There is not a conference team worse that Texas A&M

[Treadway21]

Reb,

Really y'all are both right. We cannot take anyone lightly but conversely I don't think you can judge the direction if the season based on our OOC, especially ATM.

We will have close games all year. We will be very tough at home with an expectation of a win. We will lose some close games on the road cause we don't have a margin of error given our personnel.

We pretty much are who we thought we are to paraphrase Dennis Green. The game last night didn't change that IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rebel10]

Reb,

Really y'all are both right. We cannot take anyone lightly but conversely I don't think you can judge the direction if the season based on our OOC, especially ATM.

We will have close games all year. We will be very tough at home with an expectation of a win. We will lose some close games on the road cause we don't have a margin of error given our personnel.

We pretty much are who we thought we are to paraphrase Dennis Green. The game last night didn't change that IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was not judging on the OOC, I was just stating a fact. You would seem to agree with me in that we will have tough games all year and there will be no gimmes as OBF said there would be. We could win them all but we could also lose any game no matter where it is played.

[LA_Mustang]

I don't care how many conference wins they have we can't take anyone lightly or we will have a me tough time trying to beat them.

But you said Hofstra is a gimme. Isn't that taking someone lightly? However you want to phrase it - a gimme, must win or whatever, we have to get to a point where we (fans) expect wins against lesser teams. I would consider Temple, USF and Rutgers lesser teams. That Rutgers/Temple game last night was really bad basketball. I'm with OBF, the teams he mentioned should be viewed as wins. As for the players and coaches, I hope they don't ever take a team lightly, which I don't think they will. LB won't allow that.

[Rebel10]

I don't care how many conference wins they have we can't take anyone lightly or we will have a me tough time trying to beat them.

But you said Hofstra is a gimme. Isn't that taking someone lightly? However you want to phrase it - a gimme, must win or whatever, we have to get to a point where we (fans) expect wins against lesser teams. I would consider Temple, USF and Rutgers lesser teams. That Rutgers/Temple game last night was really bad basketball. I'm with OBF, the teams he mentioned should be viewed as wins. As for the players and coaches, I hope they don't ever take a team lightly, which I don't think they will. LB won't allow that.

I was talking about conference teams. I think we could give some player some developmental time with Hofstra imo. So you agree with OBF in that Temple, USF, and Rurgers will be gimmes? I think we stand a good chance at winning but I believe it will be a tough fight.

[LA_Mustang]

I'm not to the point I'd call them gimmes, especially Temple on the road, but I definitely expect us to win those games. I saw Hofstra play earlier in the year and I don't think they are significantly worse than Rutgers or Temple. It's all about expectations, and I get that we as SMU fans are still gun-shy about guaranteeing anything.

[Rebel10]

I'm not to the point I'd call them gimmes, especially Temple on the road, but I definitely expect us to win those games. I saw Hofstra play earlier in the year and I don't think they are significantly worse than Rutgers or Temple. It's all about expectations, and I get that we as SMU fans are still gun-shy about guaranteeing anything.

It's not about being gun shy it is about looking at the team and how the rotations are somewhat off. If we were playing better I would have no problem with viewing teams as should be definite wins.

[OhioBrownFan]

Reb, I'm not trying to start a fight, but I was just saying I'd pretty much put Rutgers, Temple, and USF in the same category as Hofstra. If Hofstra was on the road, I don't see the others the other three being much tougher than that. It might be closer than you want for comfort but there is no reason to lose to them. Does that make sense? It's just the same as I would say Nebraska is a gimme against Ohio State on Saturday, yeah Nebraska could pull that one off, but 8/10 or 9/10, they're going to lose. That's about as close to a gimme as you're going to get without playing a high school or D2 team in my view.

Sorry to ruffle feathers over a meaningless argument.

[Rebel10]

Reb, I'm not trying to start a fight, but I was just saying I'd pretty much put Rutgers, Temple, and USF in the same category as Hofstra. If Hofstra was on the road, I don't see the others the other three being much tougher than that. It might be closer than you want for comfort but there is no reason to lose to them. Does that make sense? It's just the same as I would say Nebraska is a gimme against Ohio State on Saturday, yeah Nebraska could pull that one off, but 8/10 or 9/10, they're going to lose. That's about as close to a gimme as you're going to get without playing a high school or D2 team in my view.

Sorry to ruffle feathers over a meaningless argument.

You are not ruffling any feathers it's just your opinion. The talent gap between Ohio State and Nebraska is larger than the talent gap between SMU and USF imo.

[EastStang]

William & Mary is no world beater, but they are a mid-level team in a decent conference the CAA. A couple of years ago, they took out Wake Forest and Maryland on the road. They have a good coach, but have some recruiting restrictions which make it hard for them to compete every year and they won't get any one and dones. Like George Mason, they need a bunch of seniors and perhaps a hot shooting transfer.