PonyFans.com

I'm just curious if ANY athletic team at SMU has improved under his 'leadership'......

The non-revenue sports are good.... but weren't they just as good before he got here?

Mens track was.

I went through this and the only case I can make is that men's golf is better than it was a few years ago.

Oh and compared to where we were 10 years ago, we are lightyears ahead in women' volleyball, crew and equestrian. Before Copeland we never won at all. Of course, we didn't have teams.

SMU Football Blog wrote:Oh and compared to where we were 10 years ago, we are lightyears ahead in women' volleyball, crew and equestrian. Before Copeland we never won at all. Of course, we didn't have teams.

I think to tighten up the athletic budget a bit the entire equestrian team should have to share Peruna.

what about women`s golf, went from not being ranked four years ago to post season NCAA the last two years,currently 26th in the country, then again don`t think anybody cares about..............jstang might care

I care about women's golf--there's at least two candidates for the fundraising bikini calendar on that team.

Never finished better than 3rd in the WAC.

Laura Cross is smoking, though.

To save money the equestrian team and women's golf teams should merge. Save money on cart fees.

SMU Football Blog wrote:Never finished better than 3rd in the WAC.

Laura Cross is smoking, though.

To save money the equestrian team and women's golf teams should merge. Save money on cart fees.

Wouldn't that be polo?

that team had four freshmen and one sr playing, against teams that were loaded with seniors, went from DAL to third in one year and that is a negative?

That's a funny post. Could you see the fairway after horses walked on them.

Talk about a divot.

BUS wrote:That a funny post. Could you see the fairway after horses wolked on them.

Talk about a divot.

It isn't the divots you need to watch out for.

ponyplayer wrote:that team had four freshmen and one sr playing, against teams that were loaded with seniors, went from DAL to third in one year and that is a negative?

Not a negative at all. The football team went from zero wins to three, that is a positive, too. But the women's golf team didn't make the NCAA tournament (the men's did) and came in 3rd. If you look back at the question originally asked, I think the answer is that the women's golf team doesn't qualify. They had a good season for them, maybe better than expected, and may do even better this year; they need to be successful before we can call them successful.

ponyplayer wrote:that team had four freshmen and one sr playing, against teams that were loaded with seniors, went from DAL to third in one year and that is a negative?

No that is wonderful, but if Copeland's legacy at SMU is that he helped vault women's golf into the upper echelon then god help us we should just scrap athletics altogether.

blogger, they did make it to the NCAA regionals, that is post NCAA play for the first time since 1992, failed to get to the finals by 3 two years ago and 6 last year

non-revenue sports have done extermly well under his tenure

now, can we get off of women`s golf, parden the pun

don`t say it jtang............

And I think Barb Totzie (sp) is the AD for all sports except Fball, Mbb and Wbb.
Not Copeland hires from what I am told.