What Turner and Most of The Board Thinks of Baylor

by **peruna81** » Thu May 26, 2016 8:39 pm

What Turner and Most of the Board thinks of Baylor?

"I'm glad it is not us..."

by **mtrout** » Thu May 26, 2016 8:44 pm

They're thinking: this is what happens when you get good at football

by **Pony Boss** » Thu May 26, 2016 9:46 pm

SMUstangs22 wrote:
Pony Boss wrote:
East Coast Mustang wrote:[quote="gostangs"]This not committed crap is really tiring. Its easy to be "committed" when you have P-5 money rolling in the door. Until then we are just trying to keep the lights on.

Think it needs to be more? Get out your check book. Until then just hope for the best and be a good fan, but for goodness sake stop posting stupid things.

Wish I could etch this in stone. Well said. I bet more than half of the bozos on here that [deleted] and moan about SMU not being committed and having no chance of moving up to a P5 conference arent even season ticket holders.

Like Chad said - "Don't b1tch"

SMU is committed. And you can't blame the fanbase for staying small and growing insignificantly since the dp...you all saw how now Baylor fans are dropping their tickets and want refunds...I imagine the same thing happened when we got the dp.

SMU will only change the narrative when the wins come.

What are wins and how do we get them?[/quote]
Instead of 2-10, 11-2

by **CalallenStang** » Fri May 27, 2016 7:48 am

Pony Boss wrote:
East Coast Mustang wrote:
gostangs wrote:This not committed crap is really tiring. Its easy to be "committed" when you have P-5 money rolling in the door. Until then we are just trying to keep the lights on.

Think it needs to be more? Get out your check book. Until then just hope for the best and be a good fan, but for goodness sake stop posting stupid things.

Wish I could etch this in stone. Well said. I bet more than half of the bozos on here that [deleted] and moan about SMU not being committed and having no chance of moving up to a P5 conference arent even season ticket holders.

Like Chad said - "Don't b1tch"

SMU is committed. And you can't blame the fanbase for staying small and growing insignificantly since the dp...you all saw how now Baylor fans are dropping their tickets and want refunds...I imagine the same thing happened when we got the dp.

SMU will only change the narrative when the wins come.

There were posters on the PF.com basketball board last year saying they wanted basketball ticket refunds after the NCAA report came out.

by **EastStang** » Fri May 27, 2016 10:56 am

Baylor let sexual assaults go on because they didn't want to break any NCAA rules by paying off the complainants. Remember one known victim was on the Baylor Women's Soccer team. I suspect that down the road, they'll be some of these women who come forward and say they were bought off by boosters. If that occurred, the NCAA will throw the book at Baylor (since they are not UT, A&M, Alabama, FSU, etc.).

by **Dwan** » Fri May 27, 2016 11:12 am

The success that TCU and Baylor have had on the football field over the last 10 years was the one thing post DP that had our University rethinking its approach to athletics and in particular football. The money, national PR, and most importantly the increased number of applicants was eye opening to SMU. It was one thing when other small private schools like Gonzaga, Duke, or Miami enjoy the benefits of successful athletics, but it was a totally different ball game when our natural rivals, two small private schools in Texas who we always turned are nose up to academically, started to reap the rewards of successful athletics. SMU started to say, should that be us? And now today I can assure you that they are saying, see, thank god that is not us.

by **Treadway21** » Sat May 28, 2016 1:22 pm

pwnyxpress wrote:We were cheating the right way........

We were just ahead of our time. Our kind of cheating is condoned these days.

by **Pony Boss** » Sat May 28, 2016 1:55 pm

Dwan wrote:The success that TCU and Baylor have had on the football field over the last 10 years was the one thing post DP that had our University rethinking its approach to athletics and in particular football. The money, national PR, and most importantly the increased number of applicants was eye opening to SMU. It was one thing when other small private schools like Gonzaga, Duke, or Miami enjoy the benefits of successful athletics, but it was a totally different ball game when our natural rivals, two small private schools in Texas who we always turned are nose up to academically, started to reap the rewards of successful athletics. SMU started to say, should that be us? And now today I can assure you that they are saying, see, thank god that is not us.

I dont think that's what they are saying. What happened at baylor could have happened at NTSU and they are horrible. You need the money and exposure period .

by **Puckhead48E** » Sat May 28, 2016 10:57 pm

That Dwan post is in the running for worst thing I've seen on the internet all year...next to the Chinese laundry detergent ad.

No one is viewing Baylor as a reason to pump the brakes and shun growth. It's an affirmation for all schools that don't overlook or actively promote sexual assaults and rape and accountability-less athletics. If you honestly think supporting rape and assaults is a natural component of successful athletics, I'm not sure what to do with you other that increase the bubble wrap budget for your safe space.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by **mtrout** » Sun May 29, 2016 9:20 am

Puckhead48E wrote:No one is viewing Baylor as a reason to pump the brakes and shun growth.

Wanna bet?

by **Dwan** » Sun May 29, 2016 1:46 pm

Winning in college athletics is a nasty business. The cost of winning runs the gamut from academic fraud and payment to players to covering up rape, assault, and child moleststion. Looking at Baylor as an isolated incident is so naive.

by **footballdad** » Sun May 29, 2016 1:51 pm

mtrout wrote:
Puckhead48E wrote:No one is viewing Baylor as a reason to pump the brakes and shun growth.

Wanna bet?

Hart just came out publicly and said SMU has no interest in the P5, and this episode just gave them another great excuse to stay the course, rather than go 'all in' to chase the P5 dream.

by **03Mustang** » Sun May 29, 2016 1:59 pm

Not even remotely what he said. It's what the writer in the Daily Campus said. Confirmation Bias is a hell of a thing.

by **mustangxc** » Sun May 29, 2016 3:21 pm

footballdad wrote:
mtrout wrote:
Puckhead48E wrote:No one is viewing Baylor as a reason to pump the brakes and shun growth.

Wanna bet?

Hart just came out publicly and said SMU has no interest in the P5, and this episode just gave them another great excuse to stay the course, rather than go 'all in' to chase the P5 dream.

Hart said that our success is independent of conference affiliation. We will be a national program regardless of which conference we are affiliated with. Frankly, that is the right attitude as P5 invitations involve many factors beyond our control. However, we can win big even if we fall to the Sunbelt if we have the proper model in place.

by **Puckhead48E** » Sun May 29, 2016 9:13 pm

By the sound of this, Turner needs to investigate the required freshman English curriculum to determine why some pass without the ability to grasp the language.
And what do you want to hear? Do you want Hart to come out and say "we're doomed if we don't move to a P5 in the next 5 years and may be forced to shutter athletics and kill all varsity athletes to harvest their organs for sale to cover expenses."

I've finally accepted the fact that paying the $10 a month isn't to get a little insider information... It's a $10 filter that limits the level of stupid. Seriously, the decisive hot-takes by some on here... I've seen junior sailors make better decisions while drunk at 0200 in Thailand after 2 months at sea than some of you make when interpreting simple things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk