Football OOC Question

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri May 28, 2004 5:37 pm

Southland wrote:No one who understands the recruiting process would say that. Obviously, you don't understand what a redtag is, or its importance in signing talent.

Recruiting has become sensible compared to three years ago, but our coaches still recruit with an arm tied behind their back. Don't kid yourself.

I asked for specifics before...please start with defining redtag for those of us who are unwashed. Then tell me what restrictions you are talking about. Thanks in advance.

PonySnob · Post by **PonySnob** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:38 pm

How many more seasons are the few SMU fans that are still around going to hear "be happy with 2 or 3 wins"? Would it be so bad to adopt the TCU model for a football program and be talking about going to a bowl game every year, being ranked in the top 25 on a regular basis, possibly going undefeated, and having more than 5,000 people at home games? At some point, shouldn't SMU fans have expectations for success on the football field? THE DP was given out almost 18 years ago and this team has not shown any improvement from what was on the field in 1989.

Sam I Am · Post by **Sam I Am** » Sat May 29, 2004 10:36 am

Every time we review our losing record and make excuses, the shadow of TCU's success falls across our campus. And if that doesn't haunt us, try explaining how Rice has recruited and won more games than we have lately. Post DP, there have been years when we've done better with less. 'splain it to me one more time, huh. As for attendance, that is a separate problem. We have a small fan base even with a good team. In the long run, it may be the marketing that makes or breaks whether SMU can afford to play Div. !-A football or not. Nevetheless I have been on board as a yougster since 1947, and won't give up until we go out of business. But I recognize that can happen someday.

SMUstang · Post by **SMUstang** » Sat May 29, 2004 2:48 pm

PonySnob wrote:How many more seasons are the few SMU fans that are still around going to hear "be happy with 2 or 3 wins"? Would it be so bad to adopt the TCU model for a football program and be talking about going to a bowl game every year, being ranked in the top 25 on a regular basis, possibly going undefeated, and having more than 5,000 people at home games? At some point, shouldn't SMU fans have expectations for success on the football field? THE DP was given out almost 18 years ago and this team has not shown any improvement from what was on the field in 1989.

In fact it's worse, much worse than the one that ws on the field in 1994.

BenW · Post by **BenW** » Sun May 30, 2004 12:15 am

EastStang wrote:We've got a young team, but certainly it should match up well with other CUSA teams next year. TCU has pretty much dominated CUSA and CUSA has been miserable in bowl games the last two years (an indication of league strength). .

Please- TCU hasn't come close to dominating C-USA. IN fact, they never won a c-usa title (tied once). C-USA had a poor bowl season last year but they went 2-3 the year before including a going-away win at the WAC's own Hawaii and they don't have all their bowl games at home.
And old-pony, there's no reason SMU can't have a good team, but in no way did SMU have better programs than several in the C-USA west in the last 50 years EXCEPT for the time you cheated. Take away the cheating period and tell us how many bowls you have since the 1950. I'll tell you- 2 and those were in the 1960s. (0 in the 70s, 90s and 00s) In other words NONE in 40 years without cheating. That's rice's record. UTEP and Tulsa have done better and Tulane has done a lot better.

SMUstang · Post by **SMUstang** » Sun May 30, 2004 4:58 pm

BenW wrote:
EastStang wrote:We've got a young team, but certainly it should match up well with other CUSA teams next year. TCU has pretty much dominated CUSA and CUSA has been miserable in bowl games the last two years (an indication of league strength). .
Please- TCU hasn't come close to dominating C-USA. IN fact, they never won a c-usa title (tied once). C-USA had a poor bowl season last year but they went 2-3 the year before including a going-away win at the WAC's own Hawaii and they don't have all their bowl games at home.
And old-pony, there's no reason SMU can't have a good team, but in no way did SMU have better programs than several in the C-USA west in the last 50 years EXCEPT for the time you cheated. Take away the cheating period and tell us how many bowls you have since the 1950. I'll tell you- 2 and those were in the 1960s. (0 in the 70s, 90s and 00s) In other words NONE in 40 years without cheating. That's rice's record. UTEP and Tulsa have done better and Tulane has done a lot better.

The worst thing that SMU did was pay their players. They took the death penalty for that. Almost all of the other schools were doing the same thing but SMU was singled out as an example. You should be grateful that no other school will ever be handed the death penalty even though the severity of offenses has become a lot worse.

WreckEm16 · Post by **WreckEm16** » Mon May 31, 2004 11:15 pm

No reason SMU can't be a contender - great neighborhood, good location for recruits, gorgeous stadium, etc.

What "example" has TCU set exactly? With hard work and perseverence, you can dominate Division 12-5A?

I'm very excited about their trip to Lubbock this fall...

OldPony · Post by **OldPony** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:47 am

Have we or have we not had higher recruiting ranks than Rice, Tulsa, UTEP and Tulane since Cavan's last year? IF so, why don't you expect to win against these teams once these guys are seniors? I believe that the last 2 years have been on par with the hated Frogs.

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:54 am

The real issue we're arguing about here is the old institutional versus individual dichotomy. As an INSTITUTION, SMU football should not satisfied until they're winning conference and going to bowl games. Nothing less ought to please. As an INDIVIDUAL fan, given our recent history you ought to be tickled to death by a .500 season.

We often confuse the two, believing somehow that our lack of satisfaction with anything less than a BCS berth will, through the sheer force of will, cause a BCS berth to occur. So unless you're Phil Bennett or Jim Copeland, lighten up and enjoy this team.

OldPony · Post by **OldPony** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:19 am

My statement wasn't that I wouldn't welcome a .500 season now or next year. To be hoping for that kind of record in 2010 is setting a very low bar and I will be very disappointed if we achieve so little. I believe athletes win football games when coaches provide proper coaching and leadership. The athletes recruited are improving rapidly under Bennett and I think he is now doing the right things to win. don't tell OP to wait until 2010 to be mediocre in CUSA West.

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:24 pm

OldPony wrote:To be hoping for that kind of record in 2010 is setting a very low bar ...

Agreed if you're actually the players, coach, or athletic director. These guys had sure as heck better not being aiming as low as five or six wins a season. But assuming you're not in that group, Southland's right on that we should be pleased with .500 ball. Remember, we have had one season on the good side of that in almost twenty years now. A consistent .500 record sounds pretty damn good to me.

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:52 pm

SMU had no bowl visits in the 70's because there weren't very many bowls to be invited to. The SWC had one bowl tie in, the Cotton Bowl, after that you had to be Top 10 to get a bowl invite or be Notre Dame with a national following. Under current rules we would have been bowl eligible about 4 times in that decade. If you look at our NCAA infraction history, SMU paid players in the 60's, 70's and 80's. So you can't just single out the 80's. Of course we didn't compete in the 90's, genius, we not only got the death penalty at the end of the 80's, but then put such severe restrictions on recruiting, that no team could have competed with what we did to ourselves. Those days are over now, and we can compete (hopefully without cheating) with other schools. We'll do fine. And yes, TCU has lost what 2 CUSA games in the last two years. 14-2. That sounds pretty dominating to me. But what do I know.

OldPony · Post by **OldPony** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 4:01 pm

Yes!!!!!!!!!!Let's strive to be average in CUSA West in 6 years! I always wanted to follow an average team. I can see the signs in the stands now--We're No. 68!!!!!!!! Boy what fun we'll have trash talking Army and Buffalo.

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:23 am

Where do you think we're striving for mediocrity? We all want to win, but and this is a big but, we don't play in the Big XII. Right now its about becoming the biggest fish in CUSA on a consistent basis. Let's master our own surroundings first. And in basketball, winning in CUSA would put us in the top 20. We're going to have to get a whole lot better than we are now.

Football OOC Question

Re:

Back to the TCU comparisons, eh

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: