A Question For Bennett Supporters

[Sir Trolls A Lot]

Greetings,

I keep hearing that any talk of getting rid of Phil is premature. Other than simply giving him another year or two, what argument could you possibly mount on his behalf? I personally think the '89 team could probably beat the teams of the last couple years. GO STANGS!!!

[BUS]

One, Rebuilding at SMU takes time. - Not able to totally re-load with JUCO's.
SMU wants to limit recruiting to High School or players that were eligible out of High School.
Two, Limited Majors to offer Athletically minded recruits.
Three, Without having three or four years to re-build, letting the coach go would be pre-mature.
Four, No money to buy out Contract.

Some things need to change but not the coach right now.

[EastStang]

Five, no name coach would take the job unless he thought he'd be given a chance to win. Three years is not enough time with what Bennett inherited, its that simple. If we fire Bennett, we'll have a bunch of Cavans to choose from. And even then no coach would come here without a 5 year deal or longer. That's a big cost for a dice roll coach.

[Roach]

Six: the vast majority of players make an impact as juniors and seniors. There's a reason the Adrian Peterson's of the world are a rarity and everyone wants them. Not one Bennett recruit is that old yet - redshirt sophomores at best.

If you think he's not the right coach for the job, fine - everyone's entitled to an opinion. But what do you think the players (and their families) who read this site think when you sit there and write that the '89 team would beat them? You claim (occasionally) to be an SMU fan, yet you write these things that are a complete slap in the face to the guys who are busting their tails to get better. Why not write about something specific they might do better?

[Sir Trolls A Lot]

They knew what they were signing up for when they came here. I bet they think something like, "Man, I wish I would have been good enough to go to UT or even A&M, but at least I get a free education out of these a**-kickings." The players clearly want a new coach, or at least have Rusty Burns takeover for Bennett.

As for the 89 team, I just think it is a fact that they would beat the current group. Gregg would simply out coach Bennett, and the players of '89 were playing out of school spirit and not the allure of the scholarship.

But what do you think the players (and their families) who read this site think when you sit there and write that the '89 team would beat them?

[EastStang]

The players want a new coach, really?? Which players told you that? Where did you talk to these players? Or, are you just assuming that because they're losing badly of late, that they want a new coach? Don't go spewing that kind of muck without having specific facts to back it up. That kind of general statement is something a Frog would put on this board. Go back to the TCU board, Froggie.

[Dutch]

I've had it with the excuse that our players are too young. Boise State, yeah 15th ranked, 7-0, plays on a blue field Boise State has 80 of 112 underclassmen. compared to our 85 out of 112.

this excuse is no longer acceptable on this message board

[Stallion]

This team would beat the 1989 team by 40 points. Come on few teams wanted to embarrass that team like UH tried scoring 95 but several could have if they had wanted to. At least 4-5 teams could have scored 70+ on that team.

[PK]

76 underclassmen...not 80.

[Dutch]

PK, that's the number that espn reported this saturday morning when they ran a brief special on the Boise head coach and his zen-like style. the only reason it caught my attention was how close it was to our number of underclassmen.

I counted this morning on their espn.com roster and it only listed 32 upperclassmen, so I figured out of 112 that 80 would be the correct number.
[/quote]

[Water Pony]

They knew what they were signing up for when they came here. I bet they think something like, "Man, I wish I would have been good enough to go to UT or even A&M, but at least I get a free education out of these a**-kickings." The players clearly want a new coach, or at least have Rusty Burns takeover for Bennett.

As for the 89 team, I just think it is a fact that they would beat the current group. Gregg would simply out coach Bennett, and the players of '89 were playing out of school spirit and not the allure of the scholarship.

But what do you think the players (and their families) who read this site think when you sit there and write that the '89 team would beat them?

Your question should be to the SMU Supporters, not just Phil Bennett supporters. Your question is only intended to be confrontational. As for your accusation that the players are mercenaries only seeking a free ride, I not only reject it but it confirms that you don't care for the players or the school. As a frog, it may be understandable but low class. As a supporter, it is destructive.

Get a life.

[Sir Trolls A Lot]

Stallion,

Everyone already knows that you do not go to the games. Instead, you curl up in your Oak Lawn apartment, sip wine, and gaze lustfully over the Rivals listings.

The '89 team would have destroyed this group.

This team would beat the 1989 team by 40 points. Come on few teams wanted to embarrass that team like UH tried scoring 95 but several could have if they had wanted to. At least 4-5 teams could have scored 70+ on that team.

[KnuckleStang]

I've had it with the excuse that our players are too young. Boise State, yeah 15th ranked, 7-0, plays on a blue field Boise State has 80 of 112 underclassmen. compared to our 85 out of 112.

Yeah, well...Boise's underclassmen are probably a lot better than our underclassmen. And I'd be interested to know how many fresh. and sophs. they have in their TWO DEEP. I think we've got 'em beat pretty well in that dept. It's about who's playing, not who's on the bench.

[PK]

PK, that's the number that espn reported this saturday morning when they ran a brief special on the Boise head coach and his zen-like style. the only reason it caught my attention was how close it was to our number of underclassmen.

I counted this morning on their espn.com roster and it only listed 32 upperclassmen, so I figured out of 112 that 80 would be the correct number.

I wasn't tring to be argumentative...I went to the Boise site and counted myself last week, but it was late and I may have not counted correctly. I'm not sure, but I don't think they have 112 players on the roster...may be closer to 108 +/-.

[Stallion]

You people drive me crazy. Who cares about 112 players-who cares if my walkons could beat you're walkons-there are only 85 scholarship players on a team. How many games has Duke Hassan made a difference in. It is an mathematic lie to say SMU is the youngest team in America by counting all players from that post "first day of school" roster. SMU actually has a very small freshman class.