from RIvals ponies MIDSEason report

[perunapower]

For SMU football as of late, yes. I never claimed that SMU can compete with the likenesses of Ohio State, Florida, Texas, etc., but for how we have been performing as of late I would grade our performance based on our potential in the B/B+ range (an overall good performance). Now if we are comparing us to the nation as a whole, C. We are a middle of the pack team, ready to starting clawing our way back to respect amongst the ranks of college football.

[mrydel]

For SMU football as of late, yes. I never claimed that SMU can compete with the likenesses of Ohio State, Florida, Texas, etc., but for how we have been performing as of late I would grade our performance based on our potential in the B/B+ range (an overall good performance). Now if we are comparing us to the nation as a whole, C. We are a middle of the pack team, ready to starting clawing our way back to respect amongst the ranks of college football.

I will not argue with you on that although I think we will have to really step it up next year with a tougher schedule to show improvement in wins and losses. I just think if someone like the maniacs board throws out a random grade I have to assume it would be compared to all D-1 football teams. We are not B+ yet in that venue. We have a long way to go.

[Stallion]

obviously is on the SMU sliding scale for underachieving football programs.

[LonghornFan68]

For SMU football as of late, yes. I never claimed that SMU can compete with the likenesses of Ohio State, Florida, Texas, etc., but for how we have been performing as of late I would grade our performance based on our potential in the B/B+ range (an overall good performance). Now if we are comparing us to the nation as a whole, C. We are a middle of the pack team, ready to starting clawing our way back to respect amongst the ranks of college football.

That's pretty much what I said. I didn't get the impression that the original article was grading SMU against the rest of the nation, but against its direct competition. I don't know how else you could grade them, honestly. Until they play someone, you really don't know how they would stack up.

[perunapower]

For SMU football as of late, yes. I never claimed that SMU can compete with the likenesses of Ohio State, Florida, Texas, etc., but for how we have been performing as of late I would grade our performance based on our potential in the B/B+ range (an overall good performance). Now if we are comparing us to the nation as a whole, C. We are a middle of the pack team, ready to starting clawing our way back to respect amongst the ranks of college football.

I will not argue with you on that although I think we will have to really step it up next year with a tougher schedule to show improvement in wins and losses. I just think if someone like the maniacs board throws out a random grade I have to assume it would be compared to all D-1 football teams. We are not B+ yet in that venue. We have a long way to go.

I agree totally, we have a long way to go, but we will have taken a major step forward in going to a bowl game. If we can win the West and quite possibly even the C-USA championship that will be another breakthrough. We just need to make success a tradition here, and quit expecting to lose. You are definitely right in saying that next year's schedule will be tough (we play Tech, TCU, UNT, Ark St?, UCF, USM, Memphis, and the West) especially compared to this year's rather mushy starting lineup.

[J.T.supporta]

How dare they give us a C+ for RBs