The level at which SMU competes in football.

[Hoofbeat83]

From where I sit, the Division I-A private universities currently fall into three categories for FOOTBALL: (A) Those that have the ability/resources to compete and/or have competed for the national championship, (B) Those that have the ability/resources to compete and/or have competed for their RESPECTIVE conference championships, and (C) Those that currently cannot compete nor have competed for either. My assessment is based on the CURRENT state of affairs (i.e., BCS, current and future conference affiliations, etc.) and NOT the way it was even ten years ago.

CATEGORY 'A':
Miami (FL), Notre Dame, USC. That's it, IMO, with due respect to BYU and Syracuse and their achievements in the last 20 years.

CATEGORY 'B':
BYU, Boston College, Northwestern, Rice, Stanford, Syracuse, TCU, Tulane, Tulsa, Wake Forest. (Remember, RESPECTIVE conferences, thus I'm not saying Tulsa is in the same league as Stanford for football.)

CATEGORY 'C':
Baylor, Duke (remember, this is FOOTBALL only), SMU, Vanderbilt.

I may have missed a few privates, but these are the ones that come to my mind. I'd like to hear folks opinions as to how dynamic they think this breakdown may be, or whether they think I've got it right or dead wrong. Obviously, I hope it CAN be dynamic as I, like all of us, want SMU to be able to compete for a conference championship within the next few years. Even during the Pony Express era (my years at SMU) and SWC membership, we were never STRONGLY considered for the nat'l. championship so I have NO DELUSIONS that we ever will again. I truly will be satisfied with a solid program that competes for a conference championship because those conference championships were FUN.

[PonySnob]

At least Baylor, Duke, and Vandy are getting BCSW conference money.

[Stallion]

never strongly considered for national championships?-we finished 2nd in 1982 and finished in top 10 in 3 different years in the 80s. We would have won the NC in 1982 if we hadn't tied Arkansas and could have come close in 1981 except for a loss 9-7 loss to a great UT team. We were also in the top 6 or so in 1983 until we got clobbered by Alabama.

[HorsePower]

You tell 'em, Stallion. Not only could we have won the national title if we hadn't tied Arkansas, we still should have -- we had a tie, Penn State had a loss. Anyone who watched us play and also saw Penn State play knows we were the best team in the country that year. So if you're looking at the history of various programs, lumping us in with the Vanderbilts and Dukes of the world is ignorant at best, and nothing more than a troll-ish effort to stir up the ire of PonyFans.

[Sic_em]

The key word Stallion apparently missed in the original post is "currently"

[Hoofbeat83]

look here, horsepower, you f**kwad, i ain't no troll. i went to every game my four years at SMU including the cotton bowl vic over pitt. and if you think we're any more competitive in our conf. than vandy and duke are at this point in time then YOU are just the kind of loser that stallion usually gripes about.

and to stallion, you grumpy old man/walter matthau, that nat'l. championship that we did not get would have been given to us reluctantly, at best, had we not tied arkansas, and you know it.

FWIW, i give to the mustang club, have owned season tix every year since moving to ford, actually GO to the games, give thousands of dollars to the annual fund every year, and am a member of the dallas hall society (look it up), so i am f**king entitled to my opinion. it's losers like you on both sides, the forever dismal (stallion) and unrealistic homers (horsepower) that make me wonder why i even bother.

[jtstang]

look here, horsepower, you f**kwad, i ain't no troll. i went to every game my four years at SMU including the cotton bowl vic over pitt. and if you think we're any more competitive in our conf. than vandy and duke are at this point in time then YOU are just the kind of loser that stallion usually gripes about.

and to stallion, you grumpy old man/walter matthau, that nat'l. championship that we did not get would have been given to us reluctantly, at best, had we not tied arkansas, and you know it.

FWIW, i give to the mustang club, have owned season tix every year since moving to ford, actually GO to the games, give thousands of dollars to the annual fund every year, and am a member of the dallas hall society (look it up), so i am f**king entitled to my opinion. it's losers like you on both sides, the forever dismal (stallion) and unrealistic homers (horsepower) that make me wonder why i even bother.

You tell him man--and lets remember that our "almost" national championship was made up of players ill gotten by the tactics which got us the death penalty.

[No Cal Pony]

No, you tell him jtstang. Remember that while SMU did what it did, so goes for ut, a$m, alabama, oklahoma, and a list as long as the day. It is no excuse, but paint us as the only school in D1 that ever paid a player. (In one fashion or another)

I just want to aid SMU in every fashion that I can. I don't have lots of $$, but at least I donate to Mustang Club, and Meadows. I served as Prez of a LASR group. I wear my SMU gear proudly. My son's middle name is WALKER. We ALL need to stop with so much of the BS that is flug upon one another. If we tear ourselves apart, SMU will never go anywhere. I for one will do everything I can to not let this happen. You may try to paint me as a "sunshiner." The reality is that I look at the reality. And to that there a a myriad of facets involved. This is no black and white issue, but with so many shades of grey it can be frightening.

I do this, even with my embarrasment that MY diploma was signed by a President Ad Interim. I watched in horror and shame as that damn loser spilled is freaking guts to ut folk crushing SMU, and even convienently forgetting how his father's life was threatened by ut alumni. (And this my friends, is no lie.)

SMU is a good school with a proud history. I do not like what happened last year, or over the last number of years, but I am damn well not going to just give up. I am not going to let the young men and women who come to SMU forget that there are those of us who do give, and care for the future of SMU.

Hoofbeat is right about the relative issue of those catagories. I most certainly don't like it, but it is the unfortunate situation in which we sit. The real question is will SMU find a way to move us out and up. Will the faculty and administration stop with petty nonsense that keeps the teams from performing at a level consistant with the conference in which we are a part of? Will the students start to show more appreciation for the history and honor of the school? Will the alumni wake up those who will forget their roots? Will those of us who post here stop with name calling and find a way to work constructivly toward bring our programs back to a level that is fun and competitive?

I pray for the best.

GO PONIES!

[jtstang]

I'd tell you how sorry I felt for you about your diploma if mine weren't signed by the same guy. I am tired of people coming on here and crowing about the glory days of the '80s as a "model" to which we should aspire, when that "model" led to the darkest days at SMU from which we have failed recover.

You can disagree with my opinion, but the facts on which it is based are undeniable.

[PK]

I don't think anyone is refering to the payola as part of the 80's model they are championing. The faculty took advantage of the situation to put unreasonable academic restrictions on recruiting when academic qualifications were never the problem. The problem of course was the payola.

[Charleston Pony]

I think the analysis was pretty close, although time will tell whether even Notre dame has fallen from the National Championship picture. Clearly any school, public or private, that is not a part of a BCS conference has NO CHANCE of competing for the National Championship. Strength of schedule will always defeat that group's chances.

I think you are right that schools like Duke and Vandy have no shot and realistically you are generous to include Wake and BC as schools who could win the ACC. I doubt we will ever see that day given the arms race the ACC has become. Clemson is getting ready to spend more than the $50 mil SMU's Ford Stadium cost just to build a new end zone section, weight room, football offices, etc...

I do think SMU will join the ranks of those who can and will compete for conference championships and that is because we do NOT compete in a BCS conference. Our conference mates all struggle to sign the top recruits, who generally want to play in the spotlight. I continue to believe that SMU will surprise some people this year and will be a very competitive team next year. With some momentum in recruiting and continued player commitment and development, it won't be long before we will be back to competing with TCU and hopefully dominating Rice.

Even if we were playing in the Big XII instead of Baylor, I doubt we would consistently be competing for league titles. At best, we'd be competing right alongside TTech and OSU and simply have to take satisfaction from occasionally beating one of the Goliaths and being rewarded with a bowl game in san Antonio or Shreveport. While that would be nice, it ain't happening so let's just hope we can compete someday for a CUSA title and trip to Memphis.

[jtstang]

I don't think anyone is refering to the payola as part of the 80's model they are championing. The faculty took advantage of the situation to put unreasonable academic restrictions on recruiting when academic qualifications were never the problem. The problem of course was the payola.

Don't misunderstand, although I am as guilty as the next fan, my position is that we should not hold those teams in high esteem precisely because they engaged in the violations which got us the DP. And while the unreasonable academic restrictions may have been unrelated to the actual violations, without the violations Pye would not have had the ammunition he needed to implement the restrictions.

[jtstang]

I do think SMU will join the ranks of those who can and will compete for conference championships and that is because we do NOT compete in a BCS conference. Our conference mates all struggle to sign the top recruits, who generally want to play in the spotlight.

That's about as right-on as you can get for this analysis. Good job CP.

[Hoofbeat83]

CP: i included wake because of their record last year and BC because i was asleep at the switch and was still thinking of them as big east. but you are right: with the new landscape of the ACC, neither is likely to compete for the championship.

my whole point of posting this was in sync with your response. i want to see us compete in the conference in which reside, and i hope that within two or three years we are able to compete for CUSA title. though the $$$ would be nice, i'm not sure i'd want to switch places with baylor. doesn't really matter b/c it isn't going to happen.

[RGV Pony]

With all of this talk about the level at which SMU competes, I can't help but think of basic steps which could go a long way to remedy the situation. Every other member of the Mustang Club saw the 'report' sent out a few years ago. What was it, 1700 members of the Mustang Club? That's crap. I think it's time we police our own. I'd like to see every Mustang Club member recruit two additional members this football season. If we give two sh*ts about this program, it shouldn't be a problem. We can create what we envision...yeah yeah nat'l title would be nice, but how about a Mustang Club with 5100 members for a start. I'll do my part. WHO ELSE?

What frustrates the hell out of me is this (and I know a lot of you have heard me say this before): My wife has 2 LSU season tickets. This year, to renew every season ticket holder was required to join TAF (Tiger Athletic Foundation)& make a contribution, which has different levels of giving, much like the Mustang Club. I believe there are now 66,000 season ticket holders. And more than that belong to TAF. Now, I know SMU has fewer backers, alumni, is private, etc. But hell...how hard can it be to round up 5,000?

Imagine what can become if we BEGIN by tripling spending power.