In the Sun For a While

[PonyKai]

I think that it would be nice to take a little time and just reflect on the posatives of the direction that this program is heading (albeit, possibly quite slowly). Yes, I can already hear your criticisms, and most of them are very valid, but let's just sit in the sun for a little while since there are no money making athletics taking place.

*The athletes that are on campus now, and this upcoming fall are better than what the school has had in quite some time. Here's your chance to argue about it being the best class, sunshine up your [deleted] blah, blah blah, but the school has better athletes enrolled as students now.

*The players are bigger, stronger, and faster than they have been in many years. Compliments to Vic Viloria, but also the recruited athletes are stronger.

*SMU is now practicing, playing, training, and living on campus in beautiful top-notch facilities.

*In a span of 365 days, SMU has THREE games televised on the ESPN networks, compared to ONE from 1988-2005.

*The NFL held a pro-day for this spring. That's the first 'formal' recognition of any kind from professional football that there is a hint of resurgence in University Park.

*Several Mustangs have the chance to be drafter this year. Granted they would be late round picks and pick up nil media coverage, but how long has it been since multiple SMU alums had that opportunity?

*CUSA is better than the WAC. I am not comparing the quality of the teams with Hawaii and Boise State. CUSA can become a better conference because it is not pidgeon-holed, has better exposure, and benefits SMU by saving a great deal in travel costs and bowl game matchups.

*Love Phil Bennett or hate him, the players (at the very least for the most part) believe in him, his sytem, and his abilities as the coach of SMU. They believe that they can win with him coaching the team.

*The attitude of the team has changed over the last several years, and this is now a team that believes it can win. It is not a team that expects to win, or believes that they will go 13-0, but it is a far cry from the teams of the early 21st century who walked onto the field expecting to lose.

*When the team wins, the students will return. Even the most apathetic of SMU students will not ignore a 8-4, 9-3 team week in and week out.

There is plenty to shout, yell, argue, and lament about SMU's immediate athletic success and direction. But for at least a little, just come sit in the sun and enjoy the things that have improved, which if nothing else shows that improvement is possible, even here.

[Stallion]

there is no appreciable difference between the talent today and the talent SMU had in 1997-1999 and what difference there is directly related to relaxation of admission standards to allow JUCOs into school. SMU is simply playing in a much easier conference than they were in the late 1990s. SMU is still winning about 4 games against real opponents and has no more pro prospects than in that period. Those teams had Jason Evans, Bill Holder, Jerry Chavira(before the injury), Albert Johnson, Kevin Aldridge, Chris Cunningham(before injury), Kevin Garrett, Sterling Harris, Joey Slaten, and some other big lineman, Chris Sanders, Rodnick Phillips, Dontae Womack, Josh McCown, Jonas Rutledge, Karon Riley kid who transferred to Minnesota, Chris Bordano, Jacoby Rhinehart, Donald Mitchell, Jack Brewer who transferred to Minnesota. In fact, those teams had more pro prospects than the current group as at least 7 actually had a shot in the NFL. All 3 of those teams would have won 7 games if they had played last years' schedule.

[PonyKai]

I can sit and argue each point that I made for hours, trying to reach a compromise or prove myself right, but I really don't want to. It would be a drain. So fine I'll just revise that statement.

*SMU has comparable talent to that of the peak of the Mike Cavan era from 1997-1998.

*SMU's athletic teams now have more support than they did from the academic and admission faculty than they did during the Cavan era.

*SMU now plays an easier schedule, and with a comparable talent base gives it a greater chance to succeed by winning more games, appearing in a bow game, generating revenue, bringing fans back to the stadium, and attracting more talented recruits.

*SMU's upper-tier talent is not transferring to larger, more prominent programs, and the players aren't getting injured, keeping that talent on the team and giving them a chance to succeed.

[originaloverthehilltop1]

he's right. i can't remember when we played in a bow game.

[PonyKai]

Well couldn't possibly go on with that one word screwed up, better fix that now.

*bowl game.

there.

[Argyle Pony]

I believe the real difference is the depth of the team with redshirts coming in to be back ups with some expecting playing time. I believe the direction of the program is positive even if the AD has to change coaches next year...we plan to get there! I was here when Cavin was coach...very little enthusiasm in my opinion. He probably was a good coach but had little support from adm. We are headed in the right direction with a AD that is closely observing!! Go Mustangs!!!

[stangdad 40]

Gil brandts comments on nfl.com about smu pro days.
"theres been a resurgence in the program here in dallas,over the last three years, the team looks better physically"."The program is definately on the upswing".

[BUS]

Like Phill Bennett or not, changing coaches at this point would set SMU back. We are now getting local recruits and have good relationships with the high schools.

The team is bigger, faster, smarter and Bennett is the one that has brought all of them to the Hilltop.

I do understand that Orsini wants his own man for F-ball coach but why can not Orsini TRY to make Bennett his own.

Reasons:
We do not have the money to hire a National Headline coach.
We still do not have the degree programs that even Rice offeres.
Losing ground for even a year is too much just for the sake of change.

Bennett took the hardest job in Div. I football and has worked his fingers to the bone and it is paying off.

I guess you know where I stand.

7-5 and Bowl Bound.
George
Your Cirro Agent # 5153

[davidsmu94]

So there are some truths to both sides of this. First of all the team talent is much better than what we had the first couple of years of the Bennent era. If one looks at this time period only the arrow is obviously going up I do have to agree with Stallion though, we had some equally talented teams that played much more difficult schedules in the 90s. Only difference there was that we were seeing loses to much better quality of opponents.

But hey, who said the arrow is done going up?