PonyFans.com

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/196211.html

It sounds like Gill is the kind of coach SMU is seeking and the Mustangs’ program is similar to UB in many ways. A powerhouse in the old Southwest Conference, SMU has enjoyed only one winning season since 1989, and academic restrictions in the post-death penalty era have made recruiting a challenge.

He's out of there, whether it's to SMU or someplace else.

jackspub wrote:http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/196211.html

It sounds like Gill is the kind of coach SMU is seeking and the Mustangs’ program is similar to UB in many ways. A powerhouse in the old Southwest Conference, SMU has enjoyed only one winning season since 1989, and academic restrictions in the post-death penalty era have made recruiting a challenge.

SMU was never exactly a 'powerhouse' in the old SWC, although many of us would like to think that.

Similar to when an AD or GM says he has faith in his coach. That's opposite speak.

MrMustang1965 wrote:SMU was never exactly a 'powerhouse' in the old SWC, although many of us would like to think that.

I bet your pardon? Early 80's we were a powerhouse in the SWC and nationally. And we had the kahonas to tell the NCAA where to put it. That was our biggest mistake.

I'm telling you, this is our man. Not saying we can get him, but he is the best fit for us. not sure if we are the right fit for him, but it seems like a match. Not opposed to getting a has-been if we have to, but rather have a comer with all the same attributes...name value, marketing ability, recruiting ability.

DiamondM75 wrote:

MrMustang1965 wrote:SMU was never exactly a 'powerhouse' in the old SWC, although many of us would like to think that.

I bet your pardon? Early 80's we were a powerhouse in the SWC and nationally. And we had the kahonas to tell the NCAA where to put it. That was our biggest mistake.

Approximately 5 years in the early 80s and a few years in the late 40s out of a nearly 100 year history does not actually make one a powerhouse.

MrMustang1965 wrote:

DiamondM75 wrote:

MrMustang1965 wrote:SMU was never exactly a 'powerhouse' in the old SWC, although many of us would like to think that.

I bet your pardon? Early 80's we were a powerhouse in the SWC and nationally. And we had the kahonas to tell the NCAA where to put it. That was our biggest mistake.

Approximately 5 years in the early 80s and a few years in the late 40s out of a nearly 100 year history does not actually make one a powerhouse.

Nearly a 100? Is it not closer to 50?

[Approximately 5 years in the early 80s and a few years in the late 40s out of a nearly 100 year history does not actually make one a powerhouse.[/quote]

Let's see-

71 seasons before the death penalty. SMU had a winning record 38 of these for a 54 % winning percentage. In addition, we were national champs three times, 1935, 1981 and 1982. We won the SWC 11 times, 1923,1926,1931,1935,1940,1947,1948,1966,1981,1982 and 1984. We went to 10 bowl games during 1935-1984 including the Rose Bowl. I agree we have not been a consistent powerhouse but we have had our moments.

smu diamond m wrote:

MrMustang1965 wrote:

DiamondM75 wrote:

MrMustang1965 wrote:SMU was never exactly a 'powerhouse' in the old SWC, although many of us would like to think that.

I bet your pardon? Early 80's we were a powerhouse in the SWC and nationally. And we had the kahonas to tell the NCAA where to put it. That was our biggest mistake.

Approximately 5 years in the early 80s and a few years in the late 40s out of a nearly 100 year history does not actually make one a powerhouse.

Nearly a 100? Is it not closer to 50?

SMU's centennial will be celebrated in 2011. The first football team was fielded in 1916. So...give or take a few years off of 100.

mustangbill67 wrote:71 seasons before the death penalty. SMU had a winning record 38 of these for a 54 % winning percentage. In addition, we were national champs three times, 1935, 1981 and 1982. We won the SWC 11 times, 1923,1926,1931,1935,1940,1947,1948,1966,1981,1982 and 1984. We went to 10 bowl games during 1935-1984 including the Rose Bowl. I agree we have not been a consistent powerhouse but we have had our moments.

SMU football history can be divided into four periods: 30 years from inception to the time Doak left, 30 years until the cheating began, the cheating years, and the last 20 years post DP. We were a solid team in a top conference in the first period, a less than mediocre one in a top conference the second, a national powerhouse during the cheating years, and a less than mediocre team in a mid-level conference since the DP.

Let's end this last 30 year period as a solid team in a mid-level conference and regain some of the pride that was lost when Doak left.