My take on Bennett

[LTBear]

I know many of you may not care to hear this from me, but here's my take on it all.

Bennett has done a very, very solid job. I think only the most negative of people could think anything less.

It took him a while, and there were some major dissapointments near the beginning of his tenure, but Bennett has begun to turn this program around about as well as almost anyone could, short only of the iraculous workings of such as Pete Carroll (USC isn't hard to win at, but he's still done something amazing... to think this was supposed to be a major "down year").

AT THE VERY LEAST, Bennett needs to be given another year or two. Firing him now would make no sense in light of not firing him after the winless season. Since that debacle, he has improven on the overall record, beat TCU for the first time in a long time, and, most importantly, slowly started to bring to SMU a level of talent much better than what it became used to in the late 90's.

And let's be honest, Bennet is probably about as good as SMU can hope to do right now. Not many coaches are going to want to come to SMU, for the obvious reasons of not being in an overly attractive conference, not having the greatest facilities or athletes, not having overly-flattering media exposure, and of course most likely not having a huge paycheck. And don't take this as someone bad-mouthing SMU or anything like that. I speak as one who understands. Although we have a "better" conferance affiliation, Baylor people know very well that because of facilities, talent, winning percentage, and paycheck numbers it's hard to pull a "big-time" coach to BU.

Bennett came into arguably the worst program in the nation, and has done a solid job of making it respectable once more. Moreover, the program is only now beginning to hit its stride under his leadership. I say give him more time.

That is all.

[NavyCrimson]

Agree.

Also, if you want graduation rates in the stratosphere, expect 'competitiveness' at best. 50% - 70%, then a $%%$# good team.

[LTBear]

I think high graduation rates can be compatible with good teams. Notre Dame does it. It's obviousley easier to draw a recruit to ND than it is to SMU, and so they have a much larger recruit base to select from, but on the other hand SMU generally doesn't compete week-in and week-out with the programs ND reguarly does.

[davidsmu94]

You can't tell me that Intelligence and Football playing ability are mutually exclusive.

[Thumper]

You can't tell me that Intelligence and Football playing ability are mutually exclusive.

Sorry, davidsmu94. I like to think I'm fairly smart, and I suck at football.

There you go. Rock-solid evidence.

[davidsmu94]

Now that I think of it, I was pretty good at football, but incredibly stupid. I retract my statement.

[RE Tycoon]

Not many coaches are going to want to come to SMU, for the obvious reasons of not being in an overly attractive conference, not having the greatest facilities or athletes

Our facilities are better than most, if not all of the non-BCS schools, and probably better than some BCS schools. In fact that is one of our few strong points...at least for a few more years.

[dcpony]

Not many coaches are going to want to come to SMU, for the obvious reasons of not being in an overly attractive conference, not having the greatest facilities or athletes

Our facilities are better than most, if not all of the non-BCS schools, and probably better than some BCS schools. In fact that is one of our few strong points...at least for a few more years.

True, I know for a fact SMU has better facilities than the U (Miami) and NW.