Mike Hashimoto

[Ranger19]

Cole Beasly, Margus Hunt, Sterling Moore, Zach Line, Emmanuel Sanders, 4 bowl games and more..... Where has Hashimoto been the last 5 years? Under a rock? SMU's football future is BRIGHT. What has happened in the last 2-3 years has happened to many a team... the coach lost his edge, or in our case, he just gave up. Not a big deal. You get back on that horse and ride.... and reel in some of the same talent that we've had in recent years. Hashimoto? Go pound sand.

[mr. pony]

Seems like we always got good coverage from Kate H. as well. The last real turd I remember is Blackistone. And that's because he is a real turd.

Yeah, I loved it in '05 when Blackistone wrote that SMU was "light years" behind No. 22 TCU --- the week before SMU squished the Toads at Ford.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/colleg ... U-9318.ece

[Rebel10]

Yeah, I loved it in '05 when Blackistone wrote that SMU was "light years" behind No. 22 TCU --- the week before SMU squished the Toads at Ford.

He was right in what he said as we can see now even if SMU pulled off an upset then.

[dirtysouthpony]

Who was the guy in the comments referring to? Don't we usually keep our injured guys on scholly?

[Treadway21]

Never heard of the guy before now. Probably will never read another article from him and notice that isn't about SMU - we don't need to worry about some hack DMN second tier writer.

He has 0 influence on how SMU moves forward or our public perception. He may mirror some opinions but the fact that he is the only guy in the media taking that position says how far we have come since we hired Bennett in 2001.

[smusportspage]

Who was the guy in the comments referring to? Don't we usually keep our injured guys on scholly?

Yes. That comment read like it was hearsay and was probably authored by someone that has an agenda. i.e., fan from another school that is talking out of his [deleted].

[PoconoPony]

Hate to say it; but he makes some sense as hard as it is to admit. My concern since the day the NCAA gave the P5 considerable autonomy over their rules...etc. is that they become an exclusive club, want all the $$$$, quit playing non-P5 teams, and 5 years down the road it will be impossible for the "have not" people to have a quality schedule and ever be considered for a playoff position. In the recent BYU game vs. Texas the announcers spent a good deal of time during the 3d quarter relating how the SEC had informed their membership to not play BYU in the future as it was an inferior program and would hurt their non-conference power ratings. BYU has been a top quality program for years and they have been specifically banned because they are not good enough yet they kicked the crap out of Texas. Question: where does that leave SMU and all the other non-P5 programs? It potentially leaves them with no strength of schedule, low TV revenues, no chance to be in the playoffs, loss of booster, student and fan interest, no ability to recruit and enhance the program....etc. As for Hart's statement that we charge on; is the writing on the wall and we will just be throwing away $$$$$ at the expense of the students, boosters and university in pursuit of door that has just been slammed shut? Only unless the P5 reaches out for 3 or 4 more programs to fill a numbers need do we get a chance and even then the P5 would would prefer the big schools, big alums, big stadiums like UCF, USP and even UTSA for all the usual reasons. Is Hart in effect Don Quixote??

Pocono, the SEC may not be scheduling BYU but they sure are still going to schedule AAC teams...this confirmed by the home and home between UConn and Mizzou. The AAC believe it or not has a better shot at getting some respect as a middle of the road conference than any other 4 conference.

And the Playoff has nothing in writing that says G5 conferences cannot get into the playoff. It is nowhere in writing. Yes, their selection committee may never select a G5 but the fact that a G5 could "possibly" get in kills the argument of them monopolizing high level athletics. This is how they kill the claim that they restrict access. I don't think the P5 will stop playing G5 teams. The losing records are absorbed by the G5 currently and I don't think the P5 would like their bottom feeders to become de facto G5 programs and suck more than what they currently do. This talk is the same talk they had back when the BCS was formed...and the end of days ain't here yet.

Your observations are correct; however, the hand writing is on the wall: $$$ greed, human nature of power and control, protecting your turf...etc. will prevail. The non-P5 schools will never have the strength of schedule to ever be considered for the playoff. The P5 schools will not schedule the non-P5 schools for fear of losing strength of schedule. Even if some lower tier P5 schools do schedule non-P5 schools this will be view as not enough strength for non-P5 schools and will really hurt P5 teams looking to move up. Bottom line is that the train left the station and we were not ready. The only hope is in the distant future that the NCAA actually sponsors a true play off and/ or the current play off system is increased to 8 teams with the requirement that at least one n0n-P5 be included in the 8 teams. Even in this last scenario it will require the non-P5 school to be undefeated and they would be the only 1 out of 62 teams to get the bid. Great odds.

The AAC will never become a major football conference with the loss of Pitt, Syracuse, WV, Rutgers and Louisville. It is also totally weakened as a conference with out the Big East basketball powers. The non-P5 schools will be relegated to the equivalent of Div. II where schools will be competitive based on considerably lower expenditures for all sports. The ultimate result will be lower TV revenues if any, no ability to recruit top talent, less fan interest, reduced booster donations, lower student interest....etc. A reflection of the Patriot and Ivy Leagues of today.