by Pony81 » Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:09 pm
I think Stallion's points about SMU football are largely on the mark. If I can summarize:
1. SMU can not be competitive in D1 football unless it can take partial qualifiers and JUCO's.
True. We are not a name program and will never get the talented kids because of our name. Look at the 2nd tier programs that have had success: UCF, USF, TCU ect. and they all are built on JUCO's and partial qualifier big time talent.
2. Talent transcends coaching.
True. Look at how much attention recruiting gets. YOu can coach kids until you are blue in the face but if they are smaller, slower, and less athletic - you lose.
3. Coaching allows you to turn a good team into a very good team and vice versa. Look at SMU last year under Bennett. Another staff and this team is 500 but with Bennett they found a way to lose. They did not believe in themselves nor their coaches. Coaching does not turn a poor team into a great one.
So I think he makes a good point that our class is average relative to CUSA given about the fact that SMU was the only D1 offer for 1/2 our class reflects that these guys were not highly recruited and were 2nd choice / fall back recruits for most teams.
The good news is that we are in a weak conference, have an administration that realizes that winning athletics put a positive halo over a school (how they forgot that is beyond me) with positive ramifications in student recruiting, student retention, and alumni giving, have a coach that can make us a very good CUSA team by coaching up the talent currently on the team. Just getting these kids to believe they can win and to believe in their coaches is 2-3 wins in CUSA.
Pony 81