Correct me if I am wrong...

[Treadway21]

I hope Justin Willis is as good as Ramon

He has had more TD passes in a season and tied the amount of wins in a season that Ramon's teams' had, so I think he is well on his way.

But not that long ago we have a guy named Flanigan who everybody liked and who made us bowl eligible one year, and that house of cards has since come crashing to the ground.

can't we blame Cavan with that?

[jtstang]

I thought I had already answered your question. What's different is that we built a new stadium and have the Boulevard now. I hope Justin Willis is as good as Ramon -- he's certainly the best since Mr. Flanigan. The stadium and Boulevard may or may not directly contribute to our on field performance, but they directly contribute to *my* happiness as a fan. Justin Willis does help in the W/L department and is just a sophomore next year.

Did that answer your question?

Okay. When you said in your prior post "We're greatly improving and there's a lot to get excited about" I thought you were referrring to our on-field performance and record and ability to play in a bowl and all that. I agree that the Boulevard and the stadiium are nice, and I am happy they contribute positively to the gamday experience. Thanks for clarifying. Ramone Flanigan was a good as Willis or better and he never did better than 6-5 because, like Willis, the rest of the talent on his team was not typically as good as the opponents'.

[ponyboy]

You're right. Ramon was a great player until the freak injury that first play against Arkansas in the Cotton Bowl. Still a very good player after that, but he never recovered in his remaining nine seasons on the Hilltop.

So I'll recap. We sucked since 1950 and we still suck. That's a given. But we've improved, had a 6-6 year last year, we can all drink homemade margaritas out of red plastic cups on campus legally whilst ogling 22 year old girls from Chicago and St. Louis, and we have a stadium that would have made any Mustang from any era proud. And we have a promising young QB. All of that makes me happy.

Have a great weekend my friend.

[jtstang]

You're right. Ramon was a great player until the freak injury that first play against Arkansas in the Cotton Bowl. Still a very good player after that, but he never recovered in his remaining nine seasons on the Hilltop.

So I'll recap. We sucked since 1950 and we still suck. That's a given. But we've improved, had a 6-6 year last year, we can all drink homemade margaritas out of red plastic cups on campus legally whilst ogling 22 year old girls from Chicago and St. Louis, and we have a stadium that would have made any Mustang from any era proud. And we have a promising young QB. All of that makes me happy.

Have a great weekend my friend.

I'll buy into it all of the above. And drink a green beer in ponyboy's honor this weekend.

[Stallion]

SMU since 1989- pathetic and falling to the lowest depths of college football performance. SMU from 1950-1979 competive/average at the highest level of college football. You're a [deleted] to keep comparing what we've seen since 1989 to 1950s to 1970s. Anybody who has witnessed the difference knows your a [deleted] but you will continue to be a [deleted] because you don't have the intellectual integrity to admit you are a [deleted].

[ThadFilms]

I doubt I even have to research that to conclude it must be true. Shall end soon though (as I put my half-empty bottle of bourban down)

i like where ur heads at

I would much rather trade my hooch for a SMU championship

points off for misspelling bourbon. I mean, misspellings are perfectly fine... but bourbon is not something to be taken lightly. Well maybe it's tim to hit the "skotch".

T-Luxx

[ponyboy]

You're a [deleted] to keep comparing what we've seen since 1989 to 1950s to 1970s. Anybody who has witnessed the difference knows your a [deleted] but you will continue to be a [deleted] because you don't have the intellectual integrity to admit you are a [deleted].

I admit it. I'm a deleted.

You seem to have a very short memory. I said that we dropped from "BCS" conference to mid major. That's a drop and is real. But to suggest that we were "competitive/average" with our 42% winning percentage from 1950-1979 is stretching the truth. Winning only 42% of your games isn't competitive and it isn't even average. As a matter of fact, it sounds very much like our winning percentage since we dropped from BCS to mid major status.

Bottom line is that we were a below average team in the SWC who has been below average in the WAC and CUSA. As an SMU fan, once you've swallowed the bitter pill that we dropped from "BCS" to mid major, you ought to be ok with the rest -- no make that pretty damned happy with our situation. Do I need to repeat 6-6 year, good QB, nice stadium, margaritas on the Boulevard? It's not all gloom and doom.

[Stallion]

No you said we "sucked" before the DP during the years 1950-1979 and "sucked" after the DP. That is unfair to those players who played during those years especially considering they routinely played the elite of college football in both conference and non-conference play. As previously posted SMU would have gone to 9 bowls if you project those teams into the current bowl landscape. Not one post DP team could even arguably be compared to any one of at least 8 of those team's performance-I previously conceded that the 1963 Sun Bowl was a anomoly but one based on beating a Top 10 team in the country. SMU performed better during that period against every single common opponent played during the two periods. Give up your stupid comparison.

[ponyboy]

you said we "sucked" before the DP during the years 1950-1979 and "sucked" after the DP. That is unfair to those players who played during those years especially considering they routinely played the elite of college football in both conference and non-conference play.

Yes, we played the elite. That's what being in a "BCS" conference entails.

As previously posted SMU would have gone to 9 bowls if you project those teams into the current bowl landscape.

Actually, the number is 8. We had 8 winning records in 30 seasons -- remember an average team would have had 15 -- and a 42% win percentage.

SMU performed better during that period against every single common opponent played during the two periods. Give up your stupid comparison.

Duh. We have dropped from SWC to CUSA and with it have seen a corresponding fall in talent. It needs hardly be said that had we retained the SWC talent -- even though it was mediocre at best playing in that league -- we'd have done quite well in the WAC and CUSA.

We were a below average team in the SWC and we've been below average in the WAC and CUSA. Swallow the bitter pill and move on.

[ponyboy]

you said we "sucked" before the DP during the years 1950-1979 and "sucked" after the DP. That is unfair to those players who played during those years especially considering they routinely played the elite of college football in both conference and non-conference play.

Yes, we played the elite. That's what being in a "BCS" conference entails.

As previously posted SMU would have gone to 9 bowls if you project those teams into the current bowl landscape.

Actually, the number is 8. We had 8 winning seasons in 30 years -- remember an average team would have had 15 -- and a 42% win percentage.

SMU performed better during that period against every single common opponent played during the two periods. Give up your stupid comparison.

Duh. We have dropped from SWC to CUSA and with it have seen a corresponding fall in talent. It needs hardly be said that had we retained the SWC talent -- even though it was mediocre at best playing in that league -- we'd have done quite well in the WAC and CUSA.

We were a below average team in the SWC and we've been below average in the WAC and CUSA. Swallow the bitter pill and move on.

[Stallion]

Great the [deleted] is responding to his own post now.

[PlanoStang]

you said we "sucked" before the DP during the years 1950-1979 and "sucked" after the DP. That is unfair to those players who played during those years especially considering they routinely played the elite of college football in both conference and non-conference play.

Yes, we played the elite. That's what being in a "BCS" conference entails.

As previously posted SMU would have gone to 9 bowls if you project those teams into the current bowl landscape.

Actually, the number is 8. We had 8 winning records in 30 seasons -- remember an average team would have had 15 -- and a 42% win percentage.

SMU performed better during that period against every single common opponent played during the two periods. Give up your stupid comparison.

Duh. We have dropped from SWC to CUSA and with it have seen a corresponding fall in talent. It needs hardly be said that had we retained the SWC talent -- even though it was mediocre at best playing in that league -- we'd have done quite well in the WAC and CUSA.

We were a below average team in the SWC and we've been below average in the WAC and CUSA. Swallow the bitter pill and move on.

Your logic is very flawed. I sure don't remember Rice, TCU, and
Baylor having 15 winning seasons over those 30 years. Probably not
Texas Tech, and A$M.

See baseball winning percentages over a 150 game season. In this case
it's over 300+ games. Until you produce percentages of all SWC teams
over those years, you're just TRASH talkin

[ponyboy]

1950-1979

Team/ Win Percent/ Winning Seasons
TEXAS 74% 26
ARK 66% 20
HOU 62% 18
TECH 53% 13
A&M 48% 11
BAYLOR 47% 11
SMU 43% 8
TCU 42% 8
RICE 39% 7

[PlanoStang]

So, basically 6 out of 9 teams are mediocre.

Thanks for figuring, or finding out the percentages. I was curious
as to what they really were.