I hope the next coach is a proponent of Gen. Neyland's...

[dcpony]

Seven Maxims of Football:
*The team that makes the fewest mistakes will win.
*Play for and make the breaks and when one comes your way - SCORE.
*If at first the game - or the breaks - go against you, don't let up... puton more steam.
*Protect our kickers, our QB, our lead and our ball game.
*Ball, oskie, cover, block, cut and slice, pursue and gang tackle... for this is the WINNING EDGE.
*Press the kicking game. Here is where the breaks are made.
*Carry the fight to our opponent and keep it there for 60 minutes.

[Charleston Pony]

I just hope we can find a coach who can sell SMU to recruits...that remains one of the biggest challenges this program faces.

20 years of futility has made SMU the joke of college football, so it won't be easy to attract guys who have plenty of other options.

I agree with those who advocate bringing in a "name" coach. We have the facilities to rival anyone in CUSA and we have the lure of playing in the shadow of the Dallas Cowboys, but I don't see a no name being able to turn this thing around. We have one of the worst fan bases in Division I football and that remains a major negative in recruiting...not to mention the academic issues that have been well chronicled on this site.

Doherty has been able to attract attention from players all over the country - because of his name. We are going to need the same attraction in football and it will be a much more difficult task to rebuild the football program than it will be the hoops program, where 2-3 studs can make a huge difference.

Having said all that, I still don't think we are all that physically mismatched with our CUSA oppenents, so it will be interesting to see what a new coaching staff can do with our existing payers. While a huge part of the college game is recruiting, the coaches job is still to use schemes that will play to our guys strengths and hide their weaknesses.

[dcpony]

Having said all that, I still don't think we are all that physically mismatched with our CUSA oppenents, so it will be interesting to see what a new coaching staff can do with our existing players. While a huge part of the college game is recruiting, the coaches job is still to use schemes that will play to our guys strengths and hide their weaknesses.

PB is an expert at coaching to his team's strengths.

[NavyCrimson]

" ... but I don't see a no name being able to turn this thing around. We have one of the worst fan bases in Division I football and that remains a major negative in recruiting ..."

Duuuuuhhh - 20 years of losing by big margins will do that for any program. C'mon 'pony, let's look at this realistically. We start winning consistently & going to bowls and marketing correctly and this wont be an issue.

[PK]

" ... but I don't see a no name being able to turn this thing around. We have one of the worst fan bases in Division I football and that remains a major negative in recruiting ..."

Duuuuuhhh - 20 years of losing by big margins will do that for any program. C'mon 'pony, let's look at this realistically. We start winning consistently & going to bowls and marketing correctly and this wont be an issue.

Have you never heard about catch 22. That unfortunately is where we are. Yes winning will bring in the better players, but we need the better players in place in order to win. A big name coach will help at this point in attracting the better recruits/players.

[Charleston Pony]

" ... but I don't see a no name being able to turn this thing around. We have one of the worst fan bases in Division I football and that remains a major negative in recruiting ..."

Duuuuuhhh - 20 years of losing by big margins will do that for any program. C'mon 'pony, let's look at this realistically. We start winning consistently & going to bowls and marketing correctly and this wont be an issue.

I know this is the popular belief, i.e., just win and they will come. Our modern history doesn't support that theory. Even when we were cheating better than our SWC opponents and winning championships, our attendance figures were pathetic. The exceptions were when UT or A$M came to town or we were giving aweay tickets. Dont believe me? Look it up. Attendance history/figures are out there at smumustangs.com in the archives. Or ask the guys who played for those SWC championship teams. They will remember some of those 20,000 "crowds" at Texas Stadium

I will save you some time:

1981 10-1 SWC Champs

UTA drew 20,000
NTSU drew 20,000
Rice drew 28,000
TEXAS TECH drew only 24,000
Texa$ - 60,000

1982 11-0-1 SWC Champs and ** National Champs (in one poll)

Tulane - 33k
NTSU - 30k
Houston - 31k
Arkansas - 65k

1983 10-2

Louisville - 23k
UTA - 23k
Rice - 28k
Texas - 63k

1984 10-2 SWC Champs

NTSU - 27k
Houston - 28k
ARKANSAS - 28k

There is a reason we were snubbed when the BCS was formed. Our SWC conference mates just got tired of "carrying" us. We are where we deserve to be and Ford Stadium is perfect for what we shouod be capable of doing, i.e., competing for CUSA championships and averaging about 25k attendance - but don't tell me our lack of a fan base isn't a major part of our struggles. And don't tell me that nobody else supports a loser. Check 0-6 Marshall's attendance figures against ours. And I witnessed South Carolina average 78k fans for an 0-11 season. The Dallas community doesn't support SMU because we have a very exclusive, snobish image. That "we don't tailgate...we boulevard" is classic SMU.

Long live the 1500

[Treadway21]

That is BS. Marshall doesn't have 4 pro sports teams in town to compete for attendance. It has absolutely nothing to do with snobishness. The Cowboys didn't sell out when they were bad. Dallas backs a winner.

Just compare the Tulane attendance fro the 80's from what we got a couple of years ago and what we will do in a couple of weeks. We won't get 33K beacuse we haven't won anything in 20 years.

I will agree with you on one thing, Ford is the right size. It will be nice to get a coach that will both win and fill the stadium for every game.

[PonyKai]

Is it completely fair to compare attendence from two different eras here? I'm just putting out some general "ideas" not answers that might represent differences in the two time periods.

1.)The Metro-plex area has grown since then.
2.) SMU would be winning with a clean program.
3.) SMU would potentially have a nationally recognized coach at the helm (Big hypothetical from here)
4.) SMU's actual resurgence would be a feel-good story for the media, alums, community in general.
5.) SMU's student body has grown (Not considerably at all, I know)
6.) SMU's alumni base has grown
7.) College football is more popular now??
8.) There is more exposure for CFB on TV, ESPN, CSTV, Fox Sports, multiple games of week giving teams more visibility

Now yours are 100% valid reasonable points backed up with numbers, but my question raise is that in the future is it fair to say the way it was is the way of the future with different circumstances? Of course I recognize Rice isn't Texas, Ford isn't Texas Stadium, CSTV isn't CBS, Phil Bennett isn't Bobby Bowden, and 6-6 isn't 11-0-1. Just think it's fair to bring up.

[Charleston Pony]

my whole point is that it would be helpful if more than 5% of our living alumni supported this program by contributing to the Mustang Club and attending games

I understand there is a LOT of competition for DFW area residents' "entertainment dollars", but SMU doesn't get much support from it's own students, faculty, staff & alumni compared to most of the teams we compete against

unless/until we support our own, how can we expect anyone else to? And I know I'm not talking about anyone who cares enough about SMU athletics to be reading or posting on this board. I'm referring to my own classmates who have quit on SMU athletics...long ago.