Page 1 of 1
Teams on the decline
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:59 amby PonyTales
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
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:38 amby expony18
well tulsa had a better class then us, so what does that say about SMU
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:52 amby smupony94
We are on the super secret list
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:53 amby jtstang
At 1-11 with our only win over a d-2 team, we cannot decline.
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:39 amby ponydawg
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!
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:43 amby Stallion
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.
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:29 pmby expony18
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:48 pmby MrMustang1965
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.
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:00 pmby jtstang
MrMustang1965 wrote:No, SMU plays a Div. 1-AA team (or Div. 1 FCS) this year, not a D-2.
Meh, no difference.
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:03 pmby MrMustang1965
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.
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:27 pmby Stallion
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.
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:29 pmby smupony94
Tulsa must hand out burgers and Cheer left and right to get those kinds of players
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:37 pmby Dooby
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.
Posted:
Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:25 pmby Cadillac
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
Posted:
Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:07 amby OC Mustang
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.