ORSINI'S HANDS TIED?

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:32 pm

And I am not sending my shirt back. We won it fair and square. Just because we did not win it this year does not cancel out of the glory of a year gone by. Please.......we need something to cling to.

SMU_is_bowling · Post by **SMU_is_bowling** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:33 pm

JtStang, you have your views of the season, and I have mine. This years team was better than last years. Maybe they did not win more games, in your opinion, maybe they did. it is all a mute point now. they are not in a bowl game, but with some good players returning, possilby they will be next year. I will be at the games again, supporting the team and SMU. I don't really care what you think about that (though I am sure your opinion is colorful)

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:37 pm

SMUshouldbebowling wrote: Maybe they did not win more games, in your opinion, maybe they did.

Well, there's no arguing with logic like that. And I'll be at the games next year too.

J.T.supporta · Post by **J.T.supporta** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:38 pm

it doesnt matter...the only goal this team had was a BOWL GAME...and that didnt happen...next year it will

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:43 pm

I think that there were a number of issues that Orsini considered. First, is Bennett an adequate coach? Second, who would we replace him with? Third, what financial issues are involved. I think the first issue was that Bennett has not set the world on fire, but he is clearly adequate and we have been in pretty much every game this year except TT. UNT, ECU, UH, UTEP, Rice were all close losses. In other words we had a competitive team this year. On the second issue, there were probably no knock your socks off candidates out there willing to come to the Hilltop. If you're going to hire another up and comer, high school coach, Division 1 coordinator, you've hired Bennett with another face. And you've disrupted the program in doing so. Lastly, there would be a financial cost in firing Bennett. We're still paying off Tubbs and Lineberg. Why incur that cost for a marginal change? Next year we have Arkansas State and UNT. We have TT at home and the Frogs on the road. We will likely go 2-2 again OOC. We replace UAB, ECU and Marshall with UCF, USM and Memphis, a slightly tougher schedule in conference except we get Rice and UTEP at home. Bennett will have to earn his stripes next year. 7-5 is probably a necessity next year.

SMU_is_bowling · Post by **SMU_is_bowling** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:43 pm

That is all you seem to want to do (argue) if someone says something different from your opinion . . . pointless even posting a reply to you, but work is slow

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:48 pm

Look braniac, let me draw a picture for you--the number of games they won this year is not a matter of opinion.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:51 pm

I think jtstang is right. SMU beat 3 Bowl Teams in 2005 too. SMU beat only one team that could be described as decent this year(ie Sagarin Top 100).

SMU_is_bowling · Post by **SMU_is_bowling** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:53 pm

Dont attack me tough guy, just cause you are mad about something else . . . you let it translate over to this board. You keep saying "We were one game better in the win column, against a d-2 team, and the same in the loss column" (which I am sure in your glorious opinion the d-2 win does not count). You are right, the number of victories is not an opinion. Fact is they won 6 this year, 5 last year, improvement, case closed. <waiting for snide remark>

bagice · Post by **bagice** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:53 pm

Anyone claiming this team is better than last year's team is not basing their statement on facts, they are basing it on opinion.

Personally, I think the team at the end of the year last year was better than the team this year. We closed out by losing by 7 to Tulsa (the CUSA Champion) and beating Rice badly, a good Houston team on the road, and a bowl team in UTEP that was playing for everything (a trip to CUSA championship). And of course, we beat a ranked TCU team giving them their only loss of the season.

To me, I don't see how anyone can compare this year to last year, we were much more impressive last year. No step forward at all, and possibly even a step back.

SMU_is_bowling · Post by **SMU_is_bowling** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:54 pm

one more time bagice, did you go to the games this year?

bagice · Post by **bagice** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:58 pm

As a matter of fact, I went to all home games, the Tech game, the North Texas Game, and the Rice game, and watched the others on the computer.

The team last year beat a ranked opponent and finished with 3 impressive wins. We did not approach anything near that this year, unless you want to equate blowing out Arkansas St. and Sam Houston with beating TCU.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:09 pm

SMUshouldbebowling wrote:Dont attack me tough guy, just cause you are mad about something else . . . you let it translate over to this board. You keep saying "We were one game better in the win column, against a d-2 team, and the same in the loss column" (which I am sure in your glorious opinion the d-2 win does not count). You are right, the number of victories is not an opinion. Fact is they won 6 this year, 5 last year, improvement, case closed. <waiting for snide remark>

Same number of losses, no improvement.

SMU_is_bowling · Post by **SMU_is_bowling** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:32 pm

Bagice - No, there is nothing I loved more than seeing SMU beat that other school, but can you honestly tell me that watching Romo and Eckert at QB excited you? that they played well?

That the defense: Played great in spurts last year (21-10), but this year they seemed to harrass the QB with much more freaquency (19 sacks last year;31 this year); granted the DB's (because of coaching) played off WR's all year giving up 16 yards on 3rd and 15 alot but fewer passing yards a game.

The o-line with a redshirt freshman QB that started most of the year gave up 2 more sacks than last year. instead of having to adjust to 2 different QBs all of 05 (easier said than done)

Rushing offense 05 = 131
06 = 125 (with out Martin)

Passing offense 05 = 177
06 = 194 (better)

rushing deffense 05 = 142
06 = 107 (better)

passing deffense 05 = 250
06 = 245 (better)

SCORING 05 = SMU=20.8 opp = 25.4
06 = SMU=27.1 opp = 24.5 (better)

I know you guys will say due to comp, those numbers are inflated or lower than they should be, but year to year, it improved.

perunapower · Post by **perunapower** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:55 pm

SMUshouldbebowling wrote:Bagice - No, there is nothing I loved more than seeing SMU beat that other school, but can you honestly tell me that watching Romo and Eckert at QB excited you? that they played well?

That the defense: Played great in spurts last year (21-10), but this year they seemed to harrass the QB with much more freaquency (19 sacks last year;31 this year); granted the DB's (because of coaching) played off WR's all year giving up 16 yards on 3rd and 15 alot but fewer passing yards a game.

The o-line with a redshirt freshman QB that started most of the year gave up 2 more sacks than last year. instead of having to adjust to 2 different QBs all of 05 (easier said than done)

Rushing offense 05 = 131
06 = 125 (with out Martin)

Passing offense 05 = 177
06 = 194 (better)

rushing deffense 05 = 142
06 = 107 (better)

passing deffense 05 = 250
06 = 245 (better)

SCORING 05 = SMU=20.8 opp = 25.4
06 = SMU=27.1 opp = 24.5 (better)

I know you guys will say due to comp, those numbers are inflated or lower than they should be, but year to year, it improved.

If you could use only the C-USA competition. That would alleviate any doubt about competition since we played the same schools both years.