PonyFans.com

before SMU spinmasters start counting walk-ons, waterboys and cheerleaders to PULL ANOTHER BIG LIE on their alumni let it be proclaimed here first that SMU has more offensive and defensive returning starters than any team in CUSA in 2005:

SMU: 20
Tulane 17
East Carolina: 16
Houston 16
UAB: 15
UCF: 13
Southern Miss: 13
Memphis: 11
Rice: 11
Tulsa: 11
UTEP: 11
Marshall: 6

Is that good or bad?

Stallion wrote:before SMU spinmasters start counting walk-ons, waterboys and cheerleaders to PULL ANOTHER BIG LIE on their alumni let it be proclaimed here first that SMU has more offensive and defensive returning starters than any team in CUSA in 2005:

SMU: 20
Tulane 17
East Carolina: 16
Houston 16
UAB: 15
UCF: 13
Southern Miss: 13
Memphis: 11
Rice: 11
Tulsa: 11
UTEP: 11
Marshall: 6

Stallion: I'm confused by your comment at the beginning of this post although I think I know what you were trying to say.

Each year we've heard that SMU has the youngest team in the country. With this many returning starters, you'd think we'd be pretty experienced, right? And not so young anymore.

Or were you implying something else? Please clarify.

I guess the "we're young" excuse will not explain our numerous losses this season--what are some others?

jtstang wrote:I guess the "we're young" excuse will not explain our numerous losses this season--what are some others?

Not so fast there, jtstang. Do you have a 'crystal ball'? What 'numerous losses' do you see thru the haze?

Your eternal optimistic outlook is killing me jt...why am I not surprised?

PK wrote:Your eternal optimistic outlook is killing me jt...why am I not surprised?

Come now, PK, its too far away from the season to have the "realist/optimist" debate again, don't you think?

Yep, we have 20 returning starters some of them competing of course for the same positions (since we have three former starting QB's). That being said, how many of our returning starters are seniors vs. the rest of CUSA. I thought so. Next question.

Puh-lease. Whereas in most schools, players aren't starting until they are sophmores or juniors, as a team with no depth, we were forced to play a bunch of kids before they were ready. A redshirted Sophmore that started last year has a leg up on a redshirted Sophmore that didn't, but still may lack the size and experience of a Junior or Senior starting for the first time.

On the 2004 roster, there are 14 juniors. 4 never play. Toss in the starting kickers. That leaves 8. Two are Juco transfer QB's. So only one is going to start, unless Burns gets too creative. So of the position players that leaves 6, 5 on Defense and 1 on offense. That offensive player didn't play in the spring.

Compare that to 2004, when Senior Day came around and there were a bunch of players that hadn't played all year or the year before. Witht he exception of Adami and Munlin, I didn't know who any of them were. In contrast, ont he 2004 roster there are 42 redshirt sophmores and Juniors.

I think I have heard "young" about a hundred times. I am not sure how many times, if any, I heard "inexperienced". Nothing you have shown will make that any less true, if it is. I don't know if you know this, but every school has walkons.

Yeah, they are going to have experience, but they are still young. Just because they started, doesn't mean they were ready to start. Lots of players played out of necessity. And just because they started last year, doesn't mean they'll start this year, especially on defense.

Why don't you wait until they actually do or say something to pi$$ you off before you start [deleted].

Thanks, though. You actually made me look at the roster. We should have some experience on the defensive side of the ball. Hopefully that will translate into a win or two next year.

each week last year the SID put out a BIG LIE stating SMU had the youngest team in America. It was done by including all walkons in the program including Fall invited walkons and Fall late/uninivited walkons and comparing it to PUBLISHED post - spring practice rosters of other Division 1A schools most of which I guarantee you did not include the Fall Semester walkons. It hugely overstated how young SMU was by including many walkons who will never see the playing field in their SMU career. An honest evaluation would be to compare scholarship numbers and/or traveling squad numbers and/or two deep numbers.

Stallion wrote:each week last year the SID put out a BIG LIE stating SMU had the youngest team in America. It was done by including all walkons in the program including Fall invited walkons and Fall late/uninivited walkons and comparing it to PUBLISHED post - spring practice rosters of other Division 1A schools most of which I guarantee you did not include the Fall Semester walkons. It hugely overstated how young SMU was by including many walkons who will never see the playing field in their SMU career. An honest evaluation would be to compare scholarship numbers and/or traveling squad numbers and/or two deep numbers.

Well then get off your F'ing @$$ and do that analysis, dude. Comparing returning starters ain't the same thing as saying "SMU is not a young team."

I await your "compar[ison of] scholarship numbers and/or traveling squad numbers and/or two deep numbers." Please have it on my desk no later than Friday.

Well said Dooby, Stallion can only claim that the analysis was flawed and not a "BIG LIE." Heck this is a PR department and they are supposed to generate PR. How much PR do you get by saying "when you analyze this or that then SMU is in the bottom 10 blah blah blah?

hey I just did post an analysis of the returning experience on each team---but if I did decide to do a more thorough ana;ysis myself you can bet - as with my analysis of recruiting and the future prospects of the Football and Basketball programs-- it would be a hell of a lot more accurate and reliable that anything coming from the SMU Athletic Department.

hey I just did post an analysis of the returning experience on each team---but if I did decide to do a more thorough ana;ysis myself you can bet - as with my analysis of recruiting and the future prospects of the Football and Basketball programs-- it would be a hell of a lot more accurate and reliable that anything coming from the SMU Athletic Department.

Well, I did my own study. It has its flaws, which I am willing to concede. I took the online roster for each Conference USA team. When possible, I tried to use 2004 rosters, but in a couple of cases, I could only find 2005 spring rosters. I assigned a value to each year: Freshman=1; Sophmore=2; Junior=3; senior=4. If a player was redshirted, I gave an additional .5, so for example, a RS freshman got a 1.5.

Why did I use 2004? because that is the "Big Lie", I guess. And also, because for the most part, it was the best I could do. The problem with including 2005 Spring rosters when that is all that is available, is that in a couple of cases, 2004-05 Juniors are referred to as Seniors and thus there are few freshman on the roster, or the opposite is the problem and there are few, if any seniors.

Couple of notes: (1) not every school had redshirting information. That lowered their age. (2) SMU had the largest roster by one over So. Miss., I guess because they include waterboys and walkons. Many rosters were over 100. All, well over 85, with the exception of the Spring rosters which either listed no freshman or no seniors. So, presumably, other schools include walkons or waterboys, too, or they found a way to exceed the 85 man limit.

ECU Spring 2.84
Houston 2.596386
Marshall 2.190476
Memphis 2.653846
Rice 2.293651
SMU 1.905405
So. Miss 2.454545
Tulsa Spring 2.582192
Tulane 2.84
UAB Spring 2.72561
UCF Spring 3.029412
UTEP 2.55102


Guess what? SMU has the youngest roster in Conference USA. I know it comes as a shock.