Worst starts by new head coaches?

by **PonySnob** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:22 am

Are there any coaches who have had a start as bad as Bennett at 3-21?

by **The PonyGrad** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:41 am

Is there anyone who tries to find and highlight bad news like Ponysnob? I still think he is a Froggie troll.

by **Mustangs35SMU** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:43 am

I agree with you on him being a Frog.

by **SmooPower** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:47 am

I know it seems like it, but he did go to SMU.

There are several coaches that have had worse starts, yes.

by **Mustangs35SMU** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:52 am

Did someone do something to him or something while he was at SMU?

You dont just diss your own school every day then say you still support them

by **EastStang** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:56 pm

The name says it all. Ponysnob. We may be snobs, but we don't all ourselves that. Frogs call us snobs, Aggies call us snobs, but we know we're the salt of the earth.

by **Johnny Rock** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:06 pm

Ponysnob actually has a valid question that needs to be addressed. Bennett's tenure so far has been an absolute embarresment to say the least. Bennett is to blame for some of it, but the problem runs deeper. Most of the blame lies with a system that does not allow the coaches to compete equally with its competition. Bennett will eventually get his walking papers and Copeland will hire another opportunist that will feed the alumni with a bunch of 'rah rah' crap only to shortly realize that you cannot win at SMU with the current system. It is funny how many on this board assume that everyone that makes a negative comment (which is usually simply stating facts) is a TCU fan. Frankly, I do not think TCU is concerned with the state of the SMU football team. They are more concerned about going to bowl games and trying to get in a BCS conference. Meanwhile, SMU is simply trying to get one early commitment from a recruit.

by PK » Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:34 pm

Johnny Rock wrote:Bennett is to blame for some of it, but the problem runs deeper. Most of the blame lies with a system that does not allow the coaches to compete equally with its competition.

You still haven't answered my question I asked awhile back.

"So what is the plan of attack here JR? How do you suggest we prevent the demise of our Div 1 program ? You can vent here until you are blue in the face, but how is that going to change anything? What do you have in mind?"

Do you not have an answer?

by **EastStang** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:41 pm

Johnny and Ponysnob both say the same mantra. Why is TCU better? We need to do what TCU does?

What do they do that we don't do? How many JUCO's signed with TCU last year? How many signed with SMU? Which ones chose TCU over SMU and why? I think there was one JUCO that we took a run at that went to TCU. One came to SMU. So there goes the transfering hours issue vs. TCU. With regard to Hall we are not talking about JUCO recruits we're talking about high school recruits. What more can we do to attract high school recruits? For the past two years Bennett has done pretty well on that. But so far this year, we have seen no commits (after the Hall de-commit). Who knows why? 0-12 certainly has an effect on that. Kids wonder if Bennett will survive this year after an 0-12 year. Johnny Rock screaming for his firing and Ponysnob asking if a coach has ever had a worse start doesn't help us exude stability. Bennett is our coach. Hopefully, this is the year we make some serious strides forward. If that happens, I see no problem recruiting. If it doesn't, its going to be a long football and recruiting season.

by **Johnny Rock** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:13 pm

I am not calling for SMU to fire Bennett. I actually like the guy. I am sure he feels cheated too by SMU. The solution? It is simple....adopt an athletic model like TX, OU, A&M, TCU, etc. Allow more transfer hours and implement a few majors that are easier to complete, i.e., athlete friendly. Will this take money? Yes. Does SMU have the money? Yes. Will SMU spend it? No. The result....more losing and humilitation.

by **Stallion** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:26 pm

EastStang you are really deluding yourself if you think we have a shot at the same JUCO players TCU, Tech, OSU for example go after. Just because we signed 3 JUCOs that were fully qualified out of high school(and I might add not offered by a single other major Division 1A school) does not mean we are on an equal competitive playing field with those schools-not to mention the long list and I mean extensive list of TCU Division 1A transfers who have gone on to star for TCU.

by **EastStang** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:07 pm

I thought I was talking about last year and TCU (I don't think I mentioned OSU and Tech who have no academic requirements at all), not the last decade. I agree with you that we handicapped ourselves over the last decade where we pretty much didn't allow JUCO's at all. But those handcuffs are off. There are still issues regarding transferability of hours and athlete friendly majors. But really, if an athlete can't graduate from the business school with a degree in general business, he really isn't trying. He can take all marketing and personnel management courses (we called them OBA back in the day). He can blend in real estate, business writing, business administration, business law, and insurance. These are not tough courses. You could graduate from the b-school without even touching accounting (and even that entry course is not all that tough). And let us not forget, the always helpful dance department. Hey come to SMU and throw women up in the air. How great is that?

by **Stallion** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:18 pm

......that's great!! but the fact is that many recruits may not give a rat's [deleted] about what you think they should major in-they will simply go somewhere else. And "the hand-cuffs are off" with regard to JUCOs? I'm telling you that the evidence is that they are not except for a small slice of JUCO prospects-all of which have been fully qualified out of high school so far.

by PK » Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:29 pm

Johnny Rock wrote: The solution? It is simple....adopt an athletic model like TX, OU, A&M, TCU, etc. Allow more transfer hours and implement a few majors that are easier to complete, i.e., athlete friendly. Will this take money? Yes. Does SMU have the money? Yes. Will SMU spend it? No. The result....more losing and humilitation.

Of course that is the solution...but Stallion has been preaching that for years on the fan sites including this one and that hasn't changed anything. [deleted] about it here does nothing. Why not e-mail Turner and Copeland every day instead and [deleted] at them...they are the ones who can make it happen?

by **Sam I Am** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:08 pm

Flogging the SMU system is beating a dead horse. Of course we suffer from self-inflicted wounds. But lamenting those disadvantages begs the question about Bennett. He had the all time worst record last year, and he has slightly less systematic disadvantages than his predecessors. Puzzle me that Batman.

Worst starts by new head coaches?

Worst starts by new head coaches?

Re:

Re:

System sure, but Bennett too

Who is online