#79 Dominance over Arkansas - particularly '97

by **Stallion** » Wed May 25, 2005 9:15 am

No Russ Potts' promotion company bought the SMU home game rights to the game and staged the game. I realize he wasn't AD at the time.

by **ponyte** » Wed May 25, 2005 9:25 am

I got to see the game on the sidelines that evening. Thanks Cash. I have to say, it was the first time since the death penalty that SMU looked and hit like a football team. No little girlie man hits and no glorified high schooler hits. The Ponies strapped it to the Razorbacks that evening and it was shear heaven to be that close to the action. Arkansas players were walking around with sagging shoulders. They knew they were getting knocked around by a better FOOTBALL team. I was disappointed after that night to see SMU regress back to less aggressive play over the years. Hopefully we are correcting that. But on that night in Shreveport, the Ponies played football like it was meant to be played.

by **Stallion** » Wed May 25, 2005 9:49 am

that's exactly right-and that's exactly why that football team in 1997 under Cavan was better coached both offensively and defensively than any Tom Rossley team with his paddy-cake paddy cake style. Of course, the real credit might go to the defensive coordinator Schumann and the offensive coordinator Dickey as both have repeatedly proven that they know how to develop physical football teams.

by **Dooby** » Wed May 25, 2005 10:16 am

That "paddy cake paddy cake" style of football did beat Arkansas in the previous two games in 1995 and 1996, if I recall.

by **Eddie P** » Wed May 25, 2005 10:28 am

Planostang,

I'm curious to see your response to Stallion's last comment. I know you are incapable of doing anything but blame everything on Copeland, so I am eager to see your first ever retraction of a "Copeland" comment. That's assuming what Stallion says is true and I believe it is.

by **PlanoStang** » Wed May 25, 2005 10:52 am

Copeland didn't have his assistants overseeing what was going on, and that SMU's standards were being met by whoever Russ Potts hired to run the game. That's IF Russ Pott's was running the show??

If a CEO outsources his IT department to CSC, and CSC screws everything up, isn't the CEO's head on the block?

by **abezontar** » Wed May 25, 2005 12:21 pm

not in today's world

by **huntnfish** » Wed May 25, 2005 12:40 pm

yeah, not in todays world b/c of too many pass the buck, left wing idiot democrats- www.democracyforamerica.com, don't you mean communism for america :shock:

by **regis** » Wed May 25, 2005 1:56 pm

Which win was better? The Shreveport domination or the year before when we beat them IN Fayetteville, in front of 75,000 screaming inbreds?

I remember the play that Craig Swann made when he sacked the QB, caused a fumble and recovered it all in one motion. I never heard a more silent 75,000 than I did at that moment.

That was also a big day because we were 2-0 for the first time since the DP.

by **Stallion** » Wed May 25, 2005 2:16 pm

PK

the title says "No. 79 SMU Defeats Arkansas 31-9 (1997) ." If you want to do your own Top 90 be my guest but at the present time I'm responding to the fraudulent, ridiculous Moments posted by SMU. The 1997 Arkansas team was one of the worst Arkansas teams I have seen during the last 40 years. As for the one decent victory over a good Arkansas team it was the shinning moment in an otherwise winLESS season. And NO it wasn't one of the great moments in SMU history. Maybe among the Top 25 or so upsets-but it don't belong here either.

by PK » Wed May 25, 2005 2:26 pm

Stallion wrote:PK

the title says "No. 79 SMU Defeats Arkansas 31-9 (1997) ." If you want to do your own Top 90 be my guest but at the present time I'm responding to the fraudulent, ridiculous Moments posted by SMU. The 1997 Arkansas team was one of the worst Arkansas teams I have seen during the last 40 years. As for the one decent victory over a good Arkansas team it was the shinning moment in an otherwise winLESS season. And NO it wasn't one of the great moments in SMU history. Maybe among the Top 25 or so upsets-but it don't belong here either.

Feel free to roll out YOUR top 90 any time now and we can discuss them instead. The fact that your top 90 is not the same as the one being presented only means you don't agree...BFD.

BTW, I based my title on the overall substance of the article and not just their short title for cataloging purposes...you did read the whole article didn't you?

by **abezontar** » Wed May 25, 2005 3:20 pm

so the party in power is trying to concentrate power and remove any opposition to their ideas, at the same time refusing to take any responsibility for anything negative that has happened on their watch......hmmmm......that's democracy?

by **PlanoStang** » Wed May 25, 2005 4:08 pm

abezontar wrote:so the party in power is trying to concentrate power and remove any opposition to their ideas, at the same time refusing to take any responsibility for anything negative that has happened on their watch......hmmmm......that's democracy?

That's called politics. :wink:

by **SMUFan** » Thu May 26, 2005 8:49 am

Come on -- leave the political arguments for the office.

by **huntnfish** » Thu May 26, 2005 9:34 am

in case you missed the election last year George Bush won- I know it is hard for you elitists to accept but apparently the majority of America likes George Bush and his politics- but I guess that is because we are uniformed- get over yourself

#79 Dominance over Arkansas - particularly '97

Who is online