Page 2 of 2

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 7:48 am
by Charleston Pony
Bottom line this year is that the loss to TCU tanked SMU. The frogs were not a very good this year and the committee doesn't know they played their best game of the season against us because they were angry about being upset by a bad Colorado team in their opener. With a one loss (to OU) season SMU would have been ranked higher than an undefeated Liberty and they would be whining

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:28 am
by highlander
Never thought I would say this, but it's unfortunate that TCU lost four 1-score games this year. They could have been 9-3.

There, I said it. Now I need to vomit.

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:32 am
by Terry Webster
I wonder if there were people on the committee who wanted to punish SMU for the way we made our way into the ACC.

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:37 am
by Arkpony
Nothing is beneath these people.

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 10:47 am
by PonyTime
Terry Webster wrote:I wonder if there were people on the committee who wanted to punish SMU for the way we made our way into the ACC.


There were people on the Committee that wanted to punish the ACC. And if you noticed, two of the three highest ranked ACC schools for next season (SMU and FSU) were slighted. NC State was taken care of since their guy was on the committee.

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 11:03 am
by highlander
Football is not gymnastics or figure skating. It should not be left up to judges to decide who the winner is. But that 's what we have in the NCAA. We have it in football, and to a lesser extent, basketball. It can be mitigated in football by expanding the playoffs to 16 teams.

But the fundamental flaw in college sports is its confederation-of-independent-conferences format. That creates an inherently uneven playing field, allows for uneven monetary distribution, and allows power to be concentrated within a portion of the conferences. The only way I see that this could ever be fixed is to give all conferences equal power. You do that by having the winner of ALL conferences be eligible for the playoffs, and have all revenues distributed equally among the conferences.

And then you wake up from the dream.

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 12:49 pm
by redpony
Terry Webster wrote:I wonder if there were people on the committee who wanted to punish SMU for the way we made our way into the ACC.


Terry, I have thought the same thing. I believe there were some including the media and other possible ACC schools who did not like our buying our way in.
Plus the comment 'just a couple of hundred million' likely created some resentment. Possibly causing a 'spoiled rich Texan' impression.

like Rodney Daingerfield- we get no respect.

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:03 pm
by EastStang
UT has caused the break-up of four conferences, directly or indirectly. They blew up the SWC. They went to the Big XII and complained so much that Nebraska, A&M, and Colorado left for other pastures. They then got an offer from the SEC and left the Big XII which raided the PAC 12 and helped to blow it up. So, the question is this: Will the Whorns push hard for FSU and Clemson to jump to the SEC and have set the stage for them to want out of the ACC? Or will they tick off the rest of the SEC that in five years, the SEC loses teams because they're tired of UT's demands and they flee to wait for it, the ACC. I could see several schools all getting a whiff of Austin Cow Patties and wanting out.

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 5:35 pm
by peruna81
SEC will be a wake up call to Texas...and OU...

Being "the voice" as opposed to one of the chorus is going to be a harsh lesson. I expect them to push hard, and complain loudly. Then when they find themselves only that one contributing voice, hand out the diapers and binkies.

An example of this was the past SEC media days, where they sent folks and found out they would not be allowed to participate on the platform.

Arrogance befits a fool.

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:34 pm
by SoCal_Pony
GHammond wrote:1983 10-1 and 6th ranked SMU relegated to the Sun Bowl…1982 Cotton Bowl, beat pre season #1 Pitt, finish 10-0-1 and finish 2nd in the nation to a one loss Joe Peda Penn St squad…Eric has 100+ fewer carries V Hascal Waller who has only 125 more yards, ED had more TD’s and a 2 yard higher per carry stat, yet ED finishes 3rd in the Heisman behind Waller and Elpay. Others????? It’s always been this way, folks.


I remember reading an article about LB’s NIT team that was denied an NCAA tourney bid

It was not written by an SMU fan

They called it a historic snub

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 8:23 pm
by Charleston Pony
SoCal_Pony wrote:
GHammond wrote:1983 10-1 and 6th ranked SMU relegated to the Sun Bowl…1982 Cotton Bowl, beat pre season #1 Pitt, finish 10-0-1 and finish 2nd in the nation to a one loss Joe Peda Penn St squad…Eric has 100+ fewer carries V Hascal Waller who has only 125 more yards, ED had more TD’s and a 2 yard higher per carry stat, yet ED finishes 3rd in the Heisman behind Waller and Elpay. Others????? It’s always been this way, folks.


I remember reading an article about LB’s NIT team that was denied an NCAA tourney bid

It was not written by an SMU fan

They called it a historic snub


If only that SMU team could have beaten Minnesota and given Larry Brown a NIT title to go with his NCAA and NBA titles! Hopefully our football team can beat BC convincingly to back up our complaints

Re: Historic SMU Snubs

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 9:05 pm
by peruna81
We cannot control what a committee did on Sunday. Fussing about it may be cathartic, but it seems wasted energy at best to me. We are SMU...therefore we suffer.

Ah the heck with that nonsense...

What we CAN do is concentrate on those things that we as fans and alumni control...It has always been a money game pure and simple, and we have that. For those that have approached me after the announcement of changing conferences spouting the pious "buying your way into the ACC", my answer is 'absolutely'. For the follow-up of "You guys bought players leading to the Death Penalty", I say 'guilty as charged'. Then I ask "Your point?"

Beating a middling BC team in the cold of Boston is not Phoenix or Atlanta, but it is good. I choose to focus on the $39.26 that I can contribute to the NIL collective, and imagine other ways to increase this revenue avenue. College football will never be fair....but we CAN make it as enjoyable as possible by doing what we do best...buying what we need. We need ( and will need ) players. This will be a tangible way to help. Let the naysayers cry foul, and decry what the sport has become. Let's simply embrace the suck and move forward.

As BUS has stated: Give what you can, and be creative in the way you do it...and beat the absolute mess out of BC in their own hometown.