SMU: Most Experienced Team in CUSA

[Water Pony]

Sorry, but you can't be "KINDA PREGNANT".

Either you're an SMU fan-- or you're not!

If you're a fan, you can complain, sure.

But, pleazzzzzzzzzzzeeee, not EVERY waking moment (like some on this site)...

Yes, brief and to the point!

[Stallion]

Well its a good thing I'm not running for President of the Mustang Club then. My position is simple-I donate money to the Mustang Club the day SMU decides to play major college football on a even level with its natural and traditional rivals. So the rest of you 1,500 Mustang Clubbers can just kiss my [deleted] and the other 70,000 of so alumni who YOU need to have a successful program. Maybe if you worried a lot less about why Stallion isn't a member and a lot more about why you can fit the entire Mustang Club into Perkins Natatorium you might be on the right track. That being said I do support the team-haven't missed a game in 40 years-is that big enough "Fan" for you?

[jtstang]

I do not belong to the Mustang Club, but I am definitely a fan of hot chicks and cold ones on the Boulevard. Oh and SMU too.

[DiamondM]

Stallion, you have been asked a zillion times before without answering the question: What would be sufficient evidence of a "decision" to play major college football? Obviously, you don't think that eliminating the restrictive "be admitted before you visit" rule is evidence of such a "decision." Nor is eliminating most of the rules preventing juco recruiting sufficient evidence. Nor is building a freaking on campus stadium plus state of the art training and locker room facilities evidence for $50 million plus. Nor is establishing a school of education evidence. Nor is encouraging on campus pre-game atmosphere on the Boulevard sufficient evidence.

So, I will ask again, what specifically would demonstrate that the administration has made the "decision" to play major college football?

By the way, some might argue that "natural" and "traditional" rivals are actually two different, and completely opposite groups: "Traditional" rivals being huge state funded institutions with enormous state-subsidized budgets, 30,000+ student enrollment, large concentrated alumni bases, primarily in smaller college towns with almost universal local support, very low admittance criteria for athletes, etc. While "natural" rivals would more appropriately be described as private institutions with 5,000 - 12,000 student enrollment in larger urban areas with other pro & college teams competing for attendance & loyalty, no government subsidies, smaller alumni bases, etc.

If you think "natural" is the same thing as "traditional," please explain why.

[MrMustang1965]

Well its a good thing I'm not running for President of the Mustang Club then. My position is simple-I donate money to the Mustang Club the day SMU decides to play major college football on a even level with its natural and traditional rivals. So the rest of you 1,500 Mustang Clubbers can just kiss my [deleted] and the other 70,000 of so alumni who YOU need to have a successful program. Maybe if you worried a lot less about why Stallion isn't a member and a lot more about why you can fit the entire Mustang Club into Perkins Natatorium you might be on the right track. That being said I do support the team-haven't missed a game in 40 years-is that big enough "Fan" for you?

Like I said, you're just mean.

[Stallion]

You really have to be a moron to read this forum regularly and not know the reasons I don't feel SMU is on an even playing field. I'm not going to repost on the same subject every two weeks because PK and Diamond whatever her name is are mystified by my position. There is no one on this board who has more clearly, decisively and substantially outlined his positions on such subject and has done so for years before it was the popular or conventional wisdom of guys like Water Pony and PK. Hell "loyal Mustangs" were threating to burn me in effigy at Ford Stadium 5 years ago for expousing the same proposals that now "everybody supported all along" I included at least 5 reasons on this very subject not more than 3 weeks ago. Look it up.

[MrMustang1965]

You're still mean.

[Dooby]

At the end of the day, Stallion is going to get every thing he wants in the way of changes regarding admissions. I think most of us, including Stallion, know that.

About the only thing Stallion has articulate as an actual gripe of late is the practice of averaging a recruit’s test scores rather than simply taking a qualifying test score. I don't personally know if that is even true; I just know that is something Stallion has identified. I take him at his word on that and agree that if that is the case, the practice should be changed. Why should SMU not admit a pool of students that TCU would.

Stallion, nor anybody else, has any clue what the School of Education means. He yelled at me for that. But the flip side of not knowing is that we do not know. There is no negative impact. But we must wait to see what positive impact it has, if any.

And that was something that always frustrated me about Stallion griping about the inability to recruit JuCos. Our inability was based on more than a rule against it (which there was not), but a lack of institutional programs and degree plans necessary to allow the majority of JuCo credits to transfer. Stallion continued to demand instant change when it simply wasn't possible and he knew that. Copeland and Turner lacked the ability to will a School of Education into existence and he knew that. Some things take time and take money and take approval and he knew that.

Once Stallion has everything he wants, he is still not going to be happy. Then, and anyone paying attention can see it coming, Stallion will [deleted] about money. About how SMU won't give enough money to football to be successful. He will talk about how SMU ran all the big money donors away. He will [deleted] about marketing. he will [deleted] about apathy. And all of this will happen while he refuses contribute a dime to fix the problem.

And then when SMU will achieve some level of success. Perhaps in a couple of years, a lower-tier bowl game. But Stallion won't allow anybody to enjoy it, much less himself. Why? Because any measure of success will not be up to the level that he will demand.

[Dooby]

You really have to be a moron to read this forum regularly and not know the reasons I don't feel SMU is on an even playing field. I'm not going to repost on the same subject every two weeks because PK and Diamond whatever her name is are mystified by my position. There is no one on this board who has more clearly, decisively and substantially outlined his positions on such subject and has done so for years before it was the popular or conventional wisdom of guys like Water Pony and PK. Hell "loyal Mustangs" were threating to burn me in effigy at Ford Stadium 5 years ago for expousing the same proposals that now "everybody supported all along" included at least 5 reasons on this very subject not more than 3 weeks ago. Look it up.

I am embarassed to say I read almost every post on here. So finding the below post wasn't that hard for me. At least I think this is the post he is referring to. It is the closest to anything Stallion wrote "three weeks ago". Stallion, if you are referring to a different post let me know. If you accuse me of being too lazy to find it, you might be mistaken because I searched for every one of your posts.

it would be great to be as naive as you and the rest of your buddies. Signing JUCOs doesn't mean SMU is on an even playing field. Let me say this for the 100,000 thousand time. SMU is not recruiting the same JUCOs as the rest of the schools we play. SMU is still admiting high school players under stricter guidelines than their competitors-ex. SMU averages retaken grades/scores rather than simply accepting a passing score. I still see quality Division 1A transfers pouring into our competitor's programs and very few to ours. Who the hell knows what's going on with the curiculm? My acceptance of the "changes in the admission policies are coming soon" excuse ran out about 10 years ago. I ain't giving ANY CREDIT to changes that should have been implement a decade ago especially when were told 4 years ago that SMU had made a COMMITMENT.

Note: There is ONE actual statement regarding an actual current SMU policy in this diatribe. The remainder is either (a) insulting; or (b) condescending. It is all hostile.

Again, if this isn't the post, I apologize, but it is the only one in months and months I remember where you actually stated anything specific.

[jtstang]

For what it's worth, that's the only one I found too, and I looked through Stallion's posts over the last few weeks. The thing is, it's a legitimate gripe if its true--you're always one step behind on getting guys admitted if you hamstring yourself with higher standards than everybody else uses.

But it seems to me if we're just that step away from being on an even playing field, then lots of progress has been made and we ought to be fielding better teams than we are. So there must be another problem. I think it's because we've been bad for so long that good recruits just don't want to play for a bad program. So the catch-22 is how do you get better without getting the recruits who won't come because you're bad? I don't know.

As for the natural and traditional rivel business, the best I can tell is it includes everybody from the old SWC. Except Rice. If that's the case, Stallion and everybody else should get used to the fact that our natural and traditional rivals no longer consider SMU a rivalry and never will.

[huntnfish]

Fire Copeland!

[PK]

Dooby and jtstang...did you guys actually do that research or did you have your legal assistants do it?

[jtstang]

Dooby and jtstang...did you guys actually do that research or did you have your legal assistants do it?

The better question is whether Stallion's legal assistant WROTE those post for him. The thought of Stallion speaking his stream of consciousness posts into a dictaphone is kinda funny.

[Dooby]

Dooby and jtstang...did you guys actually do that research or did you have your legal assistants do it?

Shhhhhh!

Thanks, JT. You are right. If true, that is a good gripe and I said so at the time in my next post in that thread. And so Copeland knows I am coming, if he is there at the happy hour, I am going to ask him the question directly. Promise.

I think Copeland gets a bad rap on this board. He takes all the blame for all the crap that is wrong witht he athletic department, even the stuff that is not his fault. For example, it is very obvious that Bennnett wanted to schedule the Ark. States of the world. Copeland a year ago, said he wanted to schedule UT. Some people blame Copeland for the JuCo thing, but he has very little to do with that-it isn't like he could create majors out of thin air.

Could Copeland be doing more? Maybe. If Bennett ultimately fails at SMU, am I going to raise holy hell if Copeland is allowed to lead the search for the next football coach? Heck yes.

[DiamondM]

My post was designed to highlight the difference between a "decision" to play major college football, which I believe the evidence shows has been made, and success on the field, which may not immediately happen even though a "decision" has been made.

The fact that Stallion does not see Division 1 transfers flowing to SMU like they flow to other schools (of course Dez Willingham in basketball, Foy Munlin in football and a number of recent juco transfers do not count in Stallion's world), is not evidence that a "decision" has not been made. It may be evidence of something else outside the control of this or any other coach, athletic director, or administration, like it is difficult to recruit to SMU, a non-BCS school with a bad W-L record in the last 15 years with less than optimal tv contract.

Anyway, I think it is BS to ignore evidence of a "decision" and efforts that are indisputably in the right direction to justify withholding $50 based solely on results. And Dooby is right, Stallion and his compatriots will never be happy with any improvents because of the severe case of gotta-be-ritis they suffer from. They are very good complaining about a problem, but can't or don't want to make concrete suggestions on how to fix it.