Black Sunday

by **jtstang** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:50 am

mr. pony wrote:It was the DP, period - plain and simple.

I don't blame SMU's reaction - even now. Any other school would have done the same or more.

No one had ever gotten it, or ever will again, so what SMU did in response can't be compared to ANYTHING!!!!!!!

Those faced with this abomination of a penalty, which should never have been administered, did the best they could.

D*mn the NCAA.

No, damn the cheaters at SMU in the '80s. And although the death penalty was the catalyst, nobody else would have done what Pye did and tried to stay in Div 1.

by PK » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:34 am

It has been a long process coming back and we aren't finished yet, but thankfully we did stay with Div 1 athletics.

by **ponyboy** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:34 pm

jtstang wrote: No, damn the cheaters at SMU in the '80s. And although the death penalty was the catalyst, nobody else would have done what Pye did and tried to stay in Div 1.

Yep. And, although a cheerleader like myself hates to admit it, another point needs to be made. Except for the cheating, we had been a mediocre player in a major conference for decades. Since the breakup of the SWC, we've been a mediocre player in second tier conferences. So the fall has not been as far as advertised by some on this board.

Back to cheerleader mode. There is plenty of reason for optimism with Orsini at the helm. And I cannot wait to see what Willis is able to do next year.

by **Mexmustang** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:42 pm

Why are many of you so [deleted] those that caused the problem? I can understand your position today, but I doubt you were around then. I only ask that you put it in perspective.
The old SWC was rife with cheating and dirty tricks, almost from inception. SMU was sick and tired of losing recruits to money being passed out by A$M, UT, Baylor and TCU, who were leading the way (people forget that TCU and Baylor also got caught with major violations. In fact, I recall Baylor hired the recently fired TCU head coach as an assistant to help with their recruiting program). OU, LSU and UofA as well the rest of the "big boys" in the SEC were buying players left and right. Barry Switzer was one of the worst! He makes no bones about leaving school with on his recruiting trip with $200,000 in his trunk. It wasn't just a matter of paying players, but changing SAT test scores and altering high school records.

The people that participated in our scandal were the leading people in Dallas and the state of Texas, many on our Board of Governors. SMU got caught because we expanded the effort to include too many alumns, too many knew about it and we didn't have a well established "quiet" system in place like the other schools. We all knew about passing the "hat" at Brookhollow, and who handled the money. Some of our alumns also took it to the extreme, perticularily the "young wealthy" real estate boys. Our success caused the other schools to resent it and to turn against us.

I agree, it was wrong!

But, I guarantee you, had many of you been there, and you had the financial success these men had, and given your devotion to SMU atletics, many of you on this board would have been participating too. I would bet the majority!

I can understand you opinion regarding those that caused the scandal. But, I do believe it is time to put the DP behind us. My own opinion is that we need to stop "beating ourselves" over it. I believe we can only move forward if we embrace these people again, those that were so wrong in their mistaken belief that they were helping their university.

by **jtstang** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:15 pm

Mexmustang wrote:Why are many of you so [deleted] those that caused the problem? I can understand your position today, but I doubt you were around then. I only ask that you put it in perspective.

Clearly you did never had to sit through a soccer homecoming game. To put it in perspective, part of my college life was without football at all and that sucked. And those that cheated should be vilified forever for the problems they caused and the carnage they left behind them.

by **Mexmustang** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:42 pm

No, but I did have to sit back while Pye ignored those of us alumns that disagreed with him during the board meetings!

I am sorry that your college experience was like. I am also sorry my son and daughter has to have similar experiences during there years at SMU.

And, I am really upset we can't seem to move beyond it and fire administrators that think being in the top 25 or getting to the top 72 in football, thereby going to a bowl game are satisfactory goals!

by **Stallion** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:13 am

Our goal is to beat Rice-every once in awhile.

by **ponyboy** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:28 am

Mexmustang wrote: And, I am really upset we can't seem to move beyond it and fire administrators that think being in the top 25 or getting to the top 72 in football, thereby going to a bowl game are satisfactory goals!

Top 25 is a more than satisfactory goal. More than satisfactory. When we get there, NONE of you will be complaining.

Look, I'll call again for us to put SMU football in perspective. If you look at 1956 to 1979 -- I choose '56 because that's where the records start on the only win/loss documentation I could quickly find -- we had a 42 percent win percentage in those 23 seasons leading up to the 80's. 42 percent! Yes, that includes the nice years in '66 and '68 as well as a smattering of other respectable seasons during that 23 year period. Everyone knows our winning percentage since the breakup of the SWC isn't good either: about 35 percent. 40 percent if you drop the winless season in '03.

So the point is that -- the results of the 1980's rampant cheating aside -- we have historically been a less than average football team. Look, I'm not suggesting AT ALL we don't shoot for the stars. And I'm not suggesting we just roll over and content ourselves with a .42 winning percentage. That ought to make anyone with any competitive bone in his body absolutely puke. But Top 25 is a more than realistic goal right now. And a good interim step would be to make it to a bowl game. Nothing wrong with either of those goals. Let's re-evaluate when we get there.

Now, if you want to argue that we're not doing enough right now to make that happen, I'm all ears.

[Note: Just noticed that this is my 1000th post in the seven years I've been registered here. Nice to pick up that Heisman.]

by **Mexmustang** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:49 am

One question, is TCU's goal to be in the top 25 or is it to make it to a BCS bowl?
If our goal is to simply make it to a bowl: "We're no. 72...We're no. 72...We're no. 72!"

by **jtstang** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:06 am

Mexmustang wrote:One question, is TCU's goal to be in the top 25 or is it to make it to a BCS bowl?
If our goal is to simply make it to a bowl: "We're no. 72...We're no. 72...We're no. 72!"

Hey, your goal could be to fly to the moon by sticking a bottle rocket up your @ss, but it isn't going to happen, and neither is the one with SMU going to a BCS bowl.

by **Mexmustang** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:47 am

That's just the right attitude to retain our years of mediocrity!

"Yea, we're no. 72...we're no. 72!"

by **ponyboy** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:58 am

This goes to human motivational theory, Mex. Top 25 is a more than agressive enough goal. Again, no one in charge ought to be happy with being number 72. But I'd suggest that we might allow the slightest sense of satisfaction to overcome us were we to end up the 2007 season at, say, #23.

by **Mexmustang** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm

If you are talking about '07, yes, from a realistic point of view, I agree.

However, after twenty years of mediocrity we all have the right to be more than just impatient. Given the time that has passed, this goal should not have been satisfactory for our goal for the 21st season since the DP.

Our long-term goal should be the same as TCU's, "top-ten", BCS Bowl, joining a BCS conference. If it isn't, then we should drop TCU from our future schedules, because we shouldn't ever expect to beat them! I guarantee you their long-term goal isn't to make a minor bowl or make it to the top 25 one year in five.

by **SMUtrojanFAN** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:32 pm

ponyboy wrote:Everyone knows our winning percentage since the breakup of the SWC isn't good either...40 percent if you drop the winless season in '03.

Yeah, too bad we couldn't "cancel" that football season 15 years after...

by **PlanoStang** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:40 pm

jtstang wrote:
Mexmustang wrote:Why are many of you so [deleted] those that caused the problem? I can understand your position today, but I doubt you were around then. I only ask that you put it in perspective.

Clearly you did never had to sit through a soccer homecoming game. To put it in perspective, part of my college life was without football at all and that sucked. And those that cheated should be vilified forever for the problems they caused and the carnage they left behind them.

Mexmustang's post is right on target. Everybody was cheating,
and stretching the rules back then, and still are now. Even us with
burgers, and Cheer.

We were just great scapegoats for the NCAA's new death penalty rule.
We were a small school that was obviously cheating, with a small fan
base, no money to put up a fight in court with the ncaa, and no jillion
dollar stadium to mortgage to put up a fight. Also, getting in bad favor
with UT, and A$M by reulary beating them in the 80s didn't help things
out.

Good luck with vilifying the SEC, Big 8/Big Smelve, ND, SWC, etc.
although they are for the most part villains with me.

Black Sunday

Who is online