The Memphis Coach

[mrydel]

SMU was relevant for around 6 years with 3 of them being really great years.

Do not tell me to calm down. You tell me you did not make this statement. There is no "out of context" here. This is just a stupid and incorrect statement which disqualifies you from an intelligent conversation regarding the past of SMU until you learn the facts.

[Big12Mustang]

SMU was relevant for around 6 years with 3 of them being really great years.

Do not tell me to calm down. You tell me you did not make this statement. There is no "out of context" here. This is just a stupid and incorrect statement which disqualifies you from an intelligent conversation regarding the past of SMU until you learn the facts.

Read what Charleston Pony said. He referred to the "pinnacle Pony Express era", mentioning that we did not draw well, and I replied that we were relevant for those 6 years or so that the pony express era lasted. Tell me, how many years was the pony express success era? 1978-84 is around the time we were relevant with the midpoint 1980, 81 and 82 being the peak/best years. Please correct me if I am wrong, and If I find myself in the wrong I apologize.

[lwjr]

Pony express really did not kick into gear, on the field, until Lance Mcllhenny replaced Mike Ford as the QB the week of the UT game in 1980. Of course SMU went to Austin and upset the number 2 team in the country that day and the Pony Express was born. But Ross Potts and Brad Thomas started the Pony Express campaign I think in 1978. It carried on thru the 85 season when Don King, I believe, took over at QB. 1986 the team finish 6-5 and we know what happen after that.

[lwjr]

Pony express really did not kick into gear, on the field, until Lance Mcllhenny replaced Mike Ford as the QB the week of the UT game in 1980. Of course SMU went to Austin and upset the number 2 team in the country that day and the Pony Express was born. But Ross Potts and Brad Thomas started the Pony Express campaign I think in 1978. It carried on thru the 85 season when Don King, I believe, took over at QB. 1986 the team finish 6-5 and we know what happen after that.

My dates might be off a little but that is what I remember

[gostangs]

I would say 1983 was the peak, and the rest of what you say is about true.

[Stallion]

We were SWC Co-Champs in 1984 playing Arkansas at home on National TV in last conference game of the year and drew 28,000

[mrydel]

SMU was relevant for around 6 years with 3 of them being really great years.

Do not tell me to calm down. You tell me you did not make this statement. There is no "out of context" here. This is just a stupid and incorrect statement which disqualifies you from an intelligent conversation regarding the past of SMU until you learn the facts.

Read what Charleston Pony said. He referred to the "pinnacle Pony Express era", mentioning that we did not draw well, and I replied that we were relevant for those 6 years or so that the pony express era lasted. Tell me, how many years was the pony express success era? 1978-84 is around the time we were relevant with the midpoint 1980, 81 and 82 being the peak/best years. Please correct me if I am wrong, and If I find myself in the wrong I apologize.

We have won and been relevant during times other than the PE era. SMU, with the exception of Doak's era have never drawn fans because of SMU. We have won SWC championships. We have defeated ranked OU with a Heisman Trophy winner in a bowl game when bowl games were earned and not given. I have been on the sidelines during some of those times and witnessed 13,000 people in the Cotton Bowl. And that was a venue easier for the Dallas public to attend than on campus. On campus is great for the students and the atmosphere but not for the Dallas area non-associated fan. Winning is not the only cure. We must also play relevant teams that will bring fans. But bottom line is that I take offense to you indicating that the PE era was the only one of relevance. It was not.

[Big12Mustang]

[quote="Big12Mustang"]SMU was relevant for around 6 years with 3 of them being really great years.

Do not tell me to calm down. You tell me you did not make this statement. There is no "out of context" here. This is just a stupid and incorrect statement which disqualifies you from an intelligent conversation regarding the past of SMU until you learn the facts.

Read what Charleston Pony said. He referred to the "pinnacle Pony Express era", mentioning that we did not draw well, and I replied that we were relevant for those 6 years or so that the pony express era lasted. Tell me, how many years was the pony express success era? 1978-84 is around the time we were relevant with the midpoint 1980, 81 and 82 being the peak/best years. Please correct me if I am wrong, and If I find myself in the wrong I apologize.

We have won and been relevant during times other than the PE era. SMU, with the exception of Doak's era have never drawn fans because of SMU. We have won SWC championships. We have defeated ranked OU with a Heisman Trophy winner in a bowl game when bowl games were earned and not given. I have been on the sidelines during some of those times and witnessed 13,000 people in the Cotton Bowl. And that was a venue easier for the Dallas public to attend than on campus. On campus is great for the students and the atmosphere but not for the Dallas area non-associated fan. Winning is not the only cure. We must also play relevant teams that will bring fans. But bottom line is that I take offense to you indicating that the PE era was the only one of relevance. It was not.[/quote]

Never said the Pony Express 80s era was the only time SMU was relevant. The 30's, doak era, hayden fry and others are times we were relevant. I do agree we also need to play big time teams and a big 12 membership would help us in that, but we need to take baby steps right now in growing our program. We need staying power this time and make sure we remain a power for more than 10 years.

Also, we cannot compare ourselves with public school programs. Programs we may compare are TCU, Baylor, The U and Northwestern and Stanford. They don't draw more than 50k, never have (exception Miami/The U) and probably never will.

I don't care about drawing 100k, ever. I am happy with 32k in the near term and possibly rehaul ford in the future to 42-46k if needed.

[mrydel]

People have been saying to take baby steps while those born with us have grown into adults. We do not have time for baby steps. The end is near and we need to figure something out now. Unlike many on this board, I openly admit I do not have the answer. But the winning 10 games for 10 years time is gone. And just saying all we need is to be in the Big 12 are ridiculous. I would think if they were inviting us we would accept.

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

Do not tell me to calm down.

Dude....you need a Xanax!

[couch 'em]

DFW is millions larger than in the 1980s. We can get 32,000 to a game if we are decent.

[Charleston Pony]

DFW is millions larger than in the 1980s. We can get 32,000 to a game if we are decent.

we were "decent", coming off an upset win against a ranked TCU team in Ft Worth and playing a huge conference game against the defending CUSA champs, UCF...and drew what...22k? And that was the end of the road for JJ with SMU football. SMU is by it's nature very "exclusive" and it's going to take a major marketing effort for the casual sports fan in DFW are to adopt SMU as it's team. Basketball may pave the way as it's much easier to fill Moody

[Big12Mustang]

DFW is millions larger than in the 1980s. We can get 32,000 to a game if we are decent.

we were "decent", coming off an upset win against a ranked TCU team in Ft Worth and playing a huge conference game against the defending CUSA champs, UCF...and drew what...22k? And that was the end of the road for JJ with SMU football. SMU is by it's nature very "exclusive" and it's going to take a major marketing effort for the casual sports fan in DFW are to adopt SMU as it's team. Basketball may pave the way as it's much easier to fill Moody

6-42 vs opponents with winning records. And we never brought 22k to a conference usa game. 22k is way more than the usual 14k. Were you really expecting a sellout after losing bad to A&M and barely beating TCU in OT? And after a 7-7 year?

[gostangs]

everyone always uses that game for the "we can't ever draw" argument. Here is why it is wrong:

1) nobody in Texas has ever heard of UCF at the time. They are still not on anyone list.
2) we had already been blown out by that year - and our win was not convincing - the casual Dallas fan was not going to be drawn in by just a game vs TCU
3) rangers were relevant for the first time in forever and had a playoff game directly in competition -

Field a truly meaningful team for more than a year, or two and the turn out will be surprising - we don't know since we haven't done it since 1984.

Exhibit A - SMU basketball. Completely sold out with season tickets.

[Stallion]

and in 1984 we were playing for a SWC Co-Championship on the last week of SWC play against the best traveling team in the conference and with the best record in COLLEGE FOOTBALL OVER A 5 YEAR PERIOD and we drew?

28,000