What if...

[RGV Pony]

Given the comparatively dead nature of the board on this bye week, I thought I'd throw this out there to see what ya'll thought:

What if Tom Osborne's initiative were to somehow go through, and all of a sudden it was made okay to pay players. Would SMU again fall behind the times just to show that we're now too moral for such a thing? How ironic would it be that yet another factor making the playing field unlevel would be one at which SMU once excelled.

And before ya'll start RGV-bashing, I'm for a clean program, and at the same time I view 1980-84 as Glory Days.

[stang_fan]

We have to remember that we were penalized for being a small school. Not for doing anything wrong. If the NCAA thought it was wrong they would stop all the big schools from doing it. Making them ineligable for a bowl for a year or putting them on probration does not scare them. We were penalized simply because they could penalize us. If a program is doing well it isn't clean. Tides don't simply change for the better in a capitalist society. Competition is tough and only the cheaters win. Texas and other big schools find ways to entice recruits much the same as we did in the early 80s. The find ways around the rules. I think Stallion emphasizes this a lot. There is no way to make a level playing field because the winner will always be a cheater. The problem is if someone were to tell Nebraska they couldn't have their NCAA title because they cheated they'd simply pay someone off or someone that has ties to them would make sure not to hurt them. The more people at the school the more people there are to make a fuss about you getting in trouble. So, my point is no matter what the playing field will never be level. We can't cheat. We can't even stretch the rules. We have the label and always will. Other schools can get away with murder (almost anyway, baylor). I hate to say it, but I don't think any school our size will ever win a national title again. Even TCU if they continued to be a bowl team every year and won all of their conference games would never make it until they grew. I know my view is terrible, but it's true. I'm not convinced we don't still pay players somehow. I just don't understand why anyone would committ here. Because we have some talented guys playing here. I don't get why they chose our school over anyone. Massy, for one, must be kicking himself. What about Sturdivant that could be starting at G-Tech by now? I don't know. It's almost hard to believe these days that any small team can win. Until a Miami (OH) or a TCU or a Boise State or even a Utah are put into the national title game I will continue to not only have no respect for the NCAA, but also will have no hope for anything, but a conference title. Which in and of itself is pretty great. BUT remember that big TAMU and UT and OU and OSU and TT and LSU and UofARK and all the schools that live and breathe by the DFW recruit, will never ever in a million years want us to succeed in being any kind of good. As long as that is true, with them having so many alums and so many students, we will not have a prayer. We got the assistant from K-State. Every other big 12 team is almost 50% from Texas or more. At least 50% of the Texas players recruited by big 12 schools come right from this area. I'll end on that note.

[eyes_on_the_diamond_m]

SMU was selected for the DP (imo), but the adminstration and "shocked" student body rolled over on the program.

Remember the Candle light "Oh my gawd, they lied to us" vigil so we get on TV and act surprised and upset that some of the students participated in?

Why we didn't stand up for ourselves still pisses me off.

Obviously some in the adminstration were waiting with long knives for any excuse to get rid of that evil sport. Keep in mind this was also about the time "Triple Majors" were being kicked around, two of which would be liberal arts. And not long after that, an attack on the engineering school to kill Civil Engineering.

Of course we've recently killed track. Hey, can someone tell me how many great RB's and WR's also ran track in college?

Finally, SMU is so afraid of being thought of as the "BAD" SMU of the past we have our players wear crappy looking uniforms. You can hardly see the dang pony with that red on blue helmet. The "uniforms of shame" from the early 80's were still the coolest.

... Spilled milk, though ...
</rant>

[couch 'em]

I was just thinking, people in my class (senior) were born in 82/83. This means the this year's incoming students were born in 85/86. Not that I remember SMU having respectable football, but from now on no studnets will have been alive during the period of respectable SMU football. When will someone make a change?

[Stallion]

you are exactly right but it wasn't just the students that rolled over--the people who really remained silent while Rome burned were the alumni, the Letterman's Club, the Mustang Club, the Big Donors and the more visible greats of SMU athletics. THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AT ANOTHER SCHOOL IN TEXAS except Rice, Of course, its no coincidence that there was no Athletic Director or Football Coach chosen until after the changes were made. Then the above either jumped in bed with Pye or remained silent. The Kenneth Pye Model was designed by academicians-what a shock that it has been abysmal failure. BTW in reference to the comment above I don't believe in breaking any NCAA rules-which the poster above also agreed with-I believe SMU should compete utilizing all NCAA Rules as long as we stay within the letter and spirit of the rule. Recruit traditional JUCOs, Division 1A transfers, broaden the curriculm etc but don't allow your program with any of these types of players as we see at the Fresnos, K-States and others.

[EastStang]

The other problem was that most alums did not understand the changes or their impact until years after they were made. Remember, Pye was talking about restoring SMU's integrity. Many alums were worried at that point whether the University would survive as SMU and whether our degrees would be worth anything. The academic changes were almost subterranean and not ballyhooed at all. The more insidious recruiting changes (the no contact rule) were mentioned in passing as a good thing and not thoroughly explained in context of what other rivals were doing. The removal of the PE major was done without any fanfare at all. I didn't know until two years ago, that we did not have a PE major anymore. I think that many alums still need some education on these facts to explain why we haven't won for 15 years. But do you think the Mustang Club or the administration will pass those nuggets along in the Alumni magazines or the Mustang Club letters.