PonyFans.comBoard IndexAround the HilltopFootballRecruitingBasketballOther Sports

USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

This is the forum for talk about SMU Football

Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower

USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby SMU 86 » Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:29 pm

Last edited by SMU 86 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We will play man to man and we will pick you up at the airport." - Larry Brown

________________________Champion________________________
Image
User avatar
SMU 86
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 12943
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:41 pm

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football

Postby sbsmith » Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:41 pm

A little higher than we deserve.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

-Benjamin Franklin
sbsmith
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 9540
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:21 am
Location: Dallas

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby lwjr » Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:30 pm

Must have been grading on a curve
GO MUSTANGS!
lwjr
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:37 pm
Location: Midland, Texas

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby ponyboy » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:37 pm

No, that's about right if you take off your JJ hate blinders.
ponyboy
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 15134
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 4:01 am
Location: University Park,TX US

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby SMU2007 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:08 am

I'd say D would be most accurate. I think F is reserved for the bottom of the bottom, and we were a notch above that. Not too far off.
User avatar
SMU2007
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 5561
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:41 am

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby stc9 » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:39 am

I think the C- grade was fair, if slightly generous. I really wish I had access to the all 22 films from the games to really look at things, but from what I saw I think we were weaker than several of our opponents schematically. We were extremely predictable, especially on defense. I know we can all come up with examples. But because we were so predictable, I think opponents knew what to expect and exactly how to manipulate us into behaving the way they wanted us to.
Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall
stc9
Heisman
 
Posts: 1157
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:37 am
Location: Jax Beach, FL

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby lwjr » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:49 am

It stead of calling someone names or printing some other useless comments directed towards anyone who disagrees with me, I will explain my answer. Using a grading scale of, A thru F a C- would indicate halfway. That means a team would have to finish with a .500 season record, 6-6. Considering SMU's four conference wins were against teams with a combined record of 10-38 plus a last second win against a 7-5 FCS team. I personally believe a D to D- is a more appropriate grade.
GO MUSTANGS!
lwjr
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:37 pm
Location: Midland, Texas

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby Grant Carter » Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:04 am

lwjr wrote:It stead of calling someone names or printing some other useless comments directed towards anyone who disagrees with me, I will explain my answer. Using a grading scale of, A thru F a C- would indicate halfway. That means a team would have to finish with a .500 season record, 6-6. Considering SMU's four conference wins were against teams with a combined record of 10-38 plus a last second win against a 7-5 FCS team. I personally believe a D to D- is a more appropriate grade.

If it is just going to be a matter of translating the winning percentage into a letter grade then what is the point?
Grant Carter
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:40 am

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby lwjr » Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:23 am

Grant Carter wrote:
lwjr wrote:It stead of calling someone names or printing some other useless comments directed towards anyone who disagrees with me, I will explain my answer. Using a grading scale of, A thru F a C- would indicate halfway. That means a team would have to finish with a .500 season record, 6-6. Considering SMU's four conference wins were against teams with a combined record of 10-38 plus a last second win against a 7-5 FCS team. I personally believe a D to D- is a more appropriate grade.

If it is just going to be a matter of translating the winning percentage into a letter grade then what is the point?

My grade was based on preseason expectations, I thought SMU could finish 6-6 this year. They have to come back and defeat Montana State in the closing seconds of the game, at home. Factor in the quality of the other four opponents that SMU beat plus the team struggled to beat them. That is pretty much how I came up with my grade. This was a very disappointing season.
GO MUSTANGS!
lwjr
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:37 pm
Location: Midland, Texas

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby mustangxc » Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:39 am

If it is based on preseason expectations then C- is spot on if not a little low. Most predicted 4-8 or 5-7. I predicted 6-6 so C- is slightly below average and representative of slightly underperforming. I think the grade is spot on.
User avatar
mustangxc
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:57 pm

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby JasonB » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:41 pm

If most people were predicting a 4-8 season, then they should be happy with the outcome, an above average season.

The defense was supposed to be a lot better than it was. Anyone who was at practice thought the D was going to be really good, and so did the coaching staff. The big question coming into the season was whether or not the offense would come through.

The offense was pretty solid. The lack of consistency on offense, especially against non-conference teams gives it a B for the season.

the defense was awful. One of the worst in the conference, even though a lot was expected of it going into the season. I would give the Defense a D

Special Teams we were worst in kickoff returns, punting, opponant punt returns, below average in opponent kickoff returns. We kicked field goals well, which gives us maybe a D- instead of an F.

That puts us at a C- or D as a whole. I would lean towards a D because my expectations were a lot higher than others.
JasonB
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 7226
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2001 3:01 am
Location: Allen, Tx, USA

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby blackoutpony » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:57 pm

JasonB wrote:If most people were predicting a 4-8 season, then they should be happy with the outcome, an above average season.

The defense was supposed to be a lot better than it was. Anyone who was at practice thought the D was going to be really good, and so did the coaching staff. The big question coming into the season was whether or not the offense would come through.

The offense was pretty solid. The lack of consistency on offense, especially against non-conference teams gives it a B for the season.

the defense was awful. One of the worst in the conference, even though a lot was expected of it going into the season. I would give the Defense a D

Special Teams we were worst in kickoff returns, punting, opponant punt returns, below average in opponent kickoff returns. We kicked field goals well, which gives us maybe a D- instead of an F.

That puts us at a C- or D as a whole. I would lean towards a D because my expectations were a lot higher than others.


So you're saying you were a dumb@ss for predicting a ridiculous 9-3 then? :lol:
BOP - Providing insensitivity training for a politically correct world since 1989.
User avatar
blackoutpony
PonyFans.com Legend
 
Posts: 4135
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:12 pm
Location: The Tomb of Ken Pye

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby GiddyUp » Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:24 pm

And our special teams coach still has a job I guess? Not surprising at all
User avatar
GiddyUp
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 8227
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby JasonB » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:50 pm

blackoutpony wrote:
So you're saying you were a dumb@ss for predicting a ridiculous 9-3 then? :lol:


Obviously, I was incorrect. But at least when I make a public statement like that, I stand by it even though it was obvious early in the season that we wouldn't perform to that level, and as disappointed when the season didn't met expectations.

I'm also secure enough in myself and in the life I lead to not spend my time ridiculing others personally on an internet message board, and would suggest that doing otherwise is quite unbecoming of a Mustang.

If somebody makes a point that you disagree with, that is great, have a discussion about it. But going out of your way to make statements like that is not reflective of good character.
JasonB
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 7226
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2001 3:01 am
Location: Allen, Tx, USA

Re: USA Today grades SMU Football's 2013 season

Postby feelthehorsepower » Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:11 pm

At least TCU was more miserable this year than we were. Still that 48-17 hurts like hell. Beat the Frog 2014!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
feelthehorsepower
Heisman
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:38 pm
Location: Ponytown, USA (Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex)

Next

Return to Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 20 guests