PonyFans.com

35straight wrote:

mustangxc wrote:

35straight wrote:First time I'd seen this team quit all year. Didn't expect to see that.

So I guess you don't quit if you don't even try to begin with? Did you not see the Memphis game?

No. I was working.

At least the Cats are in the 4th round with a manageable matchup against Victoria East

Baylor, I truly do hope he's your new coach. Get ready for 1/2 of of a great game.

Think we'll get a postcard with the score like we did after the UH game? That was cool.

Junior wrote:Think we'll get a postcard with the score like we did after the UH game? That was cool.

Lolz

Rebel10 wrote:You took JJ's side on that.

Absolutely not true, please don't lie to people.

I have been quite clear in my belief that:
1) we lost 25 years worth of fans.
2) Memphis, Houston, and TU attendance were all horrible before they won.
3) Similar to TCU, we will see a significant uptick once we get to 8 wins consistently, and another big bump when we get to ten wins and are competitive against Big 12 competition.

That is just reality. A .500 season doesn't turn any heads in the Dallas market. We have to establish an actual program on both the basketball and football side of things before we get more diehards that stick out the tough seasons. That means a decade of winning to establish a program.

But players and coaches play to win, regardless of who is on the fans or who is in the stadium. Studies have even shown that the biggest impact a fanbase has is actually on the referees. So, without a big crowd, you don't get the home field advantage. But to insinuate that the players don't try as hard to win because there aren't enough people in the stands is just asinine.

It look to me like a team that believed all the rumors about their coach.

JasonB wrote:

Rebel10 wrote:You took JJ's side on that.

Absolutely not true, please don't lie to people.

I have been quite clear in my belief that:
1) we lost 25 years worth of fans.
2) Memphis, Houston, and TU attendance were all horrible before they won.
3) Similar to TCU, we will see a significant uptick once we get to 8 wins consistently, and another big bump when we get to ten wins and are competitive against Big 12 competition.

That is just reality. A .500 season doesn't turn any heads in the Dallas market. We have to establish an actual program on both the basketball and football side of things before we get more diehards that stick out the tough seasons. That means a decade of winning to establish a program.

But players and coaches play to win, regardless of who is on the fans or who is in the stadium. Studies have even shown that the biggest impact a fanbase has is actually on the referees. So, without a big crowd, you don't get the home field advantage. But to insinuate that the players don't try as hard to win because there aren't enough people in the stands is just asinine.

I have to agree with those points and add that our program stability is always going to be an issue not only for recruitment but fan desire. For instance, say we get 10 wins next season with a top 25 ranking, Chad is gone and things slightly regress and people will think one-off. If we suck or mediocre (JJ's best) then we get the fan size we see today.

SMU scored enough in the first half to keep the game close. Navy got the majority of their yards on big plays. That seems to be a common thread with this team; call it thin on capable players or inexperience, this is a weekly problem. SMU has some weak spots (particularly LBs covering gaps and getting outside of DE. I don't know exactly what kind of coverages SMU uses, but someone has to fill gaps and also play to the sidelines and that usually includes LBs and DBacks. Navy's offense (option oriented) was able to take advantage of our youth and inexperience. Few teams in high school or college still run the Navy style of offense and Navy does it very well. Thus, the team would not be as prepared for such an odd offense as teams they would play most days. When we stopped scoring and started making mistakes Navy ran away with it...that simple. Finally, there is a number (I suggest four touchdowns behind is normal) when a player quits; has a hard time playing an aggressive and disciplined game. After that mistakes lead to carelessness and aggravation and in some cases submission. Games like today are aggravating to everyone including players on the field.

I don't get why everyone seems so un-eager to prep for Navy's offense: you know what you are going to see and how to limit it...so do that.

Do you follow football at all?

Everybody has known what Navy does for 2 decades and no program in the country has been so consistently in the Top 5 in Rushing Offense

Nobody has consistently figured out to stop it-including P5 and ND

How does this team blow out Houston yet also lose BIG to Memphis and Navy at home?

Did UH players come in deflated after Big 12 news and Herman pump up SMU with all his anti-Pony antics?

tristatecoog wrote:
Did UH players come in deflated after Big 12 news and Herman pump up SMU with all his anti-Pony antics?

Yes, plus I heard Houston was pretty banged up that week.

Beating Navy simply involves blowing their offensive line off the ball and disrupting the option. Nothing fancy.
The problem is that Navy gets many of it's players via the prep school route so that they show up as 19 yr old freshmen rather than 18 year olds like other programs. Then a red shirt year and you have 23 yr old seniors. So they can get some mature, developed players well schooled in their offense. May not be the best natural athletes but they are stronger and more disciplined than the 19-20 year old kids they typically play against. Never mind that most schools recruit to play against the spread / air raid ect.

So, it's not rocket science beating Navy but you need some serious dudes to do it. Probably 10-15 teams have the size and speed to blow up Navy AND play against the spread style speed offenses.

We don't have the size or depth to play with them yet. Maybe a few years of recruiting will yield it but not now. Says Capt Obvious.

As a rebuttal, I have faced change both as a player and a coach. I can tell you that a coaching staff does not prepare for an option team more than perhaps a couple of weeks each football season. NOBODY runs this...NOBODY. NAVY may have run it for several years but not as effective as they have this year. NOBODY prepares for it until they play NAVY. If I was to coach again (can't because of football knees from 300 pounders falling on my legs) I would recruit the best line I could and the best running backfield and run an option offense. It has always been BAD NEWS to defenses. Even when EVERYONE ran the option offense and did it well it was BAD NEWS to defenses. That's what made Darrell Royal special - the option. I can tell you the option done with the right players is close to unstoppable. I'm sure that's why SMU tried an on side kick after they scored their first touchdown. They wanted to keep it out of the hands of NAVY because NAVY would probably score on them as soon as they got the ball. Sorry guys but that is the way I see it.
.

Okay, so why isn't Army as successful as Navy? Air Force at home has the added benefit of altitude, but Army is pretty bad. Coaching?