Sports Illustrated article

[Hoofprint]

Did you see the article in this week's SI? I couldn't find a link to it. At first I thought it was a DMN-like rip job on SMU, with no particular timeliness. But after reading it again, I realized it's about how the DP set back our program so many years, and how its effects still linger.

The story was written because of the unreal cheating Alabama and other schools have gotten away with in recent years, and it looks at SMU as a way of suggesting what might occur at other schools if the NCAA should ever hand down the DP again.

Good story - be sure to check it out.

[Dement-ed]

I couldn't find a link to the story, either. Anyone know what it's called?

[PK]

"The Lone Losers." Haven't seen it, but this is the title according to a post on the other site.

[Pony Up]

That's a little uncalled for by SI. True, SMU's football situation is unlike that at any other school, but that headline makes it sound like the entire school is being painted with a fairly broad brush. They could have come up with something else to indicate that the article COMPARES our situation to those situations at Bama, among other places.

[BennettBacker]

I think your first impression was right, Hoofprint. I thought it was a "rip job" on SMU.

How do y'all think this will effect recruiting?

[Houston Pony]

I actually read it, and it's not a rip job.
It's very complimentary about the new stadium, the facilities, and Bennett. It's a very realistic, practical article.
It talks mainly about how SMU has been handcuffed by the DP, and how it's never going to be used again because of the devastation it caused.
And no, I don't think it will hurt recruiting.
If anything it should show a good recruit that he has a chance to come in and make an immdediate impact.

[Dirty Bird]

If the title is Lone Losers, then it's a jab at SMU, and that's wrong!

[Houston Pony]

Hey Dirty Bird,
If you could actually string together coherent thoughts, then you'd be able to discern between a rip job and an insightful, analytical piece of writing.
What do you expect? S-I and TDMN to write sunny, unrealistic articles about how great the SMU team is, and how we've been shafted by the refs, or how if the ball had bounced our way in a few games, we'd be 8-1?
Grow up, use your brain, and post something smart if you're going to post anything at all.

[MustangMom]

I have the SI issue in front of me and the title is The Loneliest Losers.

I do hate it that they put Losers in the title, but if you read the article, it is about what the death penalty will do to a school and how SMU until last year, could not recuit a player until he was accepted to the school.

I think it is a fair article. It lists other schools and their violations and the fact that they never have given the "death penalty" again, because it totally devastated a program and SMU is srill trying to overcome what this did to the program. It also talks about the new stadium and Coach Bennett and how he will make the team better and recruit. The article states that SMU has heaps of tradition - Doak and Kyle etc.

I do take exception to the fact they call Ford Stadium "georgous, but small time". Ford Stadium is awesome.


------------------
Go Mustangs!!
-MustangMom

[This message has been edited by MustangMom (edited 11-15-2002).]

[Charleston Pony]

SI has a long history of doing feature articles on programs with losing traditions, and there is no denying we fall into that category since the return from the death penalty. I remember Forrest Gregg saying it would take 10 yrs to restore a competitive program at SMU. Of course, he was talking about a program that would be able to compete for SWC championships when that comment was made.

The "over=reaction" by the SMU administration has been well documented. There was a lot of shame and embarrassment to work through, and many alumni withdrew support. I have it from a very good source that in the aftermath of the death penalty, David Berst, then director of enforcement for the NCAA, made the comment that the NCAA had "grossly under-estimated" the financial impact of the penalty on the university and that he did not think the penalty would ever be used again. Since that time, we've seen several programs (including A$M in our back yard) become eligible under the rules, but avoid the penalty. Each time, the NCAA has used the excuse that the administration was "cooperative" in the investigation.

I haven't read the article, but the truth is that the SMU administration over-reacted and has not given our post-DP AD and coaches the same opportunities to compete for student-athletes as the pre-DP coaches could. I'm referring to admissions policies and recruiting restrictions that only recently have been relaxed.

As for Ford Stadium, well...it's a jewel that will defintely help turn this thing around. Yes, it may be "small time" when you compare it to the 80,000 seat stadiums that are common to the top football programs in this country, but it's the finest facility, bar none, of it's size in the country and will help SMU compete for recruits at the mid-major level. Like it or not, we are a small private school that does not enjoy the benefits of having a large fan base. That, more than anything, is why we are likely destined to remain a "mid-major" program and never compete again with the likes of Texas and A$M.

At any rate, those SI "loser" articles have been the SI jinx in reverse. I know they torched Kansas State years ago and remember them writing about both NM & NMSU years ago when their annual rivalry game meant one of them would at least win a game. Let's hope our administration and faculty and everyone who SHOULD care about this situation reads the article and decides it really is time to make a commitment to fielding competitive football teams again.