Norm on the SMU situation

zIpPeRhEaD · Post by **zIpPeRhEaD** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:56 pm

SoCal_Pony wrote:You are giving them credit for 6 wins against Texas Tech due to them forfeiting games...they ARE NOT .319 over the past 19/20 years.

you keep talking about TTU forfeiting games........what are you talking about?

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:26 pm

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/fetch-team.pl?team=Southern_Methodist

mr. pony · Post by **mr. pony** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:02 am

[quote="mustangxc
I think we need to set reachable goals so as to not get overwhelmed in the process of accomplishing them. [/quote]

Screw that. That's wuss talk. We need to aim high - very high. :idea:

mustangxc · Post by **mustangxc** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:02 am

mr. pony wrote:[quote="mustangxc
I think we need to set reachable goals so as to not get overwhelmed in the process of accomplishing them.

Screw that. That's wuss talk. We need to aim high - very high. :idea:

[/quote]

Are you telling me you wouldn't be happy with 7/8 wins this season?

zIpPeRhEaD · Post by **zIpPeRhEaD** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:34 am

ponyboy wrote:http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/fetch-team.pl?team=Southern_Methodist

funny how it only says that about the SMU scores........and even then it only says probably.........

go look at the Tech gamepage.......it mentions nothing about any forfeitures........the NCAA link that SoCal posted is at least reliable.......but you need to read it a little more carefully..........

again, TTU NEVER forfeited any FB games........

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:03 pm

we aren't aiming for 7-8 wins. We are aiming at Top 25. Right? Or Perhaps not really.

SMU_is_bowling · Post by **SMU_is_bowling** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:04 pm

I think top 25 is a goal, but there are levels of goals, you don't just come out and say, "I want a national championship next year" when you are 1-7, but that is every teams ultimate goal . . . just as winning 7-8 games next year is a goal, going to a bowl game is a goal, then 10 win seasons and conf championships is a goal . . . then we can look into why the polls are screwing ole SMU out of the top 25

mustangxc · Post by **mustangxc** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:30 pm

SMUshouldbebowling wrote:I think top 25 is a goal, but there are levels of goals, you don't just come out and say, "I want a national championship next year" when you are 1-7, but that is every teams ultimate goal . . . just as winning 7-8 games next year is a goal, going to a bowl game is a goal, then 10 win seasons and conf championships is a goal . . . then we can look into why the polls are screwing ole SMU out of the top 25

Thank you for illustrating my point!

PhirePhilBennett · Post by **PhirePhilBennett** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:11 pm

SmooPower wrote:
I don't know anyone who has been a 27% loser for 20 years.

SMU is at .319 over the past 20 years (1987-2006). .306 if you go from 1988 to this year.

Schools that are worst over the past 20 years: Duke (.280), New Mexico State (.280), Vanderbilt (.278), Kent State (.244), Temple (.210).

Uh...how did we change our winning percentage in 87 and 88 when we didn't play in those years...

nevermind...i see your end dates changed

SoCal_Pony · Post by **SoCal_Pony** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:20 am

SMU's W-L record from 1989 to today is 58-149-3

That is a winning percentage of 28.3%.

Vanderbilt's record over this period is 59-150.
New Mexico State's record over this period is 64-148.

The only 3 schools that have competed in D1-A over the past 19 years with worse W-L records in FB are Duke, Temple and Kent State.

From 1989 to 2006
Duke - 18 of 19 appearances in the NCAA BB Tourney including 6 Finals and 3 National Championships.
Temple - 7 NIT appearances and 12 NCAA appearances.
Kent State - 6 NIT appearances and 4 NCAA appearances.

Other SMU FB stats
Of their 58 victories....

5 came against non D1-A schools
17 came against schools with a winning percentage of 13.2%

Conclusion - nearly 40% of SMU's measly 58 victories over the past 19 years deserve a gigantic asterisk next to them...

Bigger Conclusion - It Ain't the Coaching

PK · Post by PK » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:47 am

SoCal_Pony wrote:5 came against non D1-A schools
17 came against schools with a winning percentage of 13.2%

Just to make sure I understand this, only three teams have worst win/loss record than SMU's 28%...correct? I don't remember playing any of those three schools yet you say 17 of our wins were against schools with a winning percentage of 13.2%. Could you clarify? (I hate statistics.)

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:54 am

A coach who could consistently produce 7-8 wins per year at SMU would have large programs all over the country wetting themselves to hire him. That's what I've been saying. If you want to step back into the limelight and out of obscurity, SMU is not a worst place to go because if you can string together a couple of 7-8 wins seasons, you'll be hailed as a genius. On the other hand if you fail, you'll be looking to rebuild your image at a 1-AA school.

SoCal_Pony · Post by **SoCal_Pony** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:54 pm

PK,

17 of SMU's victories over the past 19 years have been against teams who had a combined W-L record during the season we played them of 25-167-1.

That means these opponents had a combined winning percentage of 13.2%, a winninger percentage lower than the worse college football team over the past 19 years, which is Temple.

Add your 5 victories against D-1AA teams and you have 22 of SMU's 58 victories against amazingly weak opponents.

These 22 wins represent ~40% of all of SMU's victories.

I hope that makes sense...to me it speaks loudly of institutional problems over personnel, especially since the same thing can be said of BB.

mustangxc · Post by **mustangxc** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:12 pm

SoCal_Pony wrote:PK,

17 of SMU's victories over the past 19 years have been against teams who had a combined W-L record during the season we played them of 25-167-1.

That means these opponents had a combined winning percentage of 13.2%, a winninger percentage lower than the worse college football team over the past 19 years, which is Temple.

Add your 5 victories against D-1AA teams and you have 22 of SMU's 58 victories against amazingly weak opponents.

These 22 wins represent ~40% of all of SMU's victories.

I hope that makes sense...to me it speaks loudly of institutional problems over personnel, especially since the same thing can be said of BB.

From my understanding they are referencing the records of the teams we played for that given year. So say we beat an 0-12 Hawaii team that has had a 200-100 record over a 20 year time frame, they are counting 0-12, not 200-100.

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:15 pm

SoCal_Pony wrote:...you have 22 of SMU's 58 victories against amazingly weak opponents...

Good info, but how about a bit more context? What is the winning percentage of the teams that say a Duke, Temple, or Kent State beat during that same time period? And for reference, what is the winning percentage of teams that a .500 team beat?