Teams on the decline

by **PonyTales** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:59 am

Sporting News sends out a daily e-mail version of its mag. Not sure how to copy a link from it (it's a PDF), but in today's issue, there are two columnists who list five teams set for a major fall in 2009.

No. 1 on Dave Curtis's list: Rice

No. 3 on Matt Hayes' list: Tulsa

by **expony18** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:38 am

well tulsa had a better class then us, so what does that say about SMU

by **smupony94** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:52 am

We are on the super secret list

by **jtstang** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:53 am

At 1-11 with our only win over a d-2 team, we cannot decline.

by **ponydawg** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:39 am

jtstang wrote:At 1-11 with our only win over a d-2 team, we cannot decline.

Not so fast, don't we play a d-2 team this year? We can do it.
YES WE CAN!

by **Stallion** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:43 am

I see Tulsa as loaded for many years to come-what's up with that. A UT transfer QB and that great Freshman Class of playmakers from 2007 plus some big time BCS transfers. I'm sure they will continue to have defensive deficiencies but they are loaded on offense the last time I looked-haven't really analyzed most of these teams yet. I must be missing something.

by **expony18** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:29 pm

Stallion wrote: I must be missing something.

http://tulsa.rivals.com/viewprospect.as ... _key=60330

edit (wrong player):

http://tulsa.rivals.com/viewprospect.as ... _key=69828

by **MrMustang1965** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:48 pm

ponydawg wrote:
jtstang wrote:At 1-11 with our only win over a d-2 team, we cannot decline.

Not so fast, don't we play a d-2 team this year? We can do it.
YES WE CAN!

No, SMU plays a Div. 1-AA team (or Div. 1 FCS) this year, not a D-2. That said, I can't wait to see the Mustangs beat the hell outta the Lumberjerks.

by **jtstang** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:00 pm

MrMustang1965 wrote:No, SMU plays a Div. 1-AA team (or Div. 1 FCS) this year, not a D-2.

Meh, no difference.

by **MrMustang1965** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:03 pm

jtstang wrote:
MrMustang1965 wrote:No, SMU plays a Div. 1-AA team (or Div. 1 FCS) this year, not a D-2.

Meh, no difference.

Then schedule a D-2.

by **Stallion** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:27 pm

Tulsa's got about 4 Top QBs all rated higher than the most highly rated QB at SMU in the last 20 years. All their starters at WR are probably candidates for All Conference by the time they graduate. Great FB-nice RBs plus depth. Seriously what is this guy looking at to suggest Tulsa is slipping? Defense? All CUSA Defenses suck.

by **smupony94** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:29 pm

Tulsa must hand out burgers and Cheer left and right to get those kinds of players

by **Dooby** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:37 pm

Stallion wrote:Tulsa's got about 4 Top QBs all rated higher than the most highly rated QB at SMU in the last 20 years. All their starters at WR are probably candidates for All Conference by the time they graduate. Great FB-nice RBs plus depth. Seriously what is this guy looking at to suggest Tulsa is slipping? Defense? All CUSA Defenses suck.

Maybe he a year early, anticipating Graham leaving next year.

by **Cadillac** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:25 pm

expony18 wrote:well tulsa had a better class then us, so what does that say about SMU

That we are starting from that much lower of a position.

-CoS

by **OC Mustang** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:07 am

Stallion wrote:Tulsa's got about 4 Top QBs all rated higher than the most highly rated QB at SMU in the last 20 years. All their starters at WR are probably candidates for All Conference by the time they graduate. Great FB-nice RBs plus depth. Seriously what is this guy looking at to suggest Tulsa is slipping? Defense? All CUSA Defenses suck.

This guy either had a significant typo, his research assistant has poor quality doobage, or he doesn't know what he is doing vis-a-vis his Tulsa comments. Rice I'm not sure about, but they did fine the last couple of years.

Teams on the decline

Teams on the decline

Who is online