Summary of SMU Football

[ponyboy]

Southwest Conference Championships 1950-1979

Texas (15) 1950, 1952, 1953*, 1959*, 1961*, 1962, 1963, 1968*, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975*, 1977

Arkansas (9) 1954, 1959*, 1960, 1961*, 1964, 1965, 1968*, 1975*, 1979*

TCU (4) 1951, 1955, 1958, 1959*

Texas A&M (3) 1956, 1967, 1975*

Houston (3) 1976*, 1978, 1979* (joined SWC in 1972)

Rice (2) 1953*, 1957

Texas Tech (1) 1976* (joined SWC in 1958)

SMU (1) 1966

Baylor (1) 1974

[giacfsp]

.... I tell SMU fans to stand up and demand we build a program that can actually be a team that Dallas and SMU actually care about. I'm fighting for RELEVANCE....

How, exactly, are YOU fighting for relevance? By not giving of your time or money, stewing in your seat at the games you actually attend, and then coming on here - a board not affiliated with the university or the administrators who can make changes at any level - and sharing the wisdom you picked up during your time working there a few decades back?

This is the on-line equivalent of someone deciding that the government isn't doing its job and then "fighting" by getting on talk radio and calling Bush bad names - talk about a proactive effort to share ideas with those in the know!

[HorsePower]

.... I tell SMU fans to stand up and demand we build a program that can actually be a team that Dallas and SMU actually care about. I'm fighting for RELEVANCE....

How, exactly, are YOU fighting for relevance? By not giving of your time or money, stewing in your seat at the games you actually attend, and then coming on here - a board not affiliated with the university or the administrators who can make changes at any level - and sharing the wisdom you picked up during your time working there a few decades back?

This is the on-line equivalent of someone deciding that the government isn't doing its job and then "fighting" by getting on talk radio and calling Bush bad names - talk about a proactive effort to share ideas with those in the know!

zing!

[PlanoStang]

Southwest Conference Championships 1950-1979

Texas (15) 1950, 1952, 1953*, 1959*, 1961*, 1962, 1963, 1968*, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975*, 1977

Arkansas (9) 1954, 1959*, 1960, 1961*, 1964, 1965, 1968*, 1975*, 1979*

TCU (4) 1951, 1955, 1958, 1959*

Texas A&M (3) 1956, 1967, 1975*

Houston (3) 1976*, 1978, 1979* (joined SWC in 1972)

Rice (2) 1953*, 1957

Texas Tech (1) 1976* (joined SWC in 1958)

SMU (1) 1966

Baylor (1) 1974

Bowl games? SMU went to 3.

Winning percentages of the other teams? Baylor, TCU, and Rice had
some really bad years in that period. Leave out UH, they didn't start
playing in the SWC until 76.

[ponyboy]

Bump. The original post was made in February of 2007, just before Phil Bennett's last season in which we went 1-11. June Jones was hired in January of 2008.

Point: Don't forget the depths June Jones has brought us out of.

[Stallion]

You really want to bump that thread. The basis for that thread was that SMU had not instituted a competive Model with which it could compete with its natural and traditional rivals. SMU has built that foundation Model which has been the real reason SMU has rebuilt the program. I understand that uneducated fans give all the credit to the figure head but that's not the real story. The real story is that June Jones never would have taken the job unless those changes had not been made and the real story is that the 40-50 recruits who are playing on these more successful teams would not have been admitted to SMU during the prior era we were discussing. The Institutional Changes made this the quality job it is today and the Institutional changes will remain if June Jones decides to leave meaning that we will not go back to this dark period in SMU History. Apparently Ponyboy believes we are doomed its the Messiah left. I've always thought SMU could win big if the changes I was advocating were instituted-and we are on that road.

[East Coast Mustang]

I've always thought SMU could win big if the changes I was advocating were instituted-and we are on that road.

So, in a way, you saved us?

[Dutch]

You really want to bump that thread. The basis for that thread was that SMU had not instituted a competive Model with which it could compete with its natural and traditional rivals. SMU has built that foundation Model which has been the real reason SMU has rebuilt the program. I understand that uneducated fans give all the credit to the figure head but that's not the real story. The real story is that June Jones never would have taken the job unless those changes had not been made and the real story is that the 40-50 recruits who are playing on these more successful teams would not have been admitted to SMU during the prior era we were discussing. The Institutional Changes made this the quality job it is today and the Institutional changes will remain if June Jones decides to leave meaning that we will not go back to this dark period in SMU History. Apparently Ponyboy believes we are doomed its the Messiah left. I've always thought SMU could win big if the changes I was advocating were instituted-and we are on that road.

i gagree.

no longer the career ender for head coaches.

[NickSMU17]

Agree...

[Get_Some_Ponies]

I love it when people Randomly start Capitalizing words like Model and Institutional Changes.

[ponyboy]

You really want to bump that thread? SMU has built that foundation Model which has been the real reason SMU has rebuilt the program.

You don't put much stock in coaching over talent. I got that. But, even looking at the world from your point of view that downplays not just x's and o's but institutional cultural change, how many of those foundational modifications/upgrades were a direct result of June Jones? Answer: A TON. So be thankful we had and apparently will continue to have the man as coach.

[NickSMU17]

Fine...now get to work JJ

[Stallion]

As June said just months into his reign as the Holy Father:

Forrest, Tom, Mike Cavan and Phil "didn't have a chance to win...The system was not set up to win. I really think I'm the only Coach since the Death Penalty that's been given an opportunity to truly be on a level playing field" Coach June Jones

I've seen the admission comparison by SMU officials comparing admissions between the Bennett years and June Jones first 2 years and I believe he was promised and was given almost everything he wanted the Day he stepped on campus. The other changes he is [deleted] about involve only a small sliver of marginal recruits that might well not be admitted at most universities SMU compares itself to. Look -its ridiculous to argue SMU isn't on a level playing field admission wise these days. We lead the state in non-qualifiers-we are recruiting the same profile of kids all the other schools around here do.

[Get_Some_Ponies]

Stallion are admissions really still a gripe or is this just noise? I could see some room for there not being dummy friendly majors but I thought that was changing/ don't expect a school to water down the quality of it's diploma solely for 20 marginal athletes/ yr.

[Stallion]

there may be a handful of the Texas recruiting base of 400 recruits and other recruits from other areas we can't admit based on SMU policy that may restrict their admissions. UT, A&M, Baylor and TCU could say the same thing. Usually these differences are based on solid grounds like not taking kids with SATs below the old 700 bottom(recentered to 820 now) But the real competitive Model issue has gone from limiting 60% of the talent pool to a miniscule handful. We are definitely using a competitive Model right now.

Example-just an example of how these slight policy changes can affect admissions for this sliver of marginal kids. The SEC has a rule that you can't count a correspondence course with no class time as credit for admission. This is designed to prevent diploma mills and academic fraud. Therefore he decommitted and was looking for schools that allowed your basic diploma mill course on the internet. Good policy or bad policy. I believe there are solid reasons for that rule and I don't think SMU should admit kids with records that amount to academic fraud.