After Matty Bell retired in 1949...

[Sixties SWC Fan]

No question the loss of him and the graduation of superstar Doak Walker and then Kyle Rote were huge losses to sustain. Under Matty Bell, SMU had its fair share of standout seasons, finishing with Cotton Bowls in two of his last three seasons (won one, tied one).

After that, the Mustangs had a major lull, not winning another SWC title until Hayden Fry, the turnaround king, did it in 1966. During that period ('50-'65), SMU only finished as high as second in the conference twice, in 1954 and '58.

I'd like to get your thoughts on what contributed to the difficult period for the Ponies.

Thanks.

[Water Pony]

The emergence of Texas and A&M, including Bear Bryant

[EastStang]

Bobby Lane certainly energized the 'Horns. Bear Bryant hit Aggieland. Darrell Royal hit Austin. We added the Raiders to the Conference which made the conference more competitive. Rice had some good teams in that era as well and of course Arkansas was no slouch either.

[RGV Pony]

Dallas Cowboys & Dallas Texans.

[ponyte]

Three head coaches during the 50s didn't help. A total lack of consistancy. Rusty Russell, Chalmer Woodard, and Bill Meek were the coaches through the 50s. NOne have left an outstanding impression or legacy. And SMU had good players (Greeg, Berry, Forester, Meredith, & Benners) so it wasn't a total lack of talent.

And, of course, nobody wants to mention it but buying players really comes into fashion during the fifties. Even Bryant admitted that the "only" time he was illegal was at A$M (it is hard to imagine anyone buying that line. I know too many players with Crimson and Cream Grand Prixs in their drive way after signing day).

[Sixties SWC Fan]

I love the feedback. Thanks, and more is welcome!
I have to agree that Royal and Broyles, from the late 50's on, had a lot to do with many of the programs' problems. Meanwhile, before they came along or before Bryant got the Ags moving for a short time, I can figure some of SMU's difficulties was the natural cycle of things. Texas, for instance, had a horrendous team right before Royal came aboard and had sagged somewhat thru the mid-50's after starting the decade strong.

[Stallion]

a truly important aspect of the emergence of the public schools was the unlimited scholarships given by the large state schools in those days. Seriously, UT could sign 60-70 players PER YEAR if they wanted to. Wasn't Darrell Royal the one that said even if they never make it on the field at least they ain't playing against us.

[Charleston Pony]

clearly there have been a lot of factors and most are mentioned above...but I would add that the gap really widened once television increased it's coverage of college sports. Suddenly, SMU was exposed as a school with a relatively small number of students & alumni...even when the Pony Express was going full speed, we couldn't generate the attendance numbers or fan following that translated into network(s) interest in SMU. That was a huge part of why the Big XII was formed and the rest is history.

IMO, the only chance SMU has of returning to glory is to become Dallas' collegiate team, much like Miami has tried to do in Florida. Just like SMU, the Hurricanes compete with pro teams and with semi-pro teams whose alumni dominate the area (reference to FSU and UF). Unless/until SMU recruits Dallas as well as the big boys, shows we can beat the big boys and packs Moody and Ford regularly...we are just another mid-major struggling to continue competing at the "highest level" of inter-collegiate athletics.

The real question is "can it be done?" I think SMU has a major image issue to overcome before Dallas is likely to embrace us. It's amazing how many metro Dallas will tell you they've NEVER been on SMU's campus. Coaches Tubbs and Bennett have a major challenge ahead. Let's hope they are the guys who can get things rolling.

[BUS]

The first step would be HONESTY.

Do you know that 63 percent of SMU students get FINANCIAL AID.

We are not just the rich Batard/[deleted] school. There are a lot of hard working people that just want to go to a school that is serious about education. Hard Work and an opportunity to excel.

Go Mustangs

[Water Pony]

Despite our many challenges, Coaches Bennett and Tubbs by their and the community's expression of support are central to our recovery in both sports. DISD schools and students need to think of playing for the Mustangs and the home team. We need more than our fair share of student athletes in this market.

Miami and USC own their metropolitan markets despite so many alums of the large state schools and the preference for pro sports. (Yes, I know LA is missing a NFL franchise, but they have had one and will get another.) BTW, neither are super stars in BB either. Pencil in Stanford, Georgetown, etc. for private stars in their markets.

[MrMustang1965]

The first step would be HONESTY.

Do you know that 63 percent of SMU students get FINANCIAL AID.

We are not just the rich Batard/[deleted] school. There are a lot of hard working people that just want to go to a school that is serious about education. Hard Work and an opportunity to excel.

Go Mustangs

This may be true...but when the SMU students who don't get financial aid are the ones most prominently seen, the image just perpetuates itself. So...my advice (for what it's worth) is for that 63 percent (a majority of the school's population, for chrissakes!) to get out there and support the Mustangs on the field and on the court! Turn around that 'rich bastard/[deleted] school' image to one of being a school for EVERYONE!

[EastStang]

Take a look at the UF and FSU rosters and see how many Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Coral Gables kids are on the rosters. They do fine recruiting there. That is why they play games at Miami and why Miami plays them. USC and UCLA share the LA market (the second largest market in the U.S). There is no pro football team in L.A., so they are the only games in town for football. Miami got a storied Coach who started them on a roll and they made promotions from within after that. That kept the system going. Their move to the ACC is a great move. There is only one other really powerful team in that Conference, FSU and some decent teams, Maryland, NC State, Ga. Tech, and Va. Tech. UVa., UNC, Wake, BC, Duke, Clemson will probably be at the bottom. So Miami should be able to sustain its position atop the polls. The BE was about to get weaker and they knew it.

[Water Pony]

I would strongly endorse the need to get the student body into Ford before and after kick-off. The Boulevard is a fabulous addition, adding a wonderful dimension to the campus and the football game. Alums, students, future students, fans, kids, etc. help create a wonderful mix of anticipation and fun.

But, the fraternities and sororities are in no hurry to get to the fame, if at all. Either they are too busy (?)and/or don't feel an obligation to support the team in person. This is issue gets me bad.

Don't wait for the turnaround. Be part of the answer, get in the seats. Phil visited the fraternities shortly after his arrival. He, Turner, Copeland, etc. need to put a spotlight on this issue and encourage/insist that the Greeks are key to creating the excitement in the Ford, along with a more competitive team, which is emerging.

All you have to do is go to one Notre Dame game to see the effect. You see, hear and feel what the enthusiastic students can do and the impact they have on the team and on the game's outcome.

[Sixties SWC Fan]

confess to being naive about some of the particulars of the SMU situation (though I've lived in Dallas my whole life practically). Having said that, even despite the academic issue, I'd think being located in the heart of Dallas has got to be a huge plus. Is it a matter of getting enough top-notch black athletes? I know a number of really good ones over the years have gone to SMU. Of course, there's LeVias first and foremost (literally the first) and more recently Kevin Garrett, whose gone on to play in the NFL.

Bottom line is, regardless of race, I'm sure it's a lot tougher to compete at the highest level with such strong academic standards. It would be great in many ways if SMU and Rice were strong in football again like the old days.

[Sixties SWC Fan]

I guess you could say I took a two-year hiatus, but old school football is in my blood. [Still love college fb period, but am especially fond of the "good ol' days."]

Anyway, I'm wondering if any new (or older) posters since my last post had any thoughts to add. There were some good takes before, but one has to recall the other privates---TCU, Baylor, and Rice--had several good squads in the 50's and early 60's. Many of the factors that led to the privates falling apart didn't really have a big effect until the mid-60's.
So maybe it indeed was coaching that caused the dearth of success during the post-Doak era before Fry's 1966 squad broke through.

If anyone would rather recount that SWC title season, rather than the slump before, that'd be great to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.