The real game thread

by **Arkpony** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:45 pm

being better in the 2nd half has not been a pattern for us

by **Pony94** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:45 pm

Rusty knows best...try to do what no one would think of and slow to the slowest receiver....so he cant even get to it.

by **tristatecoog** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:46 pm

"don't you have some remedial night class to go to or something?" SMU is wanting to go "high school" by lowering its football standards, correct?

I won't run any girl smack. That's for sure. My wife went to Rice grad school so there are good ones even in the most remote places.

by **SMUer** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:47 pm

perunapower wrote:
SMUer wrote:
perunapower wrote:
SMUer wrote:[Announcers]: (earlier) "Now see, that's not good football right there...what he should be doing is lining up inside of the ball so that he doesn't get burned outside like he did...etc".

This is why I'm so proud of SMU for deciding to make a new hire and why it is so embarrassing to currently watch SMU getting critiqued by knowledgeable observers on national TV.

That was Youri Yenga, a true freshman, who got burnt by a RB that's faster than most NFL RBs.

They say it at least 3 times every game. They'll say it again, just wait. That guy is fast though. Lining up improperly doesn't give you much of a chance given that speed.

It's happened once against the best RB in the conference. Shush.

Like I said, just wait. That wasn't the only play they mentioned our alignment btw.

by **perunapower** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:47 pm

tristatecoog wrote:"don't you have some remedial night class to go to or something?" SMU is wanting to go "high school" by lowering its football standards, correct?

I won't run any girl smack. That's for sure. My wife went to Rice grad school so there are good ones even in the most remote places.

Who said we are lowering standards? I'm pretty sure Orsini said the exact opposite.

by **Pony Soup** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:49 pm

What is the score?

by **George S. Patton** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:50 pm

We were minus -3 in the turnover ratio coming into this game.

Now we are minus -6 after the first half. Another reason why we're about to go 1-8.

by **SMUer** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:50 pm

14 - 35 Hougers

by **tristatecoog** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:51 pm

Haven't I been reading that y'all want to lower standards to admit some of the hosses that other schools are able to get (i.e., high school grade risks, transfers, etc.)? As things are currently structured, SMU clearly has one of the best groups of student athletes in the conference.

by **Fireant** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:52 pm

Muffie? Is that a parody?

by **that's great raplh** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:52 pm

tristatecoog wrote:"don't you have some remedial night class to go to or something?" SMU is wanting to go "high school" by lowering its football standards, correct?

I won't run any girl smack. That's for sure. My wife went to Rice grad school so there are good ones even in the most remote places.

huh?

by **smupony94** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:52 pm

Fireant wrote:Muffie? Is that a parody?

Use google

by **ACHall** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:52 pm

Is that the KA house in the Conference USA commercial?

by **tristatecoog** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:52 pm

31-14...24 unanswered

by **perunapower** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:53 pm

tristatecoog wrote:Haven't I been reading that y'all want to lower standards to admit some of the hosses that other schools are able to get (i.e., high school grade risks, transfers, etc.)? As things are currently structured, SMU clearly has one of the best groups of student athletes in the conference.

Easier transferring is the only thing I've heard from the admin. That just means that we are going to relax the stringent standards and limits on transferable hours.

The real game thread

Muffie?

Re: Muffie?

Who is online