PonyFans.com

A little higher than we deserve.

Must have been grading on a curve

No, that's about right if you take off your JJ hate blinders.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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?

And our special teams coach still has a job I guess? Not surprising at all

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

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.

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