"War SMU Football" & Jim Rome Show

by **mr. pony** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:49 am

Better coverage in the DMN and local TV would have MOST DEFINITELY improved SMU's recruiting since the breakup of the SWC.

by **mr. pony** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:52 am

Parents and other DO read the paper. Word spreads. A perception is born and grows.

The perception we got from coverage the last ten years is 'who cares?' , 'they're dead.'

by **abezontar** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:53 am

right, because high school kids read the paper and watch local tv news.

by **mrydel** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:54 am

A true Commitment, which we thought we had allows for more than just one thing at a time. Of course the model needs to be adjusted to a competitive basis, but things do not necessarily have to be done in stages. A true committment can involve a revival of the program that can include course credits for transfers and JUCOs, athletic friendly majors (for lack of a better term), AND updated and comparable facilities to our competition. If your model is equal to your competition but your facilities are not up to par, where would you go? Why is this argument a one or the other thing. SMU has lacked in a true committment to the student athlete for many years. If they want to be competitive, a couple of front page atricles in the DMN are not going to sway the masses.

by **McClown27** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:11 pm

abezontar wrote:right, because high school kids read the paper and watch local tv news.

Why are you assuming that they don't? The football players I knew were very good students, and now are successful in their careers. People like that generally read the newspaper.

by **PonySoprano** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:14 pm

Chicken meet egg. Egg meet chicken.

Now discuss which of you came first.

by **Kappas Are Yummy** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:34 pm

It's all about quality (winning) teams -- not facilities.

ORU made it to the NCAA tournament this year and they play in the so-so facilities of the Mabee Center in Tulsa.

I'm willing to bet they do pretty well in recruiting this year. Why? Because of all the positive pub they got for winning the MidCon and playing Memphis.

Having successful football and basketball teams will do more for us in terms of recruiting, attendance and hype than any facility improvements.

Build the teams, and the people will come. When the people come, build the facilities to hold them.

by **MFFL02** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:03 pm

Kappas Are Yummy wrote:It's all about quality (winning) teams -- not facilities.

ORU made it to the NCAA tournament this year and they play in the so-so facilities of the Mabee Center in Tulsa.

I'm willing to bet they do pretty well in recruiting this year. Why? Because of all the positive pub they got for winning the MidCon and playing Memphis.

Having successful football and basketball teams will do more for us in terms of recruiting, attendance and hype than any facility improvements.

Build the teams, and the people will come. When the people come, build the facilities to hold them.

Amen brother!

by **Pony_Fan** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:20 pm

mrydel wrote:A true Commitment, which we thought we had allows for more than just one thing at a time. Of course the model needs to be adjusted to a competitive basis, but things do not necessarily have to be done in stages. A true committment can involve a revival of the program that can include course credits for transfers and JUCOs, athletic friendly majors (for lack of a better term), AND updated and comparable facilities to our competition. If your model is equal to your competition but your facilities are not up to par, where would you go? Why is this argument a one or the other thing. SMU has lacked in a true committment to the student athlete for many years. If they want to be competitive, a couple of front page atricles in the DMN are not going to sway the masses.

yessir!

by **EastStang** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:08 am

There was in op ed piece in the Washington Post today by some doctor about a noticable trend of 20 something guys living at home, not getting girlfriends, dropping out of college, getting menial jobs, and not moving on with their careers where as 20 something women are finishing school, getting jobs and starting businesses and/or careers. I mention this because I do believe that younger guys are reading less for a number of reasons: video games, cable television, and internet. Why read the sports page when you can watch "Sports Center"? Why read Moby [deleted], when you can play Captain Ahab in a video game? Why read the paper when you can get a three sentence summary on the internet? Sorry to go somewhat off topic.

by **abezontar** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:28 am

I would think the internet would be used by 20 something guys more for finding a substitute for a girlfriend than reading a summary of a book.

by **LonghornFan68** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:17 pm

Jim Rome is a tool. This and this pretty much sums up what everything that comes out of his mouth sounds like to me.

by **Lotus** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:20 pm

Nice parody. Personally, I usually like Rome. Not always, but more often than not.

by **EastStang** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:19 pm

Rome's show is like listening to an internet smack board without the smiley faces. :shock:

by **McClown27** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:24 pm

EastStang wrote:Rome's show is like listening to an internet smack board without the smiley faces.

It is also missing Stallion and MM1965.

"War SMU Football" & Jim Rome Show

Who is online