Craig James @ Tulsa game

by **expony18** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:41 am

Stallion wrote:Wasn't Lance critical of the SMU athletic department as recently as last year? Who in the HELL should not be critical of SMU athletics. SMU deserves the criticism until they have done what is necessary to put a competitive program on the field. I still believe to this very moment that SMU can not say that it is on a level competitive field with its natural and traditional rivals.I wish I'd had their platform about 15 years ago and I really would have laid into that idiot Ken Pye. I have more contempt for those that knew full well that Ken Pye had dismantled the athletic program and yet did nothing but get in line for Pom-Poms for the Pep Rally.

it must suck to wake up every day with a chip on your shoulder...

by **jtstang** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:42 am

DiamondM wrote:Again, you can believe what you want, but if you think that the constant negativity, even in the face of signs of life, is not a cancer to the program that continues to drag it down, then you're blind.

Please explain how some sportscaster's commentary on SMU is a cancer to the program again. I don't follow, and would think only having one winning season, and 6-5 at that, in twenty years is the cancer that you should be worried about curing.

by **DiamondM** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:42 am

Lance has been on the Boulevard for at least a couple of years now.
Being critical is one thing, especially if it's constructive and is followed up with action that actually helps the program. Again, I'm not expecting him to lavish any praises every chance he gets. But Craig James' mean-spirited, out-of-nowhere jabs on national tv don't help solve or change anything. They serve no purpose, except to unnecessarily pile on. If one of our most prominent alumni can't even lower himself to see silver linings or seeds of change, then maybe he should follow my mother's advice -- if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

by **Stallion** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:44 am

and you can't continuously promise that we are just about to turn the program around when in truth and in fact we are exactly where we were 10 years ago but only playing at a lower level. I'll argue what I damn well please-whyether cheerleaders like you want to hear it or not. Someone is going to give you the unvarnished truth.

by **jtstang** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:45 am

McIlhenney works for Staubach and lives in the area. I assume he has weekends off. That would seem to be why he can be on the 'vard. Not so for James.

by **WorldStang** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:54 am

Stallion wrote:and you can't continuously promise that we are just about to turn the program around when in truth and in fact we are exactly where we were 10 years ago but only playing at a lower level. I'll argue what I damn well please-whyether cheerleaders like you want to hear it or not. Someone is going to give you losers the unvarnished truth.

Once again.. it's not that people don't agree or understand your point. I agree that there should be criticism of a program that's not working to better themselves.. and that we're being somewhat competitive at a lower level.. but what can we do about it? Not show up? Not give money? Not support the team?

I mean your [deleted] can only go so far man.. look what it's done in the past 10 years.. (lol)

We've got a new AD, a football team that is doing what they can with what they've got, a new Bastketball coach.. what else would you put in place today? Fire Bennett and start over?

Seems to me we hit the reset button on atheltics with all the firings and new blood is in place.. let's wait and see.

As far as those in the public-eye that take shots at SMU.. all we can do is prove them wrong.. they're like everyone else.. they won't believe it until they see it.

by **ponydawg** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:54 am

Stallion wrote: Someone is going to give you losers the unvarnished truth.

who cares what the loser cheerleaders think....the 4 people on this board that you are "educating" don't have the power to change what you want done.

you say if you had the platfrom 15 years ago you would have laid into Pye......does laying into Pye mean you would log on to Ponyfans and really let the cheerleaders have it....that would have shown Pye.

by **jtstang** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:59 am

WorldStang wrote:As far as those in the public-eye that take shots at SMU.. all we can do is prove them wrong.. they're like everyone else.. they won't believe it until they see it.

Well said. And why shouldn't it be that way.

by **Stallion** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:02 am

and just when are we going to start proving them wrong. We are at Year 17 and counting and all giddy about beating 3 schools in the Bottom 120 teams in the Sagran Ratings. Hell there are only 119 teams in Division 1A.

by **Stallion** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:03 am

and just when are we going to start proving them wrong. We are at Year 17 and counting and all giddy about beating 3 schools below 120 in the Sagran Ratings. Hell there are only 119 teams in Division 1A.

by **Mexmustang** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:05 am

Those of you critical of our past players are simply naive. One of my best friends was all-SWC for UT--over thirty years ago. His offers from universities was a standard $50,000 (LSU, OU, A&M). He has always refused to mention what Texas offered or paid. Later, twenty years ago SMU came to the conclusion that it had to join or quit. By joining, meaning a well financed, well organized plan to compete rather than a weak disorganized effort. That was the only difference, more money and a better orgainized effort than it had before. Did SMU and others cheat before? yes, but we weren't as well orgainized as the other major schools.
Who knew? We all did. It started at our board of governors, and directly involved almost every major SMU graduate downtown. Our problem was quite simply everyone knew! Even those of us down in bowels of the downtown orgaizations that had yet reach the financial level to have a Brookhollow memebership where the hat was passed. At the other schools it was kept quiet and was based on years of organization. We simply couldn't keep it quiet. Some of our people, having just gotten their taste of success couldn't keep from bragging about it. Quite frankly, for having known I am just as quilty as the guys who orgainized it.
Now you want to dump on someone that brought success to the program and quite frankly distinguished himself after his playing days were over. Nonsense! As a highly recruited 18 year old, when money was thrown about by everyone, I mean every school in the SWC and SEC and Big Ten and especiallly those bastions of honesty, Notre Dame and Southern Cal you want to single him out? Ask yourself what you would have done? Quite frankly you are no worse than Kenneth Pye. He really beleived SMU's crimes were unique, he really beleived that Texas and A&M wouldn't bolt the SWC. He really believed big-time football and basketball didn't belong at SMU or any other college or university.
Look, Craig James' critcism can help us more than all the cat fights on this board. If he is not speaking the truth, then I would agree with you. But you people simply shouldn't single him out. Don't you get it, it is the system, college football, the NCAA that has been wrong.
Let's look at college football today. SoCal-a rogue program, out of control. Just ask the rest of their conference athletic directors(Regie Bush), Ohio State-a rogue program (Maurice Clarett), LSU and OU, and with exception of Vanderbilt, the entire SEC. Yet we all honor their records, aclaim their nation championships and honor their Heiman winners--get informed. Who are you to keep critcizing your own university and single it out when all the others were doing it and the most successful programs, still are! It wasn't the death penalty that killed SMU football, it was the righteous indignation of our alumns and faculty, who would rather keep kicking SMU than fighting those that are continuing to violate the rules.

by **MrMustang1965** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:08 am

Craig James is no Doak Walker.

by **Mexmustang** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:12 am

No but how much did his best friend, Bobby Lane get to play for UT? SMU and the rest of the conference was paying players long before Craig James came along.

by **WorldStang** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:13 am

Stallion wrote:and just when are we going to start proving them wrong. We are at Year 17 and counting and all giddy about beating 3 schools in the Bottom 120 teams in the Sagran Ratings. Hell there are only 119 teams in Division 1A.

Ok.. but they're on our schedule.. so what do we do.. not count that? Say that our guys suck for winning?

I don't think we'd stand a chance of beating Tulane had it not been for those teams helping Willis get his feet under him. Those games.. as bad as Ark. St. and Sammy Houston are.. were good things for him. So say what you will.. but the teams are on the schedule and SMU won.

Do I think SMU will beat UTEP? Honestly.. no, but that doesn't mean that we can't. SMU has a much better chance of beating them after winning 3 games and having some confidence than otherwise.

Yes.. I know SMU has been bad for 17 years. But what more can we change that hasn't changed TODAY! Not in the past..

by **MrMustang1965** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:16 am

Mexmustang wrote:No but how much did his best friend, Bobby Lane get to play for UT? SMU and the rest of the conference was paying players long before Craig James came along.

Doak Walker served in the military during WWII along with numerous other SWC greats. But Bobby Layne took drugs to increase his blood pressure so that he wouldn't have to serve in the military.

Are you now saying that Doak Walker was paid to play for SMU? :shock:

Craig James @ Tulsa game

Who is online