why smu will never be BCS

by **smu01** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:53 am

athletic staff.....period..enough siad! players can win as long as the coach can coach. look at vince lambardi..players where not the best but the coach got them to play as a team..bottom line..take your stats and statistics and plug them up your [deleted]. heart and want will win a CUSA championship. those who doubt a dare to reply. that means you stallion..

by **Mustangs35SMU** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:55 am

SMU will never be in the BCS cause we're a small private university who barely has anyone at their games and has had one winning season since the death penalty.

by **that's great raplh** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:55 am

???

we'll get a shot at the BCS next year - going undefeated and being higher ranked than a lousy ACC champ

by **ponyboy** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:15 am

Man, BOTH coaching and talent matter equally. You can assemble a dream team -- but if you have a putz coaching them, you'll only go so far. And you could get Lombardi to coach a bunch of no-talent, slobbering idiots and he'll only go so far. Both matter.

by **ponyplayer** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:04 am

smu01 wrote:athletic staff.....period..enough siad! players can win as long as the coach can coach. look at vince lambardi..players where not the best but the coach got them to play as a team..bottom line..take your stats and statistics and plug them up your [deleted]. heart and want will win a CUSA championship. those who doubt a dare to reply. that means you stallion..

If you have a degree from SMU you are an embarrassment to the matriculation process..................

by **magnolialeague** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:20 am

I find such similar arguments about the success of the team on the Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Delaware, and Duke boards. It is either the coach or the coordinators.

If Rice had a board, I am certain that they would feel the same way since the coach resigned.

Army, Navy, William & Mary, and Furman are the only teams of small schools that seem to like their coach and staff.

Can't tell you where Baylor stands since I think they erased me from their board completely. Very touchy.

by **McClown27** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:55 am

smu01 wrote:athletic staff.....period..enough siad! players can win as long as the coach can coach. look at vince lambardi..players where not the best but the coach got them to play as a team..bottom line..take your stats and statistics and plug them up your [deleted]. heart and want will win a CUSA championship. those who doubt a dare to reply. that means you stallion..

For the late 60's, the Packers had really good talent. Hornung won a Heisman, Taylor was very good, Max McGee was the best pre-Raymond Berry receiver (had to get it in there), and Bart Starr is vastly underrated.

Why the shot at Stallion? Because he advocates that we get better players into SMU? Are you against that idea? I don't know how people can take shots at Stallion after looking at who is in the national championship game. For the past five years, both of those teams have ranked in the top-five in recruiting.

I was in school the years you played for the Ponies. I went to every game. I don't care if Bill Belichick or Bob Stoops were coaching those teams, they would have barely been above .500. They would have needed more horses.

by PK » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:55 pm

As long as there is a BCS, the best players are going to want to go to the schools in BCS conferences...that is a no brainer. For right now, we have to try and recruit the best of the rest. Some times there is not that much difference in the talent level between the top 100s and the best of the rest. As has been stated before, some of those highly rated players have peaked in HS and never get any better. Most do get better, but that is also true of the lower rated players...some of them are still maturing in their talent and that is where the ability to evaluate talent comes in.

As long as there is a BCS, the recruiting field will never be level. Since half of our traditional and natural rivals are now in BCS conference schools and we are not, Stallion's dream of being able to recruit on a level field with all our traditional and natural rivals just isn't going to happen. We should, however, be able to do so with the other half of our traditional and natural rivals and I think we are closer to being able to do so then we ever have been since the dp. We still have some more work to do on the model, but not all that much more. That is not to say we shouldn't try to recruit top players, because you never know what an 18 year old kid may decide. From what I have seen, Bennett is not afraid to go toe to toe with the big boys, but the reality is that the field is not level for us.

Our immediate goal should be to be the best in C-USA and to be able to beat at least mid-level teams in BCS conferences. When we reach that goal, we can then set our sights on becoming part of a BCS conference and to excel in it.

by **Pony_Fan** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:23 pm

Insert Stallion rant about: model, SMU committment, and ease of transfer.

Anyone sick of the word "model" on this board? i sure am...SMU doesn't have a "Model" - that is the problem.

blah, blah, blah.

Coaching matters cletus - but you have to have decent players which SMU lacks.

by **mrydel** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:27 pm

And you can not get those players unless you operate under a proper MODEL!!!!!

by **Stallion** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:08 pm

PK now explain how TCU has ARGUABLY-and by arguably I mean 1 year is really in contention-outrecruited SMU for 17 straight years. I know probably as much as anybody that we ain't going to outrecruit the top BCS schools for many players-but we have rarely gotten the best of the rest.

by **ponyboy** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:19 pm

Maybe two years. You can make the argument for both '97 and '98. Otherwise, you're right.

by PK » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:45 pm

Stallion wrote:PK now explain how TCU has ARGUABLY-and by arguably I mean 1 year is really in contention-outrecruited SMU for 17 straight years. I know probably as much as anybody that we ain't going to outrecruit the top BCS schools for many players-but we have rarely gotten the best of the rest.

Re-read my post Stallion without any preconcieved notion of what I am going to say. No where have I said we have recruited the best of the rest..I said that is what we need to be doing at this point. I have also no where said that we have in the past 17 years recruited on a level field with the other non-BCS traditional and natural rivals. What I said is we are as close to being on that level field as we have ever been since the dp. Reading comprehension is a major attribute in life towards success. As an attorney, I'm surprised that you haven't mastered it yet. :roll:

by **Stallion** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:27 pm

No I understood what you said. The prospects for the 2006 are not close to the best of the rest either. When you don't have one player that is looking at you from among the Top 135 players in Texas then you really are looking at a pretty darn weak recruiting season again. What is really concerning is that in OUR TARGET the DFW Metroplex we are really only in on a handful of players - as in one ONE HAND(singular). You can only pull a rabbit out of the hat so many times.

by **magnolialeague** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:42 pm

Anyone watch Furman vs. Appy State?

Great game! Fans were having a great time.

Stallion and I are at odds. I respect his position to improve the quality; however, be prepared for few great years and many tough years.

PK sums up the situation for SMU and many other schools. Compete the best you can in the space you are in.

Me, I am for natural rivals squaring up every so often.

why smu will never be BCS

why smu will never be BCS

Re: why smu will never be BCS

Re: why smu will never be BCS

Who is online