SMU: Most Experienced Team in CUSA

[Stallion]

Gee I didn't know you were aware of the scholarship players on each team in CUSA. Or are we back to counting waterboys. Of course, you're not finished because SMU claimed it had the youngest team in the country plus you're not using the methodology SMU chose to make its point. Obviously, you realize they were pulling the wool over everyone eyes. Otherwise, I'll take this slow because obviously you don't get it. Go back to any SID Game Report from any game in 2004. SMU calculated their own equation using the roster availiable to them after the day school begins which includes uninvited walk-ons which can be unlimited and compared it to the online rosters which didn't include those players by NCAA rule which limits invited preseason walkons to 15. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. Nebraska and Texas Tech would come out as the youngest teams in America EVERY YEAR under SMU's formula.

[Dooby]

Gee I didn't know you were aware of the scholarship players on each team in CUSA. Or are we back to counting waterboys. Of course, you're not finished because SMU claimed it had the youngest team in the country plus you're not using the methodology SMU chose to make its point. Obviously, you realize they were pulling the wool over everyone eyes. Otherwise, I'll take this slow because obviously you don't get it. Go back to any SID Game Report from any game in 2004. SMU calculated their own equation using the roster availiable to them after the day school begins which includes uninvited walk-ons which can be unlimited and compared it to the online rosters which didn't include those players by NCAA rule which limits invited preseason walkons to 15. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. Nebraska and Texas Tech would come out as the youngest teams in America EVERY YEAR under SMU's formula.

Stallion, you once b!tchslapped somebody on this forum for picking out a deliberately incomplete statement that you made and trying to use it against you. You said something like "It isn't my job to make your point for you." I guess that is the lawyer in you. Well, it ain't my job to do your work for you. I did Conference USA. You can do the remaining 106 schools if you wish. But, of course, you were too lazy to do that with the flawed impeachment evidence that you used to start this thread.

Point by point:

I don't know the scholarship players of each school in C-USA. And neither do you, I might add. You can use Rivals and maybe come close to figuring it out, but it would still be flawed. And you are smart enough to know that. Unless you called the SID of each school and asked AND they were willing to give that info to you, you don't have all the info either.

Yeah, I was counting waterboys or walkons or whatever. I was counting them for SMU. I was counting them for So. Miss. I was counting them foir Memphis and Marshall and Rice and UAB. I used online rosters and compared them to online rosters. If everybody has a different method of figuring out who is on the online roster, I don't know. I think that is apples and apples, perhaps I am comparing McIntosh to Granny Smith. I figure it can't be too different if the difference betwee SMU and So. Miss is 1 player. Clearly, they are including an univited walkon or two, too.

I am finished with my analysis. You used C-USA. I used C-USA. It isn't my job to defend SMU. I do not know or care what SMU's "methodology" was. We are having a conversation here. You and me and everyone on this board. Diffference between you and me, is that I am willing to concede the flaws of what I did and I am also willing to listen to other people's points and admit when I am wrong. You, on the other hand, treat every post like an argument before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and every body on here as you adversary. Did I ever mention I am a lawyer, too? 4-1 at trial before going in-house. Two published decisions; cites available upon request. Difference between you and me is I try to avoid coming across as a jack@ss.

I did my job. If the "Big Lie" is that SMU is not really the youngest team in the NCAA and the only evidence is a one paragraph post of the number of returnign starters, which is a measure of experience and not youth, then you have failed to refute the "Big Lie". You, quite frankly, were the one comparing apples and oranges. I took the subject one step further and did my own analysis, identifying its limitations up front. I was trying to contribute to the discussion.

Have a great day.

[PK]

A better comparison would be the status of the two deep on each team, i.e., number of FR, SO, JR, SR and 5th yr SR's. Returning starters tell you nothing. On some teams, they may have only started one year in the past while on another, most of them may have started three years in the past. In other words, for those who are a little slow here, the number of returning starters is not necessarily a good indicator of experience all by itself.

[Stallion]

well its a hell of a lot better than counting walkons, waterboys and cheerleaders. Otherwise, you might come to the conclusion that a team with -what 12 scholarship freshman- was the youngest team in the country.

[Dooby]

well its a hell of a lot better than counting walkons, waterboys and cheerleaders. Otherwise, you might come to the conclusion that a team with -what 12 scholarship freshman- was the youngest team in the country.

And we look forward to that analysis.

Have a great day, Stallion.

[ponyboy]

1) What NCAA rule limits waterboys, walkons, and cheerleaders to underclassmen only? That's a ridiculous argument. Heck, it's possible that adding them makes our team OLDER

2) Nice public dissection, Dooby

[LakeHighland Pony]

[quote="Stallion"]before SMU spinmasters start counting walk-ons, waterboys and cheerleaders to PULL ANOTHER BIG LIE on their alumni let it be proclaimed here first that SMU has more offensive and defensive returning starters than any team in CUSA in 2005:

So I guess that means in 1990, second year after the DP, we weren't considered "young" even though most of our starters on both sides were sophmores? Most of those guys were "returning starters".

[PK]

Don't confuse the issue by inserting facts.

[The PonyGrad]

My hat is off to Dooby for taking the time to really add some facts to this discussion. And low and behold, not only was SMU the youngest but by a good margin.

There are many other ways to slice and dice this kind of information. For all those who suggest another way feel free to do the work.

In the meantime, thanks Dooby.

[giacfsp]

.... Guess what? SMU has the youngest roster in Conference USA. I know it comes as a shock.

How can that be? I thought Stallion's analysis is "a hell of a lot more accurate and reliable that anything coming from the SMU Athletic Department." The Sports Information department is, to be accurate, in charge of getting information out there to the media, and while they do try to generate positive story ideas, they can't hide from facts. A few years back, when Coach Schumann was running the defense, SMU had the 14th-ranked defense in the nation in terms of yards or points or some other specific statistic. The SID didn't say "our defense is better than the one at UT or Florida or Michigan" -- even though it was in that specific area. All it was doing was pointing out an area in which SMU ranked well. That's their job. But they didn't say "and we haven't been scored on in 51 games" -- because it wasn't true. Accuse SMU of doing its job, if you must (last I checked, most folks don't keep their jobs if they don't perform them as assigned), but let's not go accusing them of distributing false information. Considering the number of games we've won since 1989, athletic PR and marketing at SMU have to be two of the most endlessly tiring jobs in the entire NCAA. From what I can tell, and considering the small budget with which they have to work, I think they do a hell of a job.

[Dutch]

the basic arguement here is the basic idea behind statistics...

Statistics are used to provide the information that the person assembling the information wants portrayed.

basically we could all take the same information and twist it, turn it, give it defined terms, etc. and all end up with a different end result depending on what each of us wants the end result to be.

[The PonyGrad]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain quoting Benjamin Disraeli

So, Stallion, you are correct, statistics are lies, how BIG I am not sure.

[Charleston Pony]

The title of this thread was that SMU returns the most experienced team in CUSA. While we may return more starters, you'd have to do an analysis of how many years those returning starters have been in that role...or better yet, how many career snaps each has played to really determine who has the most experience. As for the "youth" thing, all you have to do is look at the 2-deep OL & DL and see that we have only one senior in that mix. At least we finally have a bunch of upperclass players in that mix this year. It's been a while since we've even had that going for us. Maturity in the trenches is critical.

And of course as most coaches will tell you, while it's great to have all those starters back, we all have to remember they won all of 3 games last year. Unless those guys are much improved, it might not be a bad thing to find some new names starting before this season ends.

[No Quarter]

CP -

Good point.

I've seen football press guides from other programs that gave the participation by each player in terms of numbers of plays for the previous season. For SMU press guides going back a very long time, it has been number of games, and (for defensive players) the number of tackles etc., but never the total number of plays.

I've read about the statistical crew that covers home games at least, so I assume the information is available, but that several SIDs or several coaches at SMU did not want it published.

It is really hard to say how experienced many SMU players are if you don't get to the games or even view the coaches show on TV.

It is my hope that we will see some substitution by units this year, and not leaving the starters in until exhaustion or injury, as in the case of Corey Muse.

[GoRedGoBlue]

before SMU spinmasters start counting walk-ons, waterboys and cheerleaders to PULL ANOTHER BIG LIE on their alumni let it be proclaimed here first that SMU has more offensive and defensive returning starters than any team in CUSA in 2005:

SMU: 20
Tulane 17
East Carolina: 16
Houston 16
UAB: 15
UCF: 13
Southern Miss: 13
Memphis: 11
Rice: 11
Tulsa: 11
UTEP: 11
Marshall: 6

Well, that would mean that very few seniors were starters right, indicating youth? Where is this a BIG LIE?

I do not pretend that SMU's youth was not embellished, perhaps even overproclaimed by including walkons, but EVERY roster includes walkons across the country.

The fact that 20 starters return actually CONFIRMS that this team was young last year.

If you read further, the STARTERS that are returning this FALL are mostly JRs and SOPHs, so again, how was this team NOT young??