Mestengo wrote:Is Kate some how related to Dale Hansen?
Always that stench of negative truth. And it's that, not the. You know you're in trouble when I can see it.
Agreed. I can't wait for the next round of layoffs and Kate's departure via a pink slip or installation as Cowgirls beat writer. I think in the past when we were a laughing stock, we deserved the negative pub. But that article is ridiculous. In an article presented as a good piece on SMU Football, she throws out this gem...
Nobody is saying SMU's arrived. The Mustangs, who close out the nonconference schedule Saturday at Navy, drew fewer than 20,000 for last week's home Conference USA win against Tulsa. They are undefeated in a league that has a low national profile with no teams in the Top 25 or even receiving votes. They lost their two most high-profile games – to undefeated TCU and at Texas Tech.
I'm not quibbling with anything she said in the above quote, just question if this article needs all those negatives. At least qualify the attendance number with the fact that students were on break and there more than a few other events taking place.
The following quote really pisses me off and makes me question why so much negativity. She turns an absolute, unequivocal positive and some how puts a negative slant on it.
All but one of SMU's games are televised this season, but that includes games airing on Metro and The 33 CW locally and several games on CBS College Sports, which may not be the accessible to a casual fan.
Considering our recent history, our conference TV package, and the fact that we haven't had 11 games televised in the last three years combined, I don't know how she was able to spin that into a negative. She also failed to mention that two of the 11 games were on ESPN, but maybe that channel is too obscure for the casual fan.