Actually...to answer Stallion's question..

[Stampede]

SMU does have a player on a current NFL roster. Kevin Garrett is on the Kansas City Chiefs current roster. Just signed this off season.

[Hal]

Good luck, KG!

[McClown27]

SMU does have a player on a current NFL roster. Kevin Garrett is on the Kansas City Chiefs current roster. Just signed this off season.

Boy, you sure burned him!

[RedRiverPony]

Call it what you will -- he's right.

And despite the cries of those who don't include him because of his last-year transfer, Josh McCown also is a decent NFL quarterback. Don't care about his senior year -- he's one of ours.

[DiamondM]

Trying to answer Stallion's question while procrastinating. Could have missed something, but these 4 Div. 1-A universities don't appear to have anyone on a current NFL roster:

Florida International
Buffalo
Army
Central Michigan.

But, of course, the question Stallion posed was, not surprisingly, an argumentative, inflammatory red herring. Would the fact that Temple, Howard, Furman, Dartmouth, Brown, Murray State, Middle Tennessee State, Kent State, Indiana of Pennsylvania, Lehigh, San Jose State, Hampton, Columbia, Williams College, etc. all have graduates on current NFL rosters demonstrate that those schools are more committed than SMU if KG weren't on a roster? No.

In any case, no one disagrees that SMU has been really really bad since the death penalty -- so pointing it out over and over again in many different ways does not reveal any unknown or unacknowledged "truth" to the masses. It just beats a long-dead horse. What many of us disagree with Stallion about is what the solution to that problem is, and whether we're going to be part of that solution, or just compound the problem by repeating it over and over again.

[McClown27]

I am just surprised that Stampede is not pushing that weirdo RodeoDC's posts again. Everyone saw the post, and then he posted it in like every section.

[RedRiverPony]

I am just surprised that Stampede is not pushing that weirdo RodeoDC's posts again. Everyone saw the post, and then he posted it in like every section.

Easy there -- Rodeo was a fixture here for a long time. So he got excited on his return to his old stomping grounds. He's a pretty clever writer. I'm glad he's back.

[McClown27]

Easy there -- Rodeo was a fixture here for a long time. So he got excited on his return to his old stomping grounds. He's a pretty clever writer. I'm glad he's back.

I think that you would agree that RodeoDC could probably make his own posts. I'm very glad you have him back, just don't repost his entries repeatedly.

[SoCal_Pony]

Trying to answer Stallion's question while procrastinating. Could have missed something, but these 4 Div. 1-A universities don't appear to have anyone on a current NFL roster:

Florida International
Buffalo
Army
Central Michigan.

But, of course, the question Stallion posed was, not surprisingly, an argumentative, inflammatory red herring. Would the fact that Temple, Howard, Furman, Dartmouth, Brown, Murray State, Middle Tennessee State, Kent State, Indiana of Pennsylvania, Lehigh, San Jose State, Hampton, Columbia, Williams College, etc. all have graduates on current NFL rosters demonstrate that those schools are more committed than SMU if KG weren't on a roster? No.

Further proof that the Dumbing-Down approach used by our administration is working..look at the schools you are comparing SMU to…and btw, you are right to do so…these are our true peers.

This approach will be on further display next September 16th and 23rd.

And for the record, is Donald Mitchell’s nickel back contribution for 1 season with the Titans our greatest NFL accomplishment post-DP? Do we even have 5 players who have stepped onto the field during a live game???

[DiamondM]

It's not about comparing ourselves to those teams -- I believe SMU's committment -- meaning cash money that funds the deficit in our athletic department due to lack of gate, tv, alumni support, tourney revenues, etc. -- is much more than those schools have. I mean, do you really truly believe that SMU is no more committed to its athletic programs than Williams College just because they have the same number of current NFL players? I guess it matters not that if you compared the amount of tuition and student fees, both in terms of actual dollars and percentage, that SMU dedicates to fund its athletic programs is much more than those schools, and even more than many of the programs with supposed "committments" to their athletic programs. The real truth is that it is their fan base and alumni are financially committed to their programs, unlike SMU's fans and alumni, so that their administrations don't have to be. Apparently that type of financing is not evidence of committment though.

The word committment is such a buzz word around here -- but no one who complains about the lack of the administration's committment explains why San Jose State or North Texas is more "committed" than SMU because they bring in JUCOs by the truckload, have really low academic standards, and will admit anything with opposable thumbs. If JUCOs = committment, then San Jose State must necessarily be more committed than SMU, right? Do you really believe that to be the case?

[PonySnob]

The word committment is such a buzz word around here -- but no one who complains about the lack of the administration's committment explains why San Jose State or North Texas is more "committed" than SMU because they bring in JUCOs by the truckload, have really low academic standards, and will admit anything with opposable thumbs.

North Texas has certainly had more winning seasons, been to more bowl games and won more conference championships than SMU has in the last 20 years.

[RGV Pony]

The word committment is such a buzz word around here -- but no one who complains about the lack of the administration's committment explains why San Jose State or North Texas is more "committed" than SMU because they bring in JUCOs by the truckload, have really low academic standards, and will admit anything with opposable thumbs.

North Texas has certainly had more winning seasons, been to more bowl games and won more conference championships than SMU has in the last 20 years.

Yep, and they've done it with their HC and OC making trips up I35 from SMU.

[Mickey]

SMU does have a player on a current NFL roster. Kevin Garrett is on the Kansas City Chiefs current roster. Just signed this off season.

Are you answering a question, or making the point for Stallion?

[Blunt Pony]

It's not about comparing ourselves to those teams -- I believe SMU's committment -- meaning cash money that funds the deficit in our athletic department due to lack of gate, tv, alumni support, tourney revenues, etc. -- is much more than those schools have. I mean, do you really truly believe that SMU is no more committed to its athletic programs than Williams College just because they have the same number of current NFL players? I guess it matters not that if you compared the amount of tuition and student fees, both in terms of actual dollars and percentage, that SMU dedicates to fund its athletic programs is much more than those schools, and even more than many of the programs with supposed "committments" to their athletic programs. The real truth is that it is their fan base and alumni are financially committed to their programs, unlike SMU's fans and alumni, so that their administrations don't have to be. Apparently that type of financing is not evidence of committment though.

The word committment is such a buzz word around here -- but no one who complains about the lack of the administration's committment explains why San Jose State or North Texas is more "committed" than SMU because they bring in JUCOs by the truckload, have really low academic standards, and will admit anything with opposable thumbs. If JUCOs = committment, then San Jose State must necessarily be more committed than SMU, right? Do you really believe that to be the case?

The reason the word Commitment is such buzz word around here is that we were sold a bill of goods a few years ago titled "The Commitment"

[BrianTinBigD]

I still don't buy the $3.5million number. Is that in cold, hard cash that is spent or is that in bs funny money that is SMU charging full price for room and board for the athletes. Then claiming that they are giving $3.5 million to cover athletics. Of course, if we were not hobbled by cash drain sports like rowing, golf, tennis, equestrian(does the horse get a scholarship), volleyball, and girl's basketball the money might not be an issue at all.