No MOre Than Usual

by **Arkpony** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:34 am

DMN quotes Copeland as saying the pressure to have a winning football team "is no more than usual" !!!!!!!! If that is true, in light of our teams dismal performances, We are lost! We might as well write off this and any future team's success and fold our tent's.

How much longer?

by PK » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:41 am

Perhaps he needs to be receiving a hell of a lot more e-mails to wake him up. Maybe we aren't putting anough pressure on him to feel the heat.

by **WorldStang** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:44 am

I read that this morning and I'm really pretty pi$$ed about that quote..

Turner really needs to take a look at this bozo. Any other program's AD would say.. Yes, there is a huge amount of presure for me and for our teams to perform..

WHAT A D!CK

by **EastStang** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:17 am

Personally, I think that is the old kiss of death quote. "No, his job is not on the line and no we aren't putting any more pressure on him than is self imposed". Translation = if things don't turn around soon, he's gone at season's end.

by **Arkpony** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:27 am

As has been said may times before on here.. NO OTHER PROGRAM in the country would have tolerated the losing records of our coaches for SO LONG! What on earth is wrong with our Board of directors and administration? Do they not undertstand the embarassment the alumni feel over what is going on? Do they not understand how much in revenue this is costing us (lack of attendance, contributions etc) Do they not understand how many prospective good students never hear about or have no interest in SMU because of our low profile in sports?

No other school would put up with this. Why do we?

by **BRStang** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:40 am

ArkPony wrote:

Do they not undertstand the embarassment the alumni feel over what is going on? Do they not understand how much in revenue this is costing us (lack of attendance, contributions etc) Do they not understand how many prospective good students never hear about or have no interest in SMU because of our low profile in sports?

All true. Case in point: My first phone call this wonderful Monday morning was from a close friend (LSU alum) joking with me that he went to Ponyfans.com this morning but was rerouted to p*ssyfans.com. It was all in jest, mind you, and probably wouldn't have been said had I not mentioned the TCU win a few weeks ago, but it still stings with embarrassment and frustration. Another season in the frickin' toilet.

We need to clean house starting with Copeland and his stupid remarks.[/b]

by **Dooby** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:51 am

Arkpony wrote:As has been said may times before on here.. NO OTHER PROGRAM in the country would have tolerated the losing records of our coaches for SO LONG! What on earth is wrong with our Board of directors and administration? Do they not undertstand the embarassment the alumni feel over what is going on? Do they not understand how much in revenue this is costing us (lack of attendance, contributions etc) Do they not understand how many prospective good students never hear about or have no interest in SMU because of our low profile in sports?

No other school would put up with this. Why do we?

The Board of Directors mistakenly believes that the problem is the death penalty. They also mistakenly believe SMU is some kind of Ivy League school. SMU has "academic integrity."

Put aside for a moment that neither statement is based in fact. If you take the above statements as true, you would think there is no way SMU can compete compete with all these other schools that allow these uneducated neanderthals to go to their schools. SMU has "academic integrity."

And therefore, the board of trustees and the administration and the faculty are content to know that they may or may not hear that SMU may or may not have won a football game on Monday or Tuesday (they don't go to the games; few ever did). And they don't give it much thought until budget time when they wonder why SMU runs an athletic deficit every year and has nothing to show for it. No one ever stops to consider that they may possibly theoretically might conceivably be hypothetically part of the problem. No one stops to consider that maybe we are not doing things the right way; after all, SMU has "academic integrity."

Never mind that there are schools ranked higher academically than SMU that win football games; SMU has "academic integrity." Never mind that there are schools with better acceptance rates and better yield rates than SMU that win football games; SMU has "academic integrity." Never mind that there are smaller, more exclusive schools than SMU that win football games; SMU has "academic integrity." Never mind that there are schools with better graduation rates than SMU, even for football players, that win football games; SMU has "academic integrity."

So, tell that Tulane grad, "SMU has 'academic integrity.'" When somebody from Rice, who SMU has beaten just 3 times in 18 years, laughs when they beat us at homecoming, tell 'em "SMU has 'academic integrity.'" When your coworker that went to Vanderbilt starts making his bowl game plans this year, tell him, "SMU has 'academic integrity.'" Tell those UT alums that are already buying tickets to the 2006 Rose Bowl, "SMU has 'academic integrity.'"

by **Mexmustang** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:24 am

I just hope Copeland's quote was based upon the noise the "grim reaper" was making at his door!

by **Crong** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:58 am

shouldn't turner and copeland educate the board about the reality of the situation?

by **Arkpony** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:34 pm

Dooby's excellent post should be sent to every member of the board and all the faculty and staff, in addition to being posted in the newspaper and on ever corner of SMU's campus. The man speaks the truth! As is said, from his mouth to God's ears!

by **jtstang** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:40 pm

Dooby wrote:And therefore, the board of trustees and the administration and the faculty are content to know that they may or may not hear that SMU may or may not have won a football game on Monday or Tuesday (they don't go to the games; few ever did). And they don't give it much thought until budget time when they wonder why SMU runs an athletic deficit every year and has nothing to show for it. No one ever stops to consider that they may possibly theoretically might conceivably be hypothetically part of the problem. No one stops to consider that maybe we are not doing things the right way; after all, SMU has "academic integrity."

And when they finally do come to the realization that things have gone totally awry, the likely solution will be to simply drop athletics altogether. After all SMU has "academic integrity." Let's be careful what we wish for.

by **EastStang** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:16 am

That is what can happen in these situations. William & Mary went through this in 1979 when the NCAA created the 1-AA. They had reasonable success on the football field. Not National Championship success, but more winning seasons than losing seasons. Many big name coaches moved "up" from Miami of Ohio to William and Mary including Lou Holtz. When the NCAA created the 1-AA division there was a great debate about it. Did W&M want to keep playing Division 1-A or "have academic integrity"? When the Ivys went to 1-AA that clinched it, W&M (a state school that considers itself Ivy League), moved down. Many of its traditional rivals followed except Navy. So, yes the "academic integrity" argument could very well cause SMU to further de-emphasize football.

by **GoRedGoBlue** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:19 am

EastStang wrote:That is what can happen in these situations. William & Mary went through this in 1979 when the NCAA created the 1-AA. They had reasonable success on the football field. Not National Championship success, but more winning seasons than losing seasons. Many big name coaches moved "up" from Miami of Ohio to William and Mary including Lou Holtz. When the NCAA created the 1-AA division there was a great debate about it. Did W&M want to keep playing Division 1-A or "have academic integrity"? When the Ivys went to 1-AA that clinched it, W&M (a state school that considers itself Ivy League), moved down. Many of its traditional rivals followed except Navy. So, yes the "academic integrity" argument could very well cause SMU to further de-emphasize football.

That's nice, but they decided not to do that 10 years ago.

by **PonySnob** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:24 am

GoRedGoBlue wrote:That's nice, but they decided not to do that 10 years ago.

But what if we could have more success at the 1-AA level? Would it be so bad to have 10-12K to watch a 1-AA SMU team that is 10-1 as opposed to a team that is 1-10? Clearly we can't compete at the 1-A level as SMU is not truly committed to doing so. In an effort to save a financially burdened athletic department, D-III might be the way to go.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:38 am

I have zero interest in I-AA. Might as well drop to D3 and play F'ing Trinity. If SMU drops to I-AA, the first thing they will start doing, like everybody else, is try and figure a way to get back to Div I-A. I-AA is dying anyway. Whole conferences are talking about moving up to I-A.

Second, I assure you, SMU would not be committed to winning at the I-AA level.

Oh, and one more thing, if SMU dropped to I-AA, I'd wish everyone here a fond farewell because I wouldn't be back.

No MOre Than Usual

No MOre Than Usual

Who is online