Great Phony Lite Momments

[OldPony]

Sissy

[Stallion]

SMU's annual record at the bottom of the conference and RPI standings for the last 15 years gives my opinions all the cedibility they need.

[ponyboy]

You just don't get it. As Dooby said, it aint your opinions. It's your negativity and antagonism. Your crusade to crush hope and enthusiasm. I can almost SEE you bristle whenever an optimistic item is posted here. That's sad.

[Water Pony]

ponyboy,

you just don't get it, it is about HIM.

As for hope, that is our problem, according to HIM.

As for enthusiam, it is useless, according to HIM.

As for creating a encouraging climate to recruit, don't waste your time, according to HIM.

[jtstang]

Sissy

See, good thing I don't take you seriously.

[PlanoStang]

With each one of these ridiculous tirades, you just make it more and more difficult for anyone to take you seriously because they have to wonder if you take yourself seriously.

I'm of the opinion that nobody who posts on these kinds of boards should take themselves or anybody else too seriously, for what little that's worth.

Hope nobody's taking me too seriously.





Its ALL Copeland's fault

[Dooby]

With each one of these ridiculous tirades, you just make it more and more difficult for anyone to take you seriously because they have to wonder if you take yourself seriously.

I'm of the opinion that nobody who posts on these kinds of boards should take themselves or anybody else too seriously, for what little that's worth.

Obviously, I don't take myself too seriously, just look at Ms. Bates. Plus, by my own admission, half my posts are inane. That being said, if someone is going to (i) post information they claim is factual; or (ii) personally attack somebody; then I think the post should be taken seriously.

A lot of people come to this board for information that we don't get on radio, tv or in the paper. We should expect that information to be accurate.

We also come here to share opinions. If you are going to state an opinion and at the same time insult and antagonize people, I think you should be required to support your opinion. I personally think you should also be responsive when asked.

[jtstang]

But Dooby, you know what to expect by now. When the Stallion is right, he usually nails it. When he's wrong and gets called on it, he pretends it never happened. That's his nature, and you and I aren't going to change him by nagging.

As for the "personal attacks" people should just consider the source. As for his refusal to respond to requests that he back himself up, well that is kinda frustrating, but I think it speaks volumes.

[OldPony]

jt- If you take me seriously, it is your own fault. OP loves Mustang football and wishes we could get the ship righted (start by firing Copeland) but mostly I enjoy the easy banter of this site.
The only person who takes Stall seriously is Stall. He is right about a lot of things but who cares besides himself? We all like to give opinions but most of us are happy if the Mustangs do well. That is where Stall crosses the line, he would rather be right in his one line chorus than for the Mustangs to wn. I think that makes him a sissy(: I also believe it is fun to watch some guys get excited by a speech of Bennett's when we have heard the same tune for his entire tenure. The give and take of the site is sometimes funny and I enjoy you guys even when you are wrong and disagree wth me.

[SoCal_Pony]

That is where Stall crosses the line, he would rather be right in his one line chorus than for the Mustangs to wn.

Since we haven't won in 18 years, how do you or anyone else know how Stallion would react if we won?

[jtstang]

Since we haven't won in 18 years, how do you or anyone else know how Stallion would react if we won?

I know because I read and comprehend his posts. For example, to answer your question, if we started winning in the next couple of years, which I doubt we will, Stallion has already laid the groundwork for chalking that up to our cupcake schedule. And if you've been keeping up, you know he opposes that cupcake schedule rather vehemently.

[Charleston Pony]

come on now, JT. We won't win for years? I've been predicting 2006 as the year we finally turn the corner (loaded with Jrs & Srs in the 2 deep OL & DL) and the softening of the schedule fits just fine with that prediction. Stallion may be right that we won't draw better than 12,000 against Ark St and Sam Houston and probably even UAB, but TTech will probably be a sellout to start that season and with Houston and Marshall visitng that year, we will undoubtedly average at least 15,000.

Meanwhile, I enjoy the fact that more Mustang fans seem to be showing up on this board and are getting a little more feisty. Not that I want to get back to the "my frat is better than yours" debates, but Ponyfans seems to be drawing closer to the old MustangManiacs atmosphere every day. We might even see Memphis/Hixson/et al return to mix it up. Hey, the off season can get pretty boring.

[jtstang]

come on now, JT. We won't win for years? I've been predicting 2006 as the year we finally turn the corner (loaded with Jrs & Srs in the 2 deep OL & DL)

Well, I hope you're right, but the fact is that 2006 is only two years removed from a 3 and 20-something stretch that included an abortion of a winless season. I guess we'll see.

[Stallion]

You people are incredible. It's amazing what geniuseses you annually become in the months leading to a new season when the fresh taste of yet another losing season has passed. There is no one on this board who has been as consistent in his opinions and has backed his opinions up with facts more than I have. The reason SMU has been non-competitive in FB and BB is rooted in a Model which requires SMU to compete on an unequal playing field-one that Bennett concedes STILL EXISTS. I simply am not going to post the same detailed message every few weeks so Dooby can claim I never responded. I responded to the EXACT same claim a while back. You guys found it and discussed it. When 80% of the simpletons on this board claimed the only thing holding this program back was Mike Cavan, Mike Dement and the other 5 VICTIMS who have held those jobs I told you that you would be proven wrong. I detailed from Texas Football how TCU has outrecruited us in at least 15 out of 16 years, I predicted 5 years ago that based on SMU's abysmal recruiting seasons 5 and 6 years ago that TCU would run off at least a 5 game winning streak against SMU(only that have Bennett admit later that SMU's talent level in those classes was non-competitive), three years before SMU changed its policy I demonstrated with lists of early commitments from our competitors why SMU's former policy of not allowing early commitments was killing the program in recruiting, I posted facts circa 2000 that demonstrated how SMU's 3 tier formula for admission of athletes and policies concerning the requirements academic core courses, SAT/ACTs, term papers and interviews with admission committees put SMU at a tremendous disadvantage, I posted info from the Rice and Tulane Football committees that demonstrate that even those Tier 1 programs have special classes and courses of study that allow them to retain athletes, I told you the COMMITMENT and then the Silent COMMITMENT were a LIE and would be a failure unless SMU played on an even playing field with its competitors, I told you the addition of Ford Stadium would not be a cure-all to the limitations of the Model, I demonstrated how our competitors like TCU, Tulsa, UTEP, Nevada, Fresno St., et al have used the recruitment of partial qualifiers, non qualifiers, low qualifiers and a full access to the JC/CC ranks to beat the hell out of us and finally I have shared unbiased positive and negative recruiting information on each recruit who has come through SMU's doors in the last 8 years and have commented generally that SMU's recruits simply don't measure up to the levels necessary to excell and reach bowl games and championships which are MY STANDARDS for judging the direction of the program. So far, in the matters that matter most I have generally been 100% correct which is why people like to make STALLION the issue. The issue once again is whether SMU has put in place a Model which will allow it to compete with its natural and traditional rivals. When the definition of COMMITMENT by our head coaches(see Bennett's comments above) is the same as the definition of COMMITMENT by our AD-or if as I believe our adminisistration- then SMU will be truly committed to EXCELLING in Division 1A at the highest level possible and you will see success. Until then don't get your hopes up....I see further troubles ahead. My opinions as they have always been have been based on observations concerning the Model and the facts above and certainly not a desire for the blood-letting to continue.

[jtstang]

I demonstrated how our competitors like TCU, Tulsa, UTEP, Nevada, Fresno St., et al have used the recruitment of partial qualifiers, non qualifiers, low qualifiers...

You also said how you did not advocate SMU taking any of those so that point is moot. The question you've raised is one of still exceeding NCAA minimum qualifications and I was under the impression we were now recruiting on the same rules as everyone. Then you raised the issue of "averaging" test scores or some nonsense like that. So is that it? Are we "averaging test scores" away from being on a level playing field or do you know something else you are not sharing here? Seems to me if that is the last remaining issue we should have shown improvement in recruiting beyond what is apparent. Maybe sucking so bad in the last 16 years is what keeps the good players away. If that's the case its a perpetual problem, so good luck on your bowl games and championships, Stallion, 'cause I think your in for a lot of disappointment.