EXORCISING DEMONS

by **ALEX LIFESON** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:31 pm

After SMU's 42-41 victory at Tulsa in 1997, Mike Cavan said "It's hard exorcising demons"

SMU has a chance to play the Exorcist this Saturday.

Get their first 7 win season since the dp.
Beat Rice in Houston since (see above)
Receive a bowl bid since (you guessed it)

I know for a lot of us, when that clock hits zero with these evil tasks accomplished..........it will probably be an emotional moment.

Whatever it takes, let's get this done!

by **smu diamond m** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:45 pm

This would be the first bowl bid since 1984, not the death penalty.

by **ALEX LIFESON** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:42 pm

Because of probation in 85 and 86, SMU was not eligible to play in a bowl.

by **Mustang98** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:08 am

If SMU was not under probation in 1985 and 1986, would they have gone to a bowl game? I think they finished 6-5 both years.

by **FloridaMustang** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:15 am

Mustang98 wrote:If SMU was not under probation in 1985 and 1986, would they have gone to a bowl game? I think they finished 6-5 both years.

Not if they were 6-5.

by **smu diamond m** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:12 am

ALEX LIFESON wrote:Because of probation in 85 and 86, SMU was not eligible to play in a bowl.

Uhm, I know that. It doesn't contradict what I said. The last bowl was in '84, DP was in '86 (or '87 how ever you like to look at it), therefore, our last bowl bid was BEFORE the death penalty.

by **jtstang** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:05 am

smu diamond m wrote:
ALEX LIFESON wrote:Because of probation in 85 and 86, SMU was not eligible to play in a bowl.

Uhm, I know that. It doesn't contradict what I said. The last bowl was in '84, DP was in '86 (or '87 how ever you like to look at it), therefore, our last bowl bid was BEFORE the death penalty.

So then first bowl bid since the death penalty is correct, nitpicker.

EXORCISING DEMONS

EXORCISING DEMONS

Who is online