Bennetts selection

by **mclubprez** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:09 pm

I have been out of the loop a little but I wanted to make a comment about a thread below. Someone made the comment that the individuals on the selection committee responsible for hiring Coach Bennett were "strawmen" for Jim Copeland and quoted an un named source who was on the committee. Well, I was the sitting president of the Mustang Club at the time. ( I'm not anymore, Mark Myers is...a great guy). I had the pleasure to be on that committee. This was a very distinguished group who worked very hard to select the right guy. The real fact is that Phil Bennett was the most prepared, most passionate and had the skill set which we were seeking. There were several other very interested candidates. Some big names. Phil was then, and is today the best coach for SMU football. We all felt that way. I feel that way now. As someone who is passionate about SMU Football, I have also been disappointed with our record, but there is no doubt in my mind that Coach Bennett has what it takes to turn us around. So, I look forward to seeing these talented kids grow up playing for a great coach who loves SMU as much as we do. To do my part I will always be there and I will always write my Mustang Club check. I hope all of you will also.

by **Pony4Life** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:23 pm

I'm right there with El Presidente. I maintain great faith in Coach Bennett and his staff, and I've continued my support to the Mustang Club.

Go Mustangs!
Beat Nevada!

by **rich_alum** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:26 am

You the man Prez!!! I couldn't agree more, Bennett is great for this program. Let's catch up and get a martini sometime.

by **Pony Up** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:27 am

Hmmm .... I detect a note of cynicism there. Nonetheless, I like Coach Bennett, and he has my support and confidence. After the beat Nevada, there will be more people jumping back on board.

by **rich_alum** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:20 pm

Its not cynicism by me. You can read my other posts....I am probably the biggest Bennett supporter on this site. People are overreacting to his 2 point try like he almost blew a game for the WAC Championship or a BCS Berth. I'd rather him learn now then during a game in which it really mattered.

by **Pony Up** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:26 pm

rich_alum wrote:Its not cynicism by me. You can read my other posts....I am probably the biggest Bennett supporter on this site. People are overreacting to his 2 point try like he almost blew a game for the WAC Championship or a BCS Berth. I'd rather him learn now then during a game in which it really mattered.

I stand corrected! My mistake.

The decision to go for 2 -- while an incorrect decision in my book -- didn't bother me nearly as much as the conservative play-calling in the second half. We got a big lead by throwing the ball, or at least by mixing the pass and the run. Did we EVER throw the ball on first or second down in the second half? Tulsa stacked the line on first and second down, of course, so we faced third-and-long way too many times. With Tulsa stacked up at the line, I'm certain we could have hit some long downfield passes with one-on-one coverage.

We're not dominant enough (I can't believe I just wrote that) in the running game to go into a shell and shove it down a team's collective throat. If we get a lead, we have to keep doing what we did to get that lead, and that means staying as unpredictable as possible. Kind of like that saying "you gotta dance with what brung you."

OK, switching to decaf for the rest of the day.

Go Mustangs!

by PK » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:35 pm

I suspect that the conservative game plan in the second half was an attempt to eat up the clock by keeping it on the ground. Perhaps all that "practice" running the ball during the 3rd and 4th quarters panned out in over time...that 25 yd scamper for a TD on our first OT play was fantastic!!!

by **rich_alum** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:12 pm

I would agree that I would have liked for us to continue and throw the ball more in the 2nd half. Some would argue that Bennett needs to learn how to protect a lead, but should that be done throwing the ball or running the ball and taking time off the clock? I would opt for both, which is what we did in the first half.......thought we had a nice mix in terms of play calling. I would have also cut out the Romo at receiver crap. That gimmick play wasn't fooling anyone on Tulsa.

Are these decisions made by Bennett or Burns though?

by **anurep** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:40 pm

Bennett still needs to LEARN not to go for two in that situation? Was there anybody other than him that thought it was a good decision? He's been the head coach for 2.5 years and has been in football for a long time, and you guys still give him excuses for making bad decisions in the heat of the game. Any yahoo would have known to go for one. Jeez.

by **abezontar** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:52 pm

There was a gentleman standing behind me that did believe it was a good idea. So yes there were other people who thought it was a good idea.

by **rich_alum** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:46 pm

I didn't hear anyone complain in my section when he elected to go for two.......on the flip side suppose he kicks the extra point and we go up by 12. Tulsa needing 2 TD's could have gone for it on 4th instead of trying to kick a FG and beat us by 2...................bottom line we won the game.

Give the guy a break, he won the game.

by **huntnfish** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:59 pm

it was 4th and 12. I like our chances in that situation up 12 better than letting them kick the field goal and tie it later. It is always better when you force a team to score two touchdowns versus a field goal and a touchdown. I think it keeps getting brought up because people keep trying to defend it. I think we all know it was the wrong decision and it is not defensable, BUT more importantly our guys did RALLY when their back were against the wall and that is most important now. BEAT NEVADA

Bennetts selection

Bennetts selection

Re:

Who is online