Idaho steps up, UNT doesn't

by **Sam I Am** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 8:56 am

Since things have been rather quiet on this board lately, I thought I would stir up the mean green by pointing out that Idaho has joined the WAC and UNT hasn't. Now three schools have transfered out of the Sun Belt into the WAC. To compenesate for these defections, the Sun Belt is taking in former Div 1-AA schools, and still needs one more addition to have eight schools according to NCAA standards. Did UNT stay put because the WAC wouldn't have them, or they still trying to make up their minds about remaining in the bottom-most, entry level conference for Mid-level, non-BCS Div. 1-A football? SMU has moved up into the C-USA while UT is looking for takers. The pecking order has been made clear. And to think that some Aggies thought that scheduling UNT was preferable to SMU. With Bennett making slow but steady progress with his team, by the time A&M plays us they may wish they had a Sun Belt opponent instead.

by **Charleston Pony** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:33 am

nice try, but UNT is making the right decision IMO. By adding the Fla schools, they will be playing in a conference that plays in CUSA's "footprint" and improving their chances of someday joining SMU either as a member of CUSA or in a reconstituted SWC.

As for Idaho "stepping up"...wait and see. My bet is that FIU and FAU, not to mention Troy State...will be much stronger football programs than Idaho.

Oh...one last comment....I hardly think the Aggie$ will fear a game with SMU anytime soon. Then again, the element of surprise favors an upset, doesn't it? At some point in the next couple of years, SMU is going to lay some wood to someone who will be expected to handle us easily. I'm getting more impatient every year for that day to arrive.

by **SMUstang** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:54 am

We used to do that pretty regularly to Arkansas post death penalty. And we played A&M toe to toe. We beat TCU pretty regularly too but could never handle Rice or Baylor or Texas. That was when we were still playing in the SWC and we had the strongest (Pye) recruiting restrictions on us. Then after joining the WAC-16 we played toe to toe with BYU and Utah in both football and basketball. In spite of the recruiting restrictions, things seemed to be going in the right direction. What happened?

by **king_k** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:37 am

Mike Cavan.

by **NavyCrimson** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:09 am

bcs-bs

by **Stallion** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:12 pm

Mike Cavan still EASILY the winniest Post DP coach in SMU history. We sucked a lot worse before Mike Cavan and have sucked a lot worse since him. He wasn't the problem--never was! As predicted the long anticipated reemergence of SMU FB will happen ONLY more than 4 years after the major institutional changes that were need to make this program competitive with its natural and traditional rivals.

by **NavyCrimson** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:15 pm

NavyCrimson wrote:bcs-bs & the administration's stupid policies = a combination of issues & facts

by **KnuckleStang** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:41 pm

SMUstang wrote:We used to do that pretty regularly to Arkansas post death penalty. And we played A&M toe to toe. We beat TCU pretty regularly too but could never handle Rice or Baylor or Texas. That was when we were still playing in the SWC and we had the strongest (Pye) recruiting restrictions on us. Then after joining the WAC-16 we played toe to toe with BYU and Utah in both football and basketball. In spite of the recruiting restrictions, things seemed to be going in the right direction. What happened?

I think one reason Rossley was able to beat Arkansas, and tie/and/or/scare the bejeezus out of A&M, UCLA, UNC, etc., was that he actually had more talent to work with, even with the obscenely tough restrictions. He was certainly never considered a recruiting genius (who could with the Pye model), but at the time, if nothing else, he could at least tell a kid, "Hey, be a Mustang. You're gonna get a good education, and more importantly, you're gonna play in the SWC." To your average Texas HS kid, this has a much better ring to it than saying,"You're gonna get a good education if you come to SMU, but sorry, you'll be playing in a s***bag conference that nobody cares about (the WAC)."

Having to join the WAC and stay in it for so long was disastrous from a recruiting standpoint. It robbed us of our tradition, which was the only thing we had going for us at the time. The one-two punch of the existent Pye restrictions, and having our schedule go from a marquee schedule to a virtual "no name" schedule overnight just wore us down over time. That's why Rossley's teams (though bad teams from a W-L standpoint) were seemingly more competitive and fun to watch than, say Cavan's or Bennett's. I really think Rossley had the better players. Sez me.

by **king_k** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:12 pm

KnuckleStang, I agree with your theory that the disbanding of the SWC set us back. But, that doesn't mean that you have to go 0fer a season. Let's face it, Mike Cavan fell asleep at the wheel from a recruiting standpoint with the help of the administration. Before Ford stadium was built I can understand why nobody would want to play at SMU, but Ford was done for 2000 and the recruiting vaccum started shortly thereafter.

Bennett was left with nothing, he basically had to start from scratch. I don't care what anybody says Mike Cavan couldn't recruit even when he had all the tools needed. Call me a Cavan hater, yes I am. He turned me off of SMU football for a time. My family friend Josh Buhl from North Mesquite wanted to play at SMU, but Cavan successfully changed his mind. Therefore, he went to KSU because of coach Bennett. Recruiting is the lifeblood of a program and the job wasn't getting done. That is why we went 0-12. The division 1-aa caliber players coming in weren't going to get the job done no matter how great the coaching.

Now we have had some good recruiting years and it is time to see some results. The facilites are 1st class, the coaches can recruit, the players have some experience, so its time to see if everyone can step up and put some in the win column.

by **KnuckleStang** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:32 pm

king_k wrote: I don't care what anybody says Mike Cavan couldn't recruit even when he had all the tools needed. Call me a Cavan hater, yes I am.

Whatever your feelings about Cavan, the fact remains that, based on his time at SMU, we'll never truly know if he can recruit or not. I'm not sure what recruiting "tools" you're referring to, because Cavan, love him or hate him, didn't have access to many of those. William & Mary's coaches had more recruiting tools than he did.

by **king_k** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:51 pm

In tools, I'm referring to the facilites. When Ford and all the trappings that came with it were built there was no reason not to be able to recruit better. When we were playing in the Cotton Bowl and the WAC, I can understand difficulties in convincing someone to play at SMU. But that wasn't the case in 2000, 2001. No one has better facilities in mid-major college football. The admissions tools came too late for Cavan, but I think a better job could have been done.

To illustrate my point just look at the QB situation over the past 5 years. The only legitimate D1 QBs we had transferred or quit to be in a rock band. Something wasn't right. We had to resort to playing a Tight End(even though a QB in high school) as our starting QB. Your not going to win games that way.

by **Sam I Am** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:48 pm

Post DP, SMU has done more with less. Having become a bottom dweller, it will be harder to get back up to a break-even season record than when the program first came back in 1989. The SWC membership was a big help in those days. I do feel better about being in the C-USA than anytime we were in the WAC. As for UNT, they need a better conference, but who is going to take them?

by **Charleston Pony** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 3:36 pm

The Sun Belt would be much improved if they could just lure La Tech away from the WAC. UNT has a very competitive football program, Troy State is going to be a program to watch and La Tech has their share of wins over BCS schools.

The Sun Belt should aim to compete with WAC schools just as CUSA schools are trying to get games with Big XII/SEC schools. I'm pretty sure La Tech continues to schedule La-Lafayette regularly and Troy State/UAB, Memphis/MTSU, Tulsa/Ark St and UCF vs FIU/FAU seem like good potential matchups. I'd like to see SMU, TCU & UNT play each other every year for the "metroplex mayors' trophy". College football is all about rivalries and playing your neighbors who are competing at the same level only makes sense.

by **overcusser** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:13 pm

Truth be told UNT actually told the WAC no thanks. WAC Commish Benson and UNT Pres Norvall Pohl and AD Rick Villereal were burning up the conference call phone lines in the past few weeks. UNT decided that the WAC and the travel really didn't make sense for them. It would be wiser to stay in the Sun Belt, hold costs down, keep beating up on the competition and going to the New Orleans Bowl. When the next round of expansion comes around in a few years and UNT has their new stadium built to go with the new Athletic Center/dorm/cafeteria that is currently being constructed, and a few more winning seasons ....CUSA will take UNT when it goes to 12

by **GoRedGoBlue** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:40 pm

overcusser wrote:Truth be told UNT actually told the WAC no thanks. WAC Commish Benson and UNT Pres Norvall Pohl and AD Rick Villereal were burning up the conference call phone lines in the past few weeks. UNT decided that the WAC and the travel really didn't make sense for them. It would be wiser to stay in the Sun Belt, hold costs down, keep beating up on the competition and going to the New Orleans Bowl. When the next round of expansion comes around in a few years and UNT has their new stadium built to go with the new Athletic Center/dorm/cafeteria that is currently being constructed, and a few more winning seasons ....CUSA will take UNT when it goes to 12

Ah... CUSA already has 12.

"I thought I'd join before I got drafted"

"SON, THERE AIN'T NO DRAFT NO MORE"

"There was one?"

Idaho steps up, UNT doesn't

Idaho steps up, UNT doesn't

Laying on of Some Wood

Re:

Re: Laying on of Some Wood

Re:

We did more with less

Who is online