Orsini's Top 25 comment..

[smu2008]

When Orsini was hired he said he goals were top 25 teams (http://smumustangs.cstv.com/genrel/032406aad.html) ...as far as basketball goes when do yall see this being a possibility?? The fact that I am exited about a Georgia Tech transfer is kind of pathetic...but a step in the right direction? What are the chances of the Mustangs breaking the Top 25 in the next few years??
As they say on the radio...long time listener, first time..poster?

[MustangIcon]

I say basketball because it doesn't take as many players to turn it around. 2 stars and you are a top 25 team. Easier said than done of course but football takes 4-5 really good recruiting classes in a row. Basketball takes landing 2 big fish and a supporting cast and you can be legit. Look at K State last year.

[papawasamustang]

In CUSA anything is possible every year.

Memphis is the power in basketball & teams in the conference are getting closer to being able to compete against them.

Tulsa is becoming a powerhouse in football but after that its up for grabs each year. Even Tulsa almost lost to the mighty Mustangs.

There is no reason we shouldn't be competing year end & year out for conference championships/bowls in this weak [deleted] conference.

Having said that, BB in 2 years, FB in 3.

[jtstang]

I say basketball because there are two teams so there's twice as much chance. I mean right now, we're only a couple of Paulius Ritter-type chicks away from Rhonda having the women in the top 25, and she's just the one who can get them here.

[Mexmustang]

Basketball--Two reasons.

Doh has been on the job longer than JJ and so has a head start.

SMU should have never thrown basketball into the same wastebin that they threw football. A large number of quality institutions, and a number with much better academics have top ten basketball programs.

[EastStang]

When we allowed the faculty to put in stupid rules, it hurt all our programs from football to swimmiing.

[Billy Joe]

Top 25? How about a winning season first? Or better yet how about a winning conference season for basketball? Or a win over a division 1-A team in football? You have to crawl before you can walk and you have to walk before you can run.

[Pony_Fan]

Billy Joe, Smu2007, and Ponysnob seem to be related?

[True Colors]

I say basketball because it doesn't take as many players to turn it around. 2 stars and you are a top 25 team. Easier said than done of course but football takes 4-5 really good recruiting classes in a row. Basketball takes landing 2 big fish and a supporting cast and you can be legit. Look at K State last year.

Not true.

Guess what kansas state, indiana, california and oregon all have in common? Last year all of them had 2 players taken in the NBA draft. None of them finished ranked.

Guess what tennessee, wisconsin, duke, butler, xavier, louisville, drake, notre dame, connecticut, pittsburgh, michigan state, purdue, clemson, davidson, gonzaga and marquette all have in common? Not a single one of them had a player drafted. All of them finished ranked.

In football the majority of teams make it to bowl games every year. 68 out of 117(58%) teams will make the post season this year because there are now 34 bowls.

In basketball, it is far, FAR more difficult to make the NIT or NCAA tournaments. 97 spots are spread around 340 teams. That means only roughly 20% of basketball teams make it.

From the standpoint of being nationally ranked 25/117 teams in football are ranked(21%). In basketball only 25/340 teams are ranked(7%).

TC

[Pony_Fan]

hey TC, will SMU win the national championship in football? NO, never.

is there a chance they could win the national championship in bball? not likely, but possible and a lot more exciting than a crappy low tier bowl in Shreveport or Memphis.

BCS is nonsense and only good for the big schools.

Tell me how many out of 340 teams are worth a sh*t anyway every year? Maybe 150, so that argument isn't valid. The bottom tier dont even compete.

Is success reallly making a bowl? There are WAY too many bowls out there and the level of excitement for a majority of them are non-existent. Look at the attendance and TV numbers.

I guess it depends on what your definition of a successful season is. You can be unranked and win your tourney and go to the dance.

[Charleston Pony]

basketball...because 1 or 2 stud players can make all the difference. Football is a much tougher building project. Doherty will get his stud(s) before Jones. I do believe one of these coaches (hopefully both) will build a top 25 program here before they move on.

[PonySnob]

Billy Joe, Smu2007, and Ponysnob seem to be related?

Trust me..........we are not.

[LA_Mustang]

In football the majority of teams make it to bowl games every year. 68 out of 117(58%) teams will make the post season this year because there are now 34 bowls.

Well, if it is so easy, why has it been so tough for Baylor and SMU to figure it out?? 14 years for you guys and 24 years for us......

In basketball, it is far, FAR more difficult to make the NIT or NCAA tournaments. 97 spots are spread around 340 teams. That means only roughly 20% of basketball teams make it.

From the standpoint of being nationally ranked 25/117 teams in football are ranked(21%). In basketball only 25/340 teams are ranked(7%).

I disagree with your logic. Of those 340 D-1 teams, about 220 of them have practically no chance to ever be ranked. Just a guess, but I bet 18 of the 31 D-1 basketball conferences have never had a team ranked in the top 25. Therefore, just like football, you basically have the same 117 D-1 schools competing for the top 25....with a few outside the top 11 conferences in the mix - Gonzaga, St Mary's, St Joes, Drake, Western Kentucky....
And for those 220 schools, their only chance to make the tournament is to get their conference’s automatic bid. I think there are 31 automatic bids...so that leaves 66 openings in the (NCAA and NIT) for other schools.....most of which will come from the top 11 conferences.

[True Colors]

You can't argue with the numbers. The success rate in basketball is only 1/3 of what football enjoys. That holds true for postseason berths and also national rankings.

Basketball has more "bad" teams because the standard between good and bad is so much tougher for basketball. In hoops only 1/5 teams get to claim success each year(postseason appearances). In football almost 3/5 get to claim a successful season every year. In football it SEEMS like a lot of teams are good because it takes almost nothing to be considered "good."

As far as the numbers go it is not logical to argue that a lower number of scholarship players makes something "easier." That is a very specious argument. How is it easier for you to "just sign a couple of guys" when everybody else can "just sign a couple of guys" too? Everybody signs the same number. So there is no advantage or disadvantage.

Baylor is a good example of a school historically having an easier time in football than basketball. In the past 50 years Baylor has played in 12 football bowls while the BU basketball team has maybe 3 or 4 total postseason appearances in the same stretch. You could also look at schools like TCU, A&M, Texas, Texas Tech and they have historically done much better in football than basketball as well. Count up the postseason appearances and national rankings. They have all done better in football. It would be ludicrous to claim that any of those places have had an "easier" time in basketball.

In basketball you have to worry about strength of schedule. If you pile up a bunch of wins vs creampuffs then you will likely be punished and will not make the postseason--even if you have an overall winning record. Look at texas tech. They finished 16-15 in men's basketball last season but they were denied the postseason due to a lack of quality wins. No such problem in football. You would never see anything like that. In football you can assure yourself of a bowl by piling up up 4 ridiculously soft non-conference wins and then going 3-5 in conference.

SMU can do better in football. Baylor can too. Once a few good seasons occur then you will scratch your head and wonder why it was so hard to get things moving in the first place.

TC

[SoCal_Pony]

You can't argue with the numbers. The success rate in basketball is only 1/3 of what football enjoys. That holds true for postseason berths and also national rankings.

Baloney.

You take the Top 100 programs (63 BCS schools + 37 others, including SMU) and compare their participation in FB Bowl games versus BB post-season tournaments.

I suspect the numbers are pretty close.

SMU's only chance for sustained success at the highest levels resides with BB.