PonyFans.com

Was thinking that in C-USA, where points are scored by the bushel, how did SMU do in terms of putting up points. Here is a look at SMU's scoring output vs. all 13 foes and what those opponents gave up on average. In 8 games, SMU scored less than its opponents average points allowed. For example, TCU gave up a scant 29.9 points per game and SMU put up 21, a minus-8.9 differential.

Opponent (SMU points scored ... avg. points allowed by opp., differential)
L at Texas Tech (27 | 30.3 | -3.3)
W vs. UAB (28 | 31.6 | -3.6)
W vs. Washington State (35 | 35.8 | -0.
L vs. TCU (24 | 11.4 | +12.6)
W at Rice (42 | 38.5 | +3.5)
W vs. Tulsa (21 | 29.9 | -8.9)
L at Navy (21 | 22.8 | -1.
L vs. Houston (20 | 32.2 | -12.2)
W at Tulane (31 | 37.2 | -6.2)
L at UTEP (14 | 25.4 | -11.4)
W vs. Marshall (31 | 28.8 | +2.2)
W at East Carolina (45 | 43.4 | +1.6)
L at UCF (7 | 18.0 | -11.0)

The only games where SMU's point total exceeded its opponents average allowed were: TCU, Rice, Marshall and East Carolina. SMU had four games in which it scored 6+ points fewer than its opponent's defense averaged allowed.

Prepare to be called out as a bad fan, a Padron hater, etc. for questioning the team since you weren't (I assume) a Div IA QB. I suggest you give up your attempt at discussion and just go read my thread and feel bad about yourself!

very interesting.

People can bash couchem, newshound, and others making this point all that they want and all sorts of excuses can be made as to the reasoning behind SMU's offensive performance, but the fact is that SMU's offense UNDERPERFORMED for most of the year. This doesn't mean we didn't have a good season and doesn't mean we don't have faith in the staff or the direction of the program. What it does mean is that SMU could/should have done better than it did this year and in year 3 of JJ's system the RnS is not anywhere close to clicking like it should be. That means we should only be getting better in the coming years, so inn a way, it could be good news.

I don't think it is fair to say the offense under preformed, I think People had unrealistic expectations from the feel good moment of the Hawaii bowl. We had a new running back, a QB with 6 career starts, and lost our best reciever. not to mention only having 1 senior starting on O. The expectation should ahve been for inconsistancy. Scoring requires consistently executing (10 plays in a row) young teams stuggle with this. It was foolish for anyone to have expected different. A more interesting state and one that I think shows how good we could be would be to compair our yardage versus their yearly average of yards allowed. Also we out gained every opponet except for TCU and TExas tech (we were only out gained by 15 yards by TCU).

Pony_Law wrote: Also we out gained every opponet except for TCU and TExas tech (we were only out gained by 15 yards by TCU).

Yards are fun, but points win games. This offense woefully underperformed and the excuses don't hold water. Look down I-45 and see what UH did with a true frosh QB and injuries all over the place. They consistently put up more points against common opponents.

Common Team - SMU - UH
UTEP - 14 - 54
Tulane - 31 - 42
Rice - 42 - 31
UCF - 7 - 33
Tulsa - 21 - 25
Tech - 27 - 20

Pony_Law wrote: Also we out gained every opponet except for TCU and TExas tech (we were only out gained by 15 yards by TCU).

This is a very interesting point which seems to point the finger at two things - settling for field goals over TDs or bad field position. Off hand it didn't feel like we came up short and had to hit field goals an unusual number of times, so perhaps field position can be blamed.

We've known kickoffs have been a major problem all year leading to more stalled drives. Especially when we've had trouble getting the deep ball, long drives are more chances to stall out and punt.