PonyFans.com

. . . then why are the same teams always at the top?

(this is a retorical question)

Coaching does matter, and a great coach can get a team up and on it's feet faster than 5 years.

We sit around and let the media and everyone else blame SMU's problems on the death penalty. Most of the boys playing now were not even born when the death penalty was issued. If we and everyone else would quit talking about it, they wouldn't even know about it.

I know that is ridiculous, because "it" will always be talked about, since SMU is and always will be the only recipient of that punishment, but it is now a "dead horse".

With that said, to get that off the minds of the media and the public, we need dramatic change, a paradigm shift, momentum and wins that really get the attention of the public.

Bob Knight was sitting at home when Texas Tech hired him, and suddenly, everyone in the country knew where Texas Tech was. It was a dramatic move, it got press, it got media attention.

Coaching DOES matter, and it starts at the top.

i know you said it was a rhetorical question...but it just begs for a response...

dont get me wrong a coach is important...and sometimes crucial (if he wasnt they wouldnt exist) but...

the same teams are always at the top because of reputation...Notre Dame always picks up big recruits no matter who is coaching because of the school's prestige...same with michigan and usc...they were also able to get big name coaches because of their name & made coaches into big name coaches because of it...

SMU's prestige/reputation is the death penalty...

ponyup10 wrote:i know you said it was a rhetorical question...but it just begs for a response...

dont get me wrong a coach is important...and sometimes crucial (if he wasnt they wouldnt exist) but...

the same teams are always at the top because of reputation...Notre Dame always picks up big recruits no matter who is coaching because of the school's prestige...same with michigan and usc...they were also able to get big name coaches because of their name & made coaches into big name coaches because of it...

SMU's prestige/reputation is the death penalty...

This sounds like "which came first, the chicken or the egg". They are always at the top because they get the players and the players play well, and so they attract great coaches . . .

I beg to differ.

I think great coaches develope and field great teams no matter who their players are.

SMU needs to do something BIG and DRAMATIC to dispell our "reputation" and get the emphasis off of the death penalty. That's all I am saying. And a great coach could do that. Get us a great coach, and you'll see.

at this point id be happy with a real oc and qb coach to focus on making willis the heisman his senior year

ponyup10 wrote:at this point id be happy with a real oc and qb coach to focus on making willis the heisman his senior year

See, now you're thinking! It was exciting when Dickerson was in that hunt, but I'm not even looking for than kind of flash and dash, just some steady, impressive ball playing.

Look at Rutgers. They have never been "on the map" but this year, the whole country was pulling for them.

Why are the great teams always at the top despite changing coaches? First, they don't handicap their coaches in getting great players. Top to bottom their players are better than the other teams players. Second, they have a history of winning and players given a choice between a winning program and a losing program will choose a winning program. Some of these programs have had coaches who when put in other situations have been marginal at best. Mike Price was a great coach at Washington State. Yet at UTEP, while he has improved the program and gotten better players has not set the world on fire. On the field his coaching abilities have been laid bare against teams with equal or better talent. George O'Leary had a spurt at UCF, but the jury's still out. Mike Shula had winning seasons and Alabama and got fired despite coming off a quasi-death penalty and the Coach Fran fiasco. Yet Alabama was not a poor team by any means of measurement. UT gets most of the best players in Texas, yet has only one national championship and one Big South title in Coach Mac's tenure. Why? Its both coaching and recruiting. Recruiting gets you into the elite group and always will.

EastStang wrote: UT gets most of the best players in Texas, yet has only one national championship and one Big South title in Coach Mac's tenure.

Big South???

EXCUUUUUSE ME!!! Big XII South. Feel better?

yes...very much so...i dont think UT would have much problem taking care of Coastal Carolina, Charleston Southern, or Liberty...just to name a few

A coach can and will make all the difference. It wasn't too long ago that USC was THE JOKE of the Pac-10. Paul Hackett was a loser and the Coliseum was half empty week in and week out.

They bring in Carroll (who the alums all sneered at since he WASN'T a name coach) and he turns it around with sound recruiting...for a program that was in the toilet! No one wanted to go to SC in the late 90's, but he convinced some great players and started winning, albeit after a few years.

I know, SC is BCS, but the differences from there are minimal. Am I wrong?

SMUtrojanFAN wrote:A coach can and will make all the difference. It wasn't too long ago that USC was THE JOKE of the Pac-10. Paul Hackett was a loser and the Coliseum was half empty week in and week out.

They bring in Carroll (who the alums all sneered at since he WASN'T a name coach) and he turns it around with sound recruiting...for a program that was in the toilet! No one wanted to go to SC in the late 90's, but he convinced some great players and started winning, albeit after a few years.

I know, SC is BCS, but the differences from there are minimal. Am I wrong?

If a Methodist school in California can turn things around, surely a Methodist school in the great state of Texas can, too!

Actually, UT has won the Big XII South title twice in Mack's tenure. Carry on.

SMUtrojanFAN wrote:A coach can and will make all the difference. It wasn't too long ago that USC was THE JOKE of the Pac-10. Paul Hackett was a loser and the Coliseum was half empty week in and week out.

They bring in Carroll (who the alums all sneered at since he WASN'T a name coach) and he turns it around with sound recruiting...for a program that was in the toilet! No one wanted to go to SC in the late 90's, but he convinced some great players and started winning, albeit after a few years.

I know, SC is BCS, but the differences from there are minimal. Am I wrong?

the coliseum half empty would sell out Ford

Well Said - until we change our attitude around here we are going no where. No more Death Penalty talk - it is time to hit the practice fields and let some hard work turn this thing around. I am tired of excuses - Let's dig in and turn this thing around.

firephil wrote:Well Said - until we change our attitude around here we are going no where. No more Death Penalty talk - it is time to hit the practice fields and let some hard work turn this thing around. I am tired of excuses - Let's dig in and turn this thing around.

tell the players they havent been working hard, when PB all the older guys were pissed because he actually made them work unlike the sap before him... now the kids come to smu knowing that PB is not going to be easy on them, and is going to make them work