This Year Vs. Last Year

PonyGolf13 · Post by **PonyGolf13** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:40 pm

In my opinion this year's team is not as good as last year's team. I'm saying this from an experience and capability factor, not on overall talent. Take out all the coaches and all the game plans, and I don't think this team is as fluid and connected. It has just been 1 game though.

2007- Rice 43-SMU 42
2008- Rice 56-SMU 27
That just doesn't happen in 1 year.

SmooBoy · Post by **SmooBoy** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:46 pm

Methinks the knee-jerk reactions are going to give the ortho docs some serious business.

Nacho · Post by **Nacho** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:49 pm

07 avg:
SMU 30ppg
opp 40ppg

08 avg
SMU 27 ppg
opp 56 ppg

Worse this year for the non-math types.

ozfan · Post by **ozfan** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:34 am

PonyGolf13 wrote:In my opinion this year's team is not as good as last year's team. I'm saying this from an experience and capability factor, not on overall talent. Take out all the coaches and all the game plans, and I don't think this team is as fluid and connected. It has just been 1 game though.

2007- Rice 43-SMU 42
2008- Rice 56-SMU 27
That just doesn't happen in 1 year.

Relax new system, new coaches. Rice knew what they had and played them in their positions in a system they knew. SMU coaches looking at what they have in game conditions. Some players that did not start will start next game, some will change positions. In eight or nine games some cohesion will form and team will look better on offence.. Ponies are a little short on ponies on the defence but the freshmen are getting experience that will benefit them the following three years. The defence is very thin in dept and a big recruiting push for good defensive players is needed

SMUer · Post by **SMUer** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:42 am

Nacho wrote:07 avg:
SMU 30ppg
opp 40ppg

08 avg
SMU 27 ppg
opp 56 ppg

Worse this year for the non-math types.

you can't have an average from one sample - for the non-math "math" types

Alaric · Post by **Alaric** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:23 am

SMUer wrote:
Nacho wrote:07 avg:
SMU 30ppg
opp 40ppg

08 avg
SMU 27 ppg
opp 56 ppg

Worse this year for the non-math types.

you can't have an average from one sample - for the non-math "math" types

nice

Cadillac · Post by **Cadillac** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:42 am

Nacho wrote:08 avg
SMU 27 ppg
opp 56 ppg

Worse this year for the non-math types.

Your sample size is too small to be statistically significant. Any results drawn for this data are inconclusive at best.

[edit]Or, what SMUer already said lol.

-CoS

BUS · Post by **BUS** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:47 am

Flawed logic and reason.

Here in Dallas there is a company ( EAS ) that advertises - Radiant Barriers. Then what they sell is not even close to what they advertise.

By definition and Radiant Barrier has an air space other wise transmission is through conductive means.

With one game an average can not be produced.

Come to the next game a yell your lungs out for our Mustangs.

Top 25 · Post by **Top 25** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:51 am

You cannot compare the two. The Rice game last year came late in the season, and this was June's first outing. He has always said that it will take some time to get the system down.

Those of you questioning his direction will feel very sheepish in the weeks to come.

Charleston Pony · Post by **Charleston Pony** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:13 am

Nacho wrote:07 avg:
SMU 30ppg
opp 40ppg

08 avg
SMU 27 ppg
opp 56 ppg

Worse this year for the non-math types.

Don't worry...those averages will look much better after this week's game

SMU2007 · Post by **SMU2007** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:18 am

In other news, we are not the only "good" team to have a bad first game with a new QB at the helm. (Not saying we are a "good" team but the fact remains that we could possibly turn out to be ok.)

OU lost to TCU 2 years ago with a new qb.
Michigan lost to App. State (and then got killed by oregon the next week), then went on to have a decent year.
(Granted these games were pretty close but we had a couple plays that made the score deceivingly bad)

My point is just that you cannot judge a team's success by what they do in the first game. Especially when there's a true freshman playing his first game

Pony Soup · Post by **Pony Soup** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:23 am

PonyGolf13 wrote:In my opinion this year's team is not as good as last year's team. I'm saying this from an experience and capability factor, not on overall talent. Take out all the coaches and all the game plans, and I don't think this team is as fluid and connected. It has just been 1 game though.

2007- Rice 43-SMU 42
2008- Rice 56-SMU 27
That just doesn't happen in 1 year.

shut up. the game was 4-5 plays from being completely different. This is a young team and the guys are going to make mistakes as they learn a new system. We will get this going, just hold on a minute

PonySnob · Post by **PonySnob** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:50 am

Pony Soup wrote: the game was 4-5 plays from being completely different. This is a young team and the guys are going to make mistakes as they learn a new system. We will get this going, just hold on a minute

How many times have we heard all of this during the last 20 years? SMU's motto should be "could've, would've, should've"..................

Nacho · Post by **Nacho** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:51 am

07
SMU 1-11

08
SMU 1-11

We still have the smallest d-1 team in d-1. We have more holes than the Albert Hall. Just keeping it real.

03Mustang · Post by **03Mustang** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:56 am

Nacho wrote:07
SMU 1-11

08
SMU 1-11

We still have the smallest d-1 team in d-1. We have more holes than the Albert Hall. Just keeping it real.

Thanks for the in-depth analysis.

This Year Vs. Last Year

This Year Vs. Last Year

Re: This Year Vs. Last Year

Re: This Year Vs. Last Year

Re: This Year Vs. Last Year