SMU - 2005 Strength of Schedule - 109 of 119

[Stallion]

now HuntNFish you know I'm not going to let you get away with that comparison to Rossley in Bennett's 4th year. Rossley in his 4th and 5th years was 2-19-1 about a .09% winning percentage. 99.9% of the coaches with that record in their 4 or 5th years would be fired-Tom Rossley being the only exception.

[huntnfish]

Now Stallion-Rossley, his 4th or 5th year after the DEATH PENALTY, now its 15 years later, and its 4 years later with brand new facilites, against much weaker competition, and better athletes

Cavan hire was a mistake, the ship was turning in 1996

BUT that is besides the point, it is time to win this year and anything less than 5 is a disappointment- can't we agree on this at least??

[jtstang]

anything less than 5 wins is a big dissappointment in year 4, considering the better recruiting classes that everyone keeps talking about that we have had, the weak competition and the much better facilites we have now compared to 10 years ago

You are the one setting yourself up for a big disappointment.

[Stallion]

the ship never turned for Tom Rossley -recruiting never turned for Tom Rossley and Tom Rossley humiliated the university by losing to Rice 6 straight years-making it 8 in a row. NO coach at this school should be allowed to lose to Rice 3 years in a row (Bennett) much less 6 years in a row and not get fired.

[PlanoStang]

Rossley was coaching in a much tougher conference.

[huntnfish]

Stallion- we have this argument everytime- you can't dispute the following: Cavan's winning season was with Rossleys players, Rossley faced the toughest recruiting restrictions after the death penalty, Rossley faced tougher competition, even in his one and only year in the WAC, Rossley had horrible facilities- YET we were 5-6 in 1996 (& 6-5 w/ Rossley's players in 1997)- and we have only gotten worse- this you can't dispute; I could care less about the RICE win-loss record or what he did prior to 1996 b/c it WAS turning in 1996- you always argue but with no substance or disputing any of the above, b/c you can't

BUT- it is time to win and 5 wins is not asking too much- jtstang maybe 3 wins is good for you as long as we show "improvement", but Wins are the only improvement I care about- I am sorry you have such low standards for our school after years

[EastStang]

Are talking about the same TarHeels that almost lost to 1-AA William and Mary last year? I thought so. His sees so much Carolina Blue through his glasses I'm surprised he knows there's grass to mow. His methodology is crap, but one thing about statistics, if you don't like them, you can make up some new ones. As far as Rossley and Cavan, both of them had to put up with ridiculous restrictions which stunted success. Bennett has successfully lobbied to reduce some of them. The question this year is whether he can win with his players, he couldn't win with Cavan's. The jury is out and we'll know a lot more by the end of September. We have some character building games on the schedule that are winnable in September (Baylor, Tulane), not gimmies, but winnable and we'll see how good a coach Bennett is by then.

[AusTxPony]

Interesting and telling that Mr. Dodd, the writer, put TCU in CUSA rather than MWC for this year!

[PonySoprano]

Rossley was coaching in a much tougher conference.

Was the SWC in the late 80's and early 90's that much tougher of a conference?

From 1987 to 1995, the last 9 years that the SWC champion went to the Cotton Bowl, the SWC representative lost 8 out of 9 (the only win was 1988 where the Ags beat Notre Dame). The average margin of defeat for the SWC team in those 8 losses was 19 points.

[jtstang]

BUT- it is time to win and 5 wins is not asking too much- jtstang maybe 3 wins is good for you as long as we show "improvement", but Wins are the only improvement I care about- I am sorry you have such low standards for our school after years

My standards are supported by history--what supports yours, other than wishes and dreams?

[Dooby]

There are 4 different arguments going on at the same time in this thread.

I will never understand Stallion's perpetual schilling for Cavan and bashing of Rossley. While I agree with the statement that there is no excuse for SMU to lose to Rice, let alone 7 years in a row coming back from the death penalty or 3 years and running, Rice is not the measuring stick for coaches. The two arguments I have heard most recently supporting Cavan are now beating Rice and Cavan's victory over Arkansas. cavan had a .500 record against Rice. Cavan's victory over Arkansas was the third straight for SMU. With the exception of a 6-5 record in 1997 with Rossley's players, his list of accomplishments is pretty short.

[huntnfish]

jtstang- history? 5-6 and 6-5 in 1996-1997, I have a hard time believing we can't do at least this good in a weaker conference, easier recruiting standards & better facilities- do I believe we will 5 games, no- BUT I believe we should

Saying the SWC was weak when you look at the competition we have played over the past 5-6 years is ridiculous. Along w/ playing in the SWC we were also playing Wisconsin, UCLA, UNC, Arkansas, Missouri, etc.../ combine this w/ UT, A&M, Tech, Baylor (they used to have great athletes and a very good team), UH (remember Klingler and John Jenkins)

[Dooby]

We are all arguing around the same point. To a man, we all agree SMU should be better than SMU is today. Most people on here agree on the root causes of that record.

The debate is what needs to be done about it. I am not going to hold the coaches or players to an arbitrary standard as long as progress is being made. I believe Bennett was hired into a morass and it will take time to clean it up. I saw progress made last year and expect to see progress this year and will be sorely disappointed if I don't see it on the field.

The way I read Huntnfish's posts, it sounds like even if the team on the field is clearly better offensively and defensively than the one in 2004, but fails to win five games, then Bennett needs to be replaced. That, in my opinion, is the wrong decision.