SI's final rankings...
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:53 pmIn 2007 and beyond, SMU returns to our traditional position in footbll and regain national awareness for excellence in all sports, but especially football.
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:53 pmPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:12 pmInteresting. I have felt that we need to always be in the top half (64) as a foundation for the program. The distance between 64 and a Top 25 team, a goal set by Orsini, is closer than going from 117 to 64.
In 2007 and beyond, SMU returns to our traditional position in footbll and regain national awareness for excellence in all sports, but especially football.
In 2007 and beyond, SMU returns to our traditional position in footbll and regain national awareness for excellence in all sports, but especially football.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:25 pmI think that ranking might even be a little generous. I think a few of the teams just a couple spots ahead or behind SMU could really hand it to us. I would have us about 75 I am thinking.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:45 pmThe official MustangStealth end-of-season rankings have us at #70.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:07 pm69 is about right...about 4 cusa teams ahead of us...
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:05 am69 has always been one of my favorite numbers.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:59 pm
I can not believe you said that. 
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:06 pmBUS wrote::D I can not believe you said that.
I can't believe that you just winked at a man that said that.
Not that theres anything wrong with that.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:18 pmthis poll WAY WAY WAY overates the strength of the better non-BCS conference schools. Sorry-that's just the way it is. Rice lost to Florida S. 55-7 and yet they ranked about the same. Nonsense. They got Baylor 14 spots below us-don't think so-Baylor would easily defeat SMU on a neutrall field just like they have the other 9 or 10 times we've played since the DP. I doubt if SMU could beat more than 5 BCS schools this year and they have about 16 rated below us.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:28 pmYeah, maybe. Kinda looks like they just based it off team records. For example, I don't think Arizona should be ranked below Rice just because of their record. But it's all opinion...you have one, I have one, whoever this guy is had one too.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:30 pmi think we would have a very good chance after Bell went downStallion wrote:They got Baylor 14 spots below us-don't think Baylor would easily defeat SMU on a neutrall field just like they have the other 9 or 10 times we've plsayed since the DP.
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:19 pmStallion wrote:this poll WAY WAY WAY overates the strength of the better non-BCS conference schools. Sorry-that's just the way it is. Rice lost to Florida S. 55-7 and yet they ranked about the same. Nonsense. They got Baylor 14 spots below us-don't think so-Baylor would easily defeat SMU on a neutrall field just like they have the other 9 or 10 times we've played since the DP. I doubt if SMU could beat more than 5 BCS schools this year and they have about 16 rated below us.
Yeah, like it's rocket science, brain surgery, or something
Go pick NITS on something that will get one of your clients OFF
BTW, what was our rating last year