We Deserve More

[SoCal_Pony]

This year is shaping up to be another in a long line of frustrating seasons. As I have calculated it, last nights’ lost to LA Tech gives us the dubious distinction of having a losing record all-time against WAC basketball opponents (including WAC tourney games).

We are now entering our 7th season in the WAC, having never seriously competed for a title. We will not compete for one this year and without Q, I doubt next year, either. I have a hard time accepting this when our conference opponents include UTEP, Tulsa, Rice, Nevada, LA Tech and San Jose State. When you compare SMU (with its location, campus, academic, athletic and alumni reputations) to its conference brethren, it makes this all the more frustrating. We should be dominating this conference, instead we don’t even compete.

Someone please tell me if I am wrong in blaming our own administration’s lack of commitment to winning as the major reason for our failures.

Case in point- JUCO’s. I believe the official signing period for football JUCO’s occurred sometime earlier this month. Coach Bennett has few peers in recruiting JUCO’s. Few teams have a greater need for JUCO line help than the Mustangs. Yet apparently we sign none, nor make any known efforts for any, which is consistent with Coach Bennett’s comments concerning JUCO’s at his introduction to SMU last year. Something is not adding up here. Stallion had a great post on the other website concerning the number of JUCO’s / transfers our BB team will face this year. Stallion, if you could post it again I would appreciate it.

For the record, I support a team full of JUCO’s about as much as I support a team with no JUCO’s, I simply use this as an illustration of our administration’s lack of commitment to winning.

[Pony_Fan]

SoCal Pony,
I think everything you said is valid. Stallion makes some great arguments on the other board. I really don't know how we can compete in the WAC w/out Juco's or partial qualifiers. Most of our competition is thriving on Juco's. We need thick low post presence. I am beginning to wonder what "The Committment" really is or was and why transfer credits are so difficult for SMU to accept. We are NOT Duke/UVA and never will be.

In your comments about the WAC, it is hard to look at the conference and get real excited at this point. In the big picture, the WAC is a pretty weak conference and based on our school's past history and location, yes we should dominate and I share your frustration.

I am very worried about next year w/out Q. He seems to be struggling a bit with his shot right now. I am not sure where all the pts will come from and I would hate to see Hopkins turn into another Hancock, Sasser, etc next year. It seems like I will have to wait until 2004/2005 to get a shot at the tourney?

[FloridaMustang]

As much as I love Dement Jr., I just can't get over this coaching job by his dad. C'mon, it's not "up to the players" to change their attitude on the road. Gosh, isn't that called COACHING? Dement has restored the program...now it's time to spend the money and put in a Bob Knight-quality coach. Texas Tech has come from nowhere with their football and basketball programs. It's time for SMU to really make that "comittment." In my opinion, not much has been done for basketball. Also,the whole JUCO ordeal still perplexes me...I just don't understand why SMU is SO hesitant to accept more of these guys's credits. While I agree that Dement is a *decent* recruiter, we HAVE to do better in order to start competing with the big boys, much less the Hawaii's and Fresno State's of the conference. Unfortunately, Copeland isn't a details kind of guy. He's so immersed in the politics of his job, he's only concerned with the big picture. Personally, I'm surprised he didn't take the SEC commissioner's job. It gives me some hope that he really does want to turn SMU around...I'd just like to see him talking to the people that actually attend the games. Fundraising is wonderful, but if we just spend it wastefully, then what's the point of raising it at all?

"If you aren't ready to play, you will return to your locker room as a loser." -Dickie V

[This message has been edited by UNFMustang06 (edited 01-05-2003).]

[wilthestilt]

If Boise State and Marshall can make the top 25 in the final football polls, what is SMU doing wrong to consistently make the bottom 25 in the final football polls. Ron Meyer stated that "football (college sports) is a business". Why doesn't SMU find out what makes some programs successful and others failures be it football, basketball, or any other sport, and implement changes to make these programs competitive with other schools.

[SoCal_Pony]

As a follow-up to my earlier assertion concerning SMU’s superior academic reputation versus its WAC peers, I went to the Princeton Review to compare all schools academic ratings. Here are my findings with limited commentary. As points of reference, I also obtained the scores of Harvard (elite tier), UT and A$M (Top Tier and SMU’s peers) and NTSU (call them the Mendoza line).

Rice and Harvard both scored 93. No surprise here, but I actually think Rice is too brainy for the average jock and therefore their high score works against them. But congratulations Rice on a well-deserved 93.

SMU scored an 81, 1 point below UT’s 82 but 2 points above A$M’s 79. While I believe SMU is clearly UT’s equal, I will begrudgingly accept this score.

The Middle-Tiered schools: Tulsa scores a 76 (why was I expecting lower), Hawaii a 73 and San Jose St a 69.

Finally, we enter the Mendoza line….North Texas State scored a 62. This is about as low a score as the Princeton Review will publish, but not quite. Fresno State earned a 61 and Nevada a 60. As for Louisiana Tech, Boise State and UTEP, there are no academic scores; the Princeton Review apparently knows when not to kick a dead horse. It did state that UTEP’s admission selectivity score was a 59, which can’t be a good thing.

Conclusion – Rice and SMU are clearly at the head of the class, but we take top prize because Rice is too Ivy.

I hope to follow this up with an independent grading of the actual cities; but, as with academic comparisons, it will be like judging a beauty contest between Rosie O’Donnell and Laetitia Casta.

[wilthestilt]

Comparing academics to local and conference colleges is irrelevant in justifying dismal performances by athletic teams. Look to successful athletic programs (those that pay for themselves) if you want to compare apples to apples. GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICES (within the rules) should dictate successful programs objectives.

Not everybody can be a doctor, lawyer, or indian chief. What's wrong with leveling the playing field and opening up a teaching cirriculum, etc.

P.S. Ivy League schools offer no FREE RIDES in exchange for athletic participation.
How many of these professional athletes
would be wasting their time practicing or playing if they didn't have a free ride ($30,000 worth per year).

[No Cal Pony]

Actually, the Ivy Leauge schools do give free rides, they just don't call them anything like an "athletic" scholarship. I know as a friend from high school was recruited by Harvard. He knew he was not pro material, so what, should he have gone to a school like northern arizona or Harvard?

[SoCal_Pony]

The point of my earlier post is that SMU’s academic reputation should be an advantage against most of our WAC peers. Per the Princeton Review, the WAC has 6 schools that scored below 70, with 5 below the Mendoza line of 62. I seriously doubt there are 5 schools in the entire BCS fraternity that scored below 62. I wonder if there is even 1 school that scored below 62.

IMO, by not offering education/teaching degrees for our athletes, we are not fully utilizing a competitive advantage (our superior academic reputation) that makes me question our true commitment to winning.

[FloridaMustang]

Well stated, SoCal.