PonyFans.comBoard IndexAround the HilltopFootballRecruitingBasketballOther Sports

SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

This is the forum for talk about SMU Football

Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower

SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

Postby OR-See-Nee » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:33 am

According to "the Picker." Also identifies TCU as the team most cheated by the BCS this year.

SMU at Tulsa (-17): The TU coach seems a little put out by the sour reaction to his team's fourth-quarter fade.

What are fans supposed to do when a lead is lost late, celebrate? Hopefully the TU quarterback won't go as another sack, this Halloween. An incompletion plays much better than an 8-yard loss.

SMU remains one of the great mysteries of modern college football as it wallows in upscale mediocrity while neighbor TCU thrives.

TU by 20.


http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/TU/article.aspx?subjectid=94&articleid=20091029_206_B1_THANKS961331
/No Hate. Just Facts. Occasional sarcasm.
OR-See-Nee
Heisman
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:50 pm

Re: SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

Postby The PonyGrad » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:55 am

Hey, at least we have reached mediocrity. That is an improvement over last season.

Onward and upward.

Beat TU
Go Ponies!!
Beat whoever it is we are playing!!

@PonyGrad
User avatar
The PonyGrad
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:01 am
Location: The Colony, TX

Re: SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

Postby rich59 » Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:13 am

That "upscale mediocrity" comment about SMU in comparison to TCU was very astute. When one goes back and looks at TCU and SMU during Cavan's first year and Sullivan's last year, it looks almost impossible for the two programs to have done what they have done.
rich59
Varsity
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 8:12 am

Re: SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

Postby Billy Joe » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:07 am

TCU's administration has fully supported TCU's football program. SMU's administration has not fully supported SMU's football program. TCU has found ways to get football players admitted to the school. TCU accepts transfer hours and juco hours to allow players access to the school. SMU does not do this so SMU's coaches cannot recruit from the same pool of players as TCU, UTEP, Houston, Tulsa, etc. Hopefully this is changing. With the hiring of JJ, it appears SMU is making the commitment TCU made 15 years ago. I just hope SMU loosens the admission process to allow our coaches to recruit from the same pool of players as our competition. TCU has further demonstrated their commitment to fielding winning footbal teams by building an indoor practice facility. SMU needs to follow suit especially as evidenced by the poor weather recently. TCU is good for a reason and SMU has suffered for a reason. It is not by accident.
User avatar
Billy Joe
All-American
 
Posts: 946
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:34 am

Re: SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

Postby rich59 » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:21 am

A lot of truth there, BUT, and this is true also. Sullivan won one game his final year. Unfortunately he beat SMU and kept them possibly from a bowl. Franchione came in and took the same players, won six games, I think. He actually had a converted wide receiver at QB who was a very mediocre passer. One of his losses was to Cavan and SMU. Went to the Sun Bowl and beat USC. I submit that TCU had no better players than SMU in Cavan's first or second year. Recruiting is all important but so is coaching. TCU hired good coaches and SMU hired mediocre or poor coaches. If one looks at the last year or so of Rosseley and the years of Cavan and their records against some pretty good programs, SMU came close to getting over the hump even with it's recruiting problems. All that is history now but I am not sure there has ever been a more futile effort in college football than that of SMU since the DP.
rich59
Varsity
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 8:12 am

Re: SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

Postby Deep Purple » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:44 am

Billy Joe wrote:TCU's administration has fully supported TCU's football program. SMU's administration has not fully supported SMU's football program.


This is the key behind the divergence of the two programs. But there are reasons for it. SMU's faculty is much more resistant to committing more resources to football. Not so much the case at TCU. We have faculty dissenters too, but they are way in the minority and amount to lone voices crying in the wilderness. In fact, a great many TCU faculty are season ticket-holders. As a whole, they're much less contentious than SMU faculty. I wouldn't know first-hand, but this is what I'm told by former SMU faculty who now teach at TCU.

Faculty in general, at whatever institution, are largely clueless as to what a successful football program contributes to institutional success overall. They look at it strictly in terms of direct revenue, which is never a winner for football. As is the case at better than 90% of teams in the FBS subdivision (former Division I-A), TCU operates its football program at a loss. It's subsidized by the university, just like at SMU and Texas Tech and Houston and Okie State. Only a small handful of FBS programs operate in the black, and they're the UT's, OU's, Ohio State's, and Alabama's of this world. But that's hardly the norm.

What the dissenters consistently ignore is the indirect return from a successful football program, a return that is often difficult to quantify in terms of dollars. Successful football serves largely the same role for a university that advertising serves for a business. It broadcasts the university's name far and wide. It allows the opportunity for successful student admission recruiting in markets where the university's name would otherwise be little known or little regarded.

I'm not aware of any company in the land that can directly quantify the dollar return in sales on the investment in its advertising budget. Yet they all know it works, which is why they invest so heavily in advertising. This is the same reason so many colleges invest heavily in football success. They can't quantify the return, but they know it works and it's real. They know there's a direct cause and effect.

I've never understood why so many faculty, at whatever the institution, are so obtuse on this point. Even business school faculty -- and even marketing faculty -- often miss this. Sometimes I think they need to get out of the ivory tower of academia more often and immerse themselves in the real world.
Image
These Frogs have horns!
User avatar
Deep Purple
Junior Varsity
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:01 am

Re: SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

Postby Mickey » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:10 am

Good post Deep Purple.
Mickey
All-American
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2000 3:01 am
Location: Dallas, Tx, USA

Re: SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

Postby rich59 » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:04 am

Outstanding post and so true. However, SMU has been able to improve it's athletic facilities perhaps more than TCU. The obtuseness of the SMU faculty, IMO, is not the primary cause of the poor quality of it's football program.
rich59
Varsity
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 8:12 am

Re: SMU="Upscale Mediocrity"

Postby Mexmustang » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:44 am

Deep Purple has got much of it correct. However, unlike TCU, SMU had a real change in governance after our scandal, that gave the faculty (Faculty Senate) way too much authority over even the President of the university. Basically, until President Turner was slowly able to return some of the power to his office and get a balanced representation on our board, the "inmates were in charge". Sort of like having the UAW in control of our auto companies--oh, that's right, through their labor agreements, they basically were!
Mexmustang
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 2993
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 4:01 am
Location: Highland Park, Texas


Return to Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests