Final standings

[MustangStealth]

We finished in a 3 way tie for 6th. If they applied tiebreakers at that point we would be in 6th because we beat the other two teams we tied with (Tulsa and Nevada).

With tie-breakers applied all the way through, these would be the standings:

1. Boise St. (8-0)
2. UTEP (6-2)
3. La. Tech (5-3)
4. Fresno St. (5-3)
5. Hawaii (4-4)
6. SMU (3-5)
7. Nevada (3-5)
8. Tulsa (3-5)
9. Rice (2-6)
10. San Jose St. (1-7)

Definitely an improvement over last year.

Also we finished on the waiting list for the Bottom 10. Also an improvement.

[Corso]

A hell of an improvement.
And we had no business even being on the waiting list for the bottom 10.
The improvement this year was nowhere near enough. But it was considerable, and it points to more next year.

[SoCal_Pony]

For the 2004 Season:

Saragin ranks us the 14th worst team in all of D1-A. Here are the schools ranked lower than SMU: Akron, Utah State, Kent State, East Carolina, Idaho, San Jose State, Ohio University, Eastern Michigan, Central Michigan, Ball State, Buffalo, University of Central Florida and Western Michigan. Reread this list; it is a mighty sorry group to be associated with.

SMU allowed TCU, OSU, Rice, Fresno State and UTEP to score 227 unanswered points against us.

SMU’s margin of points scored versus points allowed was THE worst among all D1-A schools.

‘Hell of an Improvement’???….I don’t think so.

[youngalumpony]

SoCal_Pony:

You obviously didn't watch the team in person at all this year. Sure there is a long way to go, and they are by no means a good team yet, but the improvement from last season was significant, especially on the offensive side of the ball. If they are for the most part healthy next year, and improve as much next year as they did this year, this is probably at least a 6 win team in '05.

[SCAMP6381]

Personal attendance during the season ,you would have seen the improvement from game to game.

[BRStang]

CBS Sportsline has us ranked 97 out of 117 in Div. 1-A. The teams ranked below us are:

98. Houston
99. Vanderbilt
100. Ohio
101. NM St.
102. Louisiana-Monroe
103. Utah St.
104. Louisiana-Lafayette
105. Central Michigan
106. Ark. St.
107. Washington
108. UNLV
109. Army
110. ECU
111. Eastern Michigan
112. SJSU
113. Idaho
114. Buffalo
115. Ball St.
116. Western Michigan
117. Central Florida

[Stallion]

Based on the HUGE losses this team had I don't see how any fan can complain that we are considered among the Bottom 20. We are right there on the cusp-may not like it but we are there.

[Dooby]

Well, at least ECU is on the schedule next year.

[jtstang]

Sure there is a long way to go, and they are by no means a good team yet, but the improvement from last season was significant, especially on the offensive side of the ball.

Are you on dope?

[PerunaPunch]

Say nope to dope.

The offense was inconsistent and got shut down a few times by powerful defenses. I was also expecting much more from the running game.

But this team took a leap forward from the lowest scoring offense in the nation last year. I think the O would have been even a little better statistically had our LBs not been decimated by injuries and had we not got so far behind (and therefore forced to pass all the time against TCU, OSU, Fresno, Rice, etc.) in several games.

The O scored enough to win 3 games and we scored 20 and 27 against national top 25 teams. The offense was also much more varied and unpredictable than anything I've seen in the last decade (thanks Coach Burns).

Certainly nobody would be satisfied with our offensive output, but the O has come a long way over last year. No question about it.

[BrianTinBigD]

Yes! We are #97. Next year will we be talking about improvement if we are #83 of 117? I expect us to break into the 50's next year if we really want to talk about improvement.

[youngalumpony]

no jt sorry, not on dope today, and i never said the offense was where we eventually want it to be, there were defininte highs and lows this season, but if you cant see the major improvement from last season, you're the one smoking something

[jtstang]

no jt sorry, not on dope today, and i never said the offense was where we eventually want it to be, there were defininte highs and lows this season, but if you cant see the major improvement from last season, you're the one smoking something

We had a twelve hundred yard rusher last season, albeit on a team that could not score to save its life. What was our leading rusher's totals this year? How about our leading passer's? We may have been marginally better on this year, but "major improvement?" I think the statistics do not back up your claims.

[Dooby]

Oh, please. Kincaid was the whole offense last year. He was top 4 in attempts and had 4 TD's to show for it. Everyone else in the top 10 from 2003 in attempts had double digit TD's. That is ridiculous if that is what you want to hang your hat on. Wallis and Bartel were both below 50% in passing in 2003. Passing rating went up 20 points. We netted 700 more passing yards. We had 10 more TD's.

Oh, and we won three friggin' games.

[SoCal_Pony]

Our offense last year averaged 11.2 points per game, lowest in all of D1-A. To put it in even greater context, the second lowest team averaged 14.4 points per game, or more than a field goal per game than us. That is a lot when you think about it.

So was there improvement in our offense from last year…yes, but that is not saying much.

Did the defense improve this year? I don’t think so, I think they got worst.

Conclusion being offense was a little better, defense a little worse, overall slightly better, but we still near Bottom 10 caliber.

And by the way, I did attend the Fresno State game. Remember that one? On FS first 6 possessions they methodically moved down the field and scored 6 TDs.