Will SMU football ever be relevant again...

[EastStang]

I don't know, paying players seems to still be in vogue in places like ummm OU and perhaps USC (if the Bush house story is believable). Mac Brown was a good coach when he came to UT but many fans were not sold on him when he arrived. He is not an X and O guy, he just flat out recruits everyone else. I agree that we need to find a way to get out of the noise and into the limelight. A big name coaching hire would do just that. I think had Bennett been able to right the ship with the empty cupboard that he inherited, quickly, he could have been the guy, but three losing seasons later, we're just not on anyone's radar. And SMU-TCU which used to be an annual ABC game of the week in the 60's is now on CSTV. I think if we replace him, we need the hiring needs to be a "wow" hiring.

[bigdaddy08091]

We are just missing the fact that the game has changed. College football is not about paying the players anymore. We had the best team that money could buy. What coolege football is about is buying the best coach around and the players show up for free(or at least no-show jobs at your local Subaru dealership). So what SMU needs to do is go back to all those big $ donors that helped fund the slush fund back in the 80's and say, look, we can win if we out spend everyone else on coaches. It is legal and you get a great tax write off. Plus, SMU will win football games on a regular basis and there is nothing that the F*cking NCAA can do to stop us this time.

We just need about $4million a year in cash or a $50 million endowment that will allow SMU to pay as much for a football coach as OU, Texas, or any other Top Tier team out there. Relevancy is going to cost some real money so you better Pony Up or we can keep compteting with Rice and NTSU for worst D1 football team in Texas.

So who is with me. We only need 4000 people to donate $1000 a year to cover of becoming a Top 10 Football Program. I am in for a $1000, we only need $3,999,000 more to go.

Money or coaches have nothing to do with it anymore. Ask your child, the athlete, where he or she wants to go to school. It has nothing to do with coaches. The same schools have been consistent for years, and coaches have come and gone, but the school has remained strong. It is about the University, not coaching or recruiting. Why do you think all the coaches are trying to get to the best schools? SMU screwed this thing up years ago, not PB. Bob Stoops leaves OU, recruiting remains the same. They do not have to recruit. SMU has to recruit. Half the football players across the country have no idea SMU even has a football team.

[Stallion]

do have any basis whatsoever for this gem. Because you are wrong. UT, Alabama, Miami, LSU, OU, ND, USC -hell I could name every school in the country, but they all have had their ups and downs. What you can say is that the Top Teams in the Nation almost inevitably recruit the Top players. Who are the best recruiting teams in the country over the last 10 years. USC, Florida, LSU, Texas, OU stand out and I don't have to look I'm pretty sure they have the best records among the teams playing the toughest scheduled. Generally, these program's success are based upon a dominant recruiting staff. Miami, ND, Penn St, Nebraska, A&M, UCLA. are teams who have seen their recruiting drop off and it shows on the field. The programs have fired their coaches looking for a dominant recruiting staff they used to have. The biggest variable other than recruiting these days these days seems to be which teams can keep the most players out of jail or the NFL.

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

re: It has nothing to do with coaches. The same schools have been consistent for years, and coaches have come and gone, but the school has remained strong. It is about the University, not coaching or recruiting. Bob Stoops leaves OU, recruiting remains the same

If that were true and "just about anybody can coach at those schools and it's not the coach" then how do you explain why OU sucked under Gary Gibbs, Howard Schnellenberger, and John Blake?

[bigdaddy08091]

do have any basis whatsoever for this gem. Because you are wrong. UT, Alabama, Miami, LSU, OU, ND, USC -hell I could name every school in the country, but they all have had their ups and downs. What you can say is that the Top Teams in the Nation almost inevitably recruit the Top players. Who are the best recruiting teams in the country over the last 10 years. USC, Florida, LSU, Texas, OU stand out and I don't have to look I'm pretty sure they have the best records among the teams playing the toughest scheduled. Generally, these program's success are based upon a dominant recruiting staff. Miami, ND, Penn St, Nebraska, A&M, UCLA. are teams who have seen their recruiting drop off and it shows on the field. The programs have fired their coaches looking for a dominant recruiting staff they used to have. The biggest variable other than recruiting these days these days seems to be which teams can keep the most players out of jail or the NFL.

[bigdaddy08091]

What you can say is that the Top Teams in the Nation almost inevitably recruit the Top players.

Top schools, top teams. What is the different. I am talking football not business school.

[Stallion]

UT under Makovic, UT under Brown
A&M under Sherrill A&M under R.C Slocum (in his last 5 years)
Miami under Jimmy Johnson and Butch Davis, Miami under Coker
OU under Stoops and Switzer, OU under the 3 coaches between their tenure
USC under Carroll USC under the previous 3 coaches

These are programs built on the best recruiters in the business an area their predecessor failed in. Programs go up and down and generally it relates directly to recruiting

[bigdaddy08091]

[quote="Stallion"]UT under Makovic, UT under Brown
A&M under Sherrill A&M under R.C Slocum (in his last 5 years
Miami under Jimmy Johnson and Butch Davis, Miami under
OU under Stoops, OU under
USC under Carroll USC under[/quote

My cousin Tony Degrate was the Lombardi award winner under Mak at UT in 1984. What are you trying to say. These are the most successfull programs in college footbll for the last several year. I am not an historian, but I miss your point. Even when these teams had bad season, they went to bowls. UT is hurting know, but how many HS football players are saying, I not going there?

[Stallion]

I'm saying that those programs failed because Makovic as well David McWilliams, Slocum in the late 90s, Coker in recent seasons, and OU between Switzer and Stoops failed because they were soundly beaten in recruiting by their chief Rivals. Once those programs got ace recruiting staffs with Brown, Carroll, Stoops, et al they starting winning championships again. BTW in 1984, UTs Coach was Fred Akers I do believe who was followed by David McWilliams another recruiting failure. MacKovic is from the 1990s era. McWilliams and Mackovic have the dubious distinction of being one of the few UT Coaches in recent history to be dominated in Texas recruiting by Texas A&M-that's why the Aggies dominated the SWC from the late 80s to the turn of the century.

[Pony Soup]

My cousin Tony Degrate was the Lombardi award winner under Mak at UT in 1984. What are you trying to say. These are the most successfull programs in college footbll for the last several year. I am not an historian, but I miss your point. Even when these teams had bad season, they went to bowls. UT is hurting know, but how many HS football players are saying, I not going there?

If this guy went to SMU, I dont want to hear any more complaining about our strict academic standards for admitting athletes.

[Peruna_Ate_My_Rolex]

UT under Makovic, UT under Brown
A&M under Sherrill A&M under R.C Slocum (in his last 5 years
Miami under Jimmy Johnson and Butch Davis, Miami under
OU under Stoops, OU under
USC under Carroll USC under[/quote

My cousin Tony Degrate was the Lombardi award winner under Mak at UT in 1984.

Mackovic was coach at UT from 92-97. Mackovic was coach of the Chiefs around that time that Degrate was in school. In actuality, Fred Akers was the coach at that time. At least get your story straight.

[bigdaddy08091]

My cousin Tony Degrate was the Lombardi award winner under Mak at UT in 1984. What are you trying to say. These are the most successfull programs in college footbll for the last several year. I am not an historian, but I miss your point. Even when these teams had bad season, they went to bowls. UT is hurting know, but how many HS football players are saying, I not going there?

If this guy went to SMU, I dont want to hear any more complaining about our strict academic standards for admitting athletes.[/quote]

Hell no, I could not have gotten on the doot steps of SMU. I WAS A FOOTBALL/BASEBALL PLAYER WHO WENT TO SCHOOL, NOT A STUDENT PLAYING FOOTBALL/BASEBALL. Pick your poison. I did spell poison right didn't I?

[abezontar]

What's a "doot"?

[bigdaddy08091]

What's a "doot"?

Sorry spell check guy, DOOR!

[Water Pony]

Recruits follow success, but they will follow the top four schools in a BCS conference. A model to consider is what U. of Louisville did to break out of the pack, promote itself and be taken by the BE.

For other examples, note what Ron Zook has done in recruiting at U. of Illinois. Rashard Mendenhall was a Top Recruit for everyone and Ron got him. Now, the Illini are ranked in the Top 25 for the first time since 2001.

Getting the right coach, who can recruit the players of today is the only way for us to become relevant again.