PonyFans.com

another long disasterous season. Many of you who post on this board are excited about the football season but I am warning you now that we are in for a long, long season....again. We have a new offense (not necessarily good); an incredibly hard non-conference scheule (not good); we are in a conference with teams that easily allow their coaches to recruit JUCO recruits, accept transfers, and high school players that have suspect grades and test scores unlike us; and we are two days away from the opening game and our coach is still undecided on who the best QB is on the team as well as other players (not good). I would like nothing more than to see SMU have success on the football field but it will have to wait, yet, another season. We could very well go winless again as I cannot find a team on our schedule that we can beat. Prediction....this could very well be Bennett's last stand. I hope I am wrong though but usually I am right....only time will tell.

Actually, you're rarely right. But some of the things you mention can be looked at in other ways. First of all, the coaches have decided Chris Phillips is the man for the job, at least for now. But we have Eckert and Romo, giving us three QBs who are better than what we've had in the past. And this is a bad thing? Depth with talent? Yeah, how awful. If one has a bad day, which happens to the best of us, he can be replaced because we don't have a weak-armed no-talent guy behind him. I call that positive insurance. As for the out-of-conference schedule, sure it's tough, but you can only play the teams on the schedule. You can cry about how they're tough, or you can buckle up your chinstrap and play, and even if you don't win, you can learn from a good opponent and be better prepared for the conference schedule. We're not expected to win the first three games. Does that mean we can't win any of them? Of course not. But even if we don't, we will have been through some battles and gotten used to Coach Burns's offense enough that we'll be ready to give San Jose State hell when they come to town.

Remind me why it is you bother coming to a site called PonyFANS?

Why I bother you ask? I bother because of the injustices being done at the athletic department. We have an athletic director that over schedules our team year after year. For instance, K-State was a loser every year. They realized they needed to schedule easier non-conference games to accumulate some wins or at least give themselves a decent chance. TCU is another example. They have and have had a much easier schedule than us. They even realize they cannot win against the teams we play and they have much more talent than us. Second, we still do not compete on a level playing field with our opponents. Why is it that many of the posters on this board are talking about SMU beating the spead agaisnt Texas Tech and not whether we will win? Wouldn't be nice if we were dicussing the possiblity of being 1-0 after the first game. You say we learn from playing tougher teams? What did we learn last year from the humiliating losses against Tech and OSU? The answer is nothing. I learned that SMU is still very far away from putting a winner on the field. So, I am right. Facts are facts. You can spin it anyway you want. SMU's records over the past ten years makes my point. Until then, you and your athletic department pals can fantasize all day about the 'future'. Meanwhile, I am one of the very few posters on this board who looks at the situation realisticly. I want nothing more than for SMU to be a winner but until things change it will not happen anytime soon.

Johnny Rock wrote: We could very well go winless again as I cannot find a team on our schedule that we can beat. Prediction....this could very well be Bennett's last stand. I hope I am wrong though but usually I am right....only time will tell.

JR, you seem pretty convinced of that. I'll bet you anything you want to bet that SMU will not go winless this year. Nothing wrong with being dissatisfied, I am too, but you lose your audience with extreme statements and temper tantrums.

Johnny Rock wrote:Why I bother you ask? I bother because of the injustices being done at the athletic department.

Oh relax. Injustices? Isn't that a little harsh? We want them to do better, and the process is in place to do that. Are we ever going to a BCS bowl? Doubtful. But with the changes in admission procedure, etc., we have better athletes coming in than we have since the 1980s.

Johnny Rock wrote:We have an athletic director that over schedules our team year after year. For instance, K-State was a loser every year. They realized they needed to schedule easier non-conference games to accumulate some wins or at least give themselves a decent chance.

Right. And if we started beating West Central Tech State Vocational College - you'd be whining that we aren't scheduling big-time competition, and that the win didn't mean anything.

Johnny Rock wrote:TCU is another example. They have and have had a much easier schedule than us. They even realize they cannot win against the teams we play and they have much more talent than us.

Really? Their schedules with Louisville, Southern Miss, etc., is easy? We might have had a tougher out-of-conference schedule, but put their CUSA opponents up against UTEP, San Jose, etc. It's even, at best.

Johnny Rock wrote:Second, we still do not compete on a level playing field with our opponents. Why is it that many of the posters on this board are talking about SMU beating the spead agaisnt Texas Tech and not whether we will win? Wouldn't be nice if we were dicussing the possiblity of being 1-0 after the first game.

Read the board. All of us are hoping for a win, and there are some who even have the stones to predict it. You make ridiculous claims about being "realistic," yet you whine when people don't go mouthing off before a game against an explosive Big 12 team?

Johnny Rock wrote:You say we learn from playing tougher teams? What did we learn last year from the humiliating losses against Tech and OSU? The answer is nothing. I learned that SMU is still very far away from putting a winner on the field.

What about the 2002 game with Tech? We hung in there right to the end. Nothing positive there, either, right? Look, we went 0-fer last year, so it's hard to point to what might or might not have been learned. But if you think the players didn't learn and grow from each game last year then you don't understand the competitive nature of players and coaches.

Johnny Rock wrote:So, I am right. Facts are facts.

Of course you are - you go right on believing that. Everyone bow down and except the mindless ramblings of this genius, because without his wisdom, we'd never get through the day.

Johnny Rock wrote: .... Meanwhile, I am one of the very few posters on this board who looks at the situation realisticly. I want nothing more than for SMU to be a winner but until things change it will not happen anytime soon.

Why do you go to games (if, in fact, you even go)? Must be miserable living in your world.

I would argue that the weakness of our schedule has alot to do with why we have been unable to attract the better recruits. In the early 90s (I can't believe I'm referring to this as the good ole days), the talent was higher on the team, in part because of the strength and recognition of our opponents. SMU was a way for athletes to play the Major colleges like Texas, Arkansas, Wisconsin, ect), who couldn't get on, or didn't have the patience to be in those programs. Did we win alot of games? No, but I'd reather lose 6 games to the likes of UT, A &M, and Arkansas. Than UTEP, San Jose, and Rice

PonyFan wrote:First of all, the coaches have decided Chris Phillips is the man for the job, at least for now.

How can you honestly think that--did you not read any of the thread from yesterday where we debated Bennett's asinine quote in the paper the week before the opener that he may rotate THREE QBs in the first game? That does not sound at all like the coaches anointing Phillips as "the man" to me.

You're right, jt, i mis-spoke. I didn't mean to suggest they were calling him the second coming of Don Meredith. Just that they've named him the starter, and they're going with him from the outset. But I do believe they're happier with the talent of QBs 1 through 3 than they were with any previous QB rotations. Do you agree?

PonyFan wrote:You're right, jt, i mis-spoke. I didn't mean to suggest they were calling him the second coming of Don Meredith. Just that they've named him the starter, and they're going with him from the outset. But I do believe they're happier with the talent of QBs 1 through 3 than they were with any previous QB rotations. Do you agree?

I agree having two experienced backups is a nice problem to have--I cannot for the life of me understand why any coach would be happy with any system involving rotating quarterbacks.

You and me both. MAYBE there's some value in occasionally offering a different look by going with the lefty-righty switch, especially when one's a runner and one's not. But I'm with you, jt - pick one guy and stick with him.

johnnyrock=ponysnob

if they aren't the same person, then they are twins mysteriously separated at birth, only to grow up with the same spoiled attitude and outlook on life. they aren't really fans, just general malcontents who say the same thing over...and over...and over. and over.

and there IS a difference between those who state truths about the program (i.e., stallion) and those who have TCU envy (JR and PS), the former being a real fan and the latter being the kind we could do without...gladly.

and over.

jtstang wrote:I agree having two experienced backups is a nice problem to have--I cannot for the life of me understand why any coach would be happy with any system involving rotating quarterbacks.

Let's set the record straight. Coach Bennett is not calling for rotating QBs. What he said was that one or both of the backups may get in and may get in early. The goal is to have an established, best choice QB as the season develops and not to go on in the season with some kind of rotation scheme.

The QBs are so close and have different strengths that it was not possible to fully sort it all out before the season except that Phillips is the starter.

The PonyGrad wrote:Let's set the record straight. Coach Bennett is not calling for rotating QBs. What he said was that one or both of the backups may get in and may get in early. The goal is to have an established, best choice QB as the season develops and not to go on in the season with some kind of rotation scheme.

The QBs are so close and have different strengths that it was not possible to fully sort it all out before the season except that Phillips is the starter.

Look, I can read the newspaper, and I know what the record is, so I don't need you setting it straight for me (unless you have some inside info, then you should disclose it). To me, if you don't leave your starter in, and you insert multiple qb's into the same game, whatever the situation, its the wrong approach. It is stupid to even say it in private to your starter, much less in the press. You don't have to call it rotation if you don't want to, but you and I both know what it is. Phillips should have been named the starter, and that's that.

If the coaches can't sort it out, that means they either all suck equally, or they are all equally pretty good. Either way, you pick your starter and stand with him.

Good God, man...you won't even be at the game on Saturday! (You said so yourself under the post "SMU, A&M Sign Three Game Deal) Your comments/opinions are pointless.