the school is responsible for ALUMNI DONORS backing out? That's why Chad called out people to donate at the signing day event. It's the reality of the situation, so the school isn't "breaking promises."

sail420s wrote:

ponypatrick wrote: He got himself a raise and an extension. He got his coaches a raise. He got guarantees on the IPF. Well played.

Sounds nice but he actually got neither.

PerunasHoof wrote:

Mexmustang wrote:I think getting angry is fine, it just needs to be directed in the right direction, if Chad leaves, the idea we promise the new candidate an IPF is laughable, it's the same promise made to June and Chad. Somehow our promises don't ring true. Chad has been pretty vocal about what he was promised from day one. It is highly unlikely anyone will ever believe us again.

Explain to me how the school is responsible for ALUMNI DONORS backing out? That's why Chad called out people to donate at the signing day event. It's the reality of the situation, so the school isn't "breaking promises."

If the school (or anyone) makes a promise without any caveats then they are responsible for it and can't point to some other circumstance to claim they did not break a promise. If they said "we will build an ipf" instead of "we will build an ipf if we are able to raise the money" those are two very different things.

Now, I would guess the communication was somewhere in between, like "we are confident our alumni donors will provide the funds to build the ipf", so there is wiggle room on both sides in that case.

actually what was verbally promised by alumni or even representatives of school probably didn't survive the merger/integration clause of his written contract. If its not in his contract there is likely no enforceable covenant. He had competent legal representation to get it in writing

I was not trying to address what is legally enforceable since I have not seen the contract. My point is if someone from the school promised the IPF would be built without adding the "if we are able to raise the money" then they misled him. If an alum told him that he (the alum) was going to donate the money for the IPF to be built then the alum misled him.

It does not have to be in the contract to create an environment of mistrust and disappointment.

Again, I am sure chad knew money needed to be raised but he might have thought it was more of a sure thing to get the money raised than it turned out to be.

Here's some truth that bears repeating every time this comes up: instead of a beautiful ipf on mockingbird we have a beautiful tennis facility. You can thank June Jones for that one next time you drive by.