PonyFans.com

4 straight Bowls ... taking over a team that was 1-11 with nothing for talent in the pipeline ... yep went 1-11 hi first year
3 bowl victories
Beat a top 20 undefeated team on the road
Played in the conference Championship game
Won a division title
SMU was ranked in the top 35
"D" finished the season as the 26th best overall "D" 2 years ago, and tied NCAA records last year
Better facilities
TV and Media exposure
Better recruits over the last 2-3 years and in the pipeline
Not competitive with the Big Boys {Baylor/A&M .. no}, {TCU absolutely and TTU this year and in Lubbock 3 years ago}

All from a program that was one of the absolute worst for 25+ years in the country prior. Have we {JJ} leveled off ... I don't know. Is it realistic to really think we should be a top 25 program given our history in 6 years IDK ... but I'm leaning towards no {and that is a 2 day conversation of if's, but's would-of's .. could-of's}. The ASU deal ... coaches leave programs all the time, it's the nature of the business. Zero proof that JJ somehow didn't represent SMU honorably Sat with recruits when he was meeting with ASU that evening … all speculation an innuendos. For anyone on this board who has ever been hired away, you can multi-task. Years ago I closed a huge deal on a Friday, all while knowing I was having dinner that night with the COO of my major competitor for a possible job. Didn't keep me from doing my job at the highest level.

I'm a huge LB fan, but comparing B-Ball recruiting and turning a program around to football is an apples to oranges comparison. LB is a Hall-of-Fame coach with NBA and National titles to his credit ... no doubt he has more clout than JJ ... but so would he in comparison to Sonny Dykes, Bobby P etc. LB and his staff have been unbelievable ... but two completely different animals. The Bulls with MJ and average cast of players were nothing until they added one more top player ... Scottie Pippen. But the Ninners would not have been the Ninners with Montana and Rice alone.

We all like to think we know what ... JJ/staff should do, what there are/or are not doing, the restrictions and challenges they deal with internally and externally, and all the names of others that would march right in and have us at 10+ win seasons and BCS bowls tomorrow. But we don't, it's all speculation ... except for what the last 6 years have been as highlighted above. No one wants or is suggesting mediocrity is our goal ... the beef with the "June to the death hatters" and "June to the death supporters" is the expectation of what the realistic curve and timeframe is to get us there when considering everything ... as I see it. I know the haters have apathy towards JJ and staff for other things. We jump on him if he scratches his ear lobe the wrong way. I'm not sure anything will ever change those views ... a 9-10 win season this year would only brush them under the carpet for a latter day IMO. If I owned a company {and I do}, that had been losing it's rear for 25 years and struggling, and I brought in the business version of JJ and he accomplished the business version of what JJ has in the last 6 years, I probably would not be firing him ... but we would be having serious strategic planning sessions for our future and a game plan/process to get us there, and yes I would hold him accountable to get us there and meet expectations and measurable progress. JJ is a laid back guy, we knew that before he got here … he is not and will not be animated on the sideline or press conferences like some of us {me included} would like to see sometimes. However, don’t think in team meetings he can’t cut deep and get his point across to players and coaches, he can and does. JJ likes to keep most things behind closed doors. There is a long list of successful coaches with this style. I don’t like players who constantly rah rah and run their mouths and have their "it’s all about me moments", some do. To be sure, every program and business cycles through platue moments. Are we there with football … I don’t know … I don’t have enough info on what is being discussed and planned, what has been planned for and accomplished to date, and what restrictions/obstacles are having to be dealt with.

Apologize ... not sure why I got long winded or even posted this.

CalallenStang wrote: 3) Losing to Tulane disproves the "win consistently" claim

Sorry, you are going to have to explain this one to me. How does one loss by itself disprove whether a team wins consistently? According to your statment, SMU could have gone undefeated other than a loss to Tulane and it would not qualify as winning consitently?

"Better recruits over the last 2-3 years and in the pipeline"

I really don't think there is any legitimate evidence supporting this other than the giddy preseason reports of well known cheerleaders. I think the talent acquisition is basically leveled off to consistently mediocre. The entire debate turns on an understanding of the SMU Athletic Model in a) pre-21st Century, b) starting in 2000 and c) since 2008. I simply don't think June Jones has done much extraordinary at SMU. The 2009 season was a great turnaround. Credit I believe goes mostly to the changes in the Model which are substantial. SMU under the new admission Model SHOULD BEAT most of the teams June is beating based upon the university, facilities, tradition and location. Under the present Model, Gregg, Rossley, Cavan and Bennett would have similar results-I really believe it and what's more stated it on this forum for a decade. Take a cold hard look at the teams we beat under June and tell me a determined SMU program playing under a even playing field should not routinely beat those schools like Rice, UTEP, Tulane, Memphis, UAB, Tulsa, annual Division 1AA patsy et al

GiddyUp wrote:Wait, I thought we were talking about the Ravens?

Me, too. Turned out to be the Mavens.

PSCA wrote: If I owned a company {and I do}, that had been losing it's rear for 25 years and struggling, and I brought in the business version of JJ and he accomplished the business version of what JJ has in the last 6 years, I probably would not be firing him ... but we would be having serious strategic planning sessions for our future and a game plan/process to get us there, and yes I would hold him accountable to get us there and meet expectations and measurable progress.

Great post, and especially good business analogy. I am neither a die hard June supporter nor a die hard hater. I dislike a lot of the June Jones bullcrap (lei's, Ikaika helmet stickers, black fetish, lack of genuine interest in SMU), but anyone who really thinks you fire a coach mid-season with the track record June has had is smoking crack. Do you work on the plan to take the next step? Yes. Do you fire him after our team was only competitive for 3 quarters of the first game of the season to a more talented team that we haven't beat in 30 years? No. It's not a money thing. It's about being rational.

Now, let's say we do fire June at the end of the season. I would also be interested to hear who we have waiting in the wings to take us to the next step. We haven't exactly had highly sought after candidates lining up to be our coach.

Grant Carter wrote:

CalallenStang wrote: 3) Losing to Tulane disproves the "win consistently" claim

Sorry, you are going to have to explain this one to me. How does one loss by itself disprove whether a team wins consistently? According to your statment, SMU could have gone undefeated other than a loss to Tulane and it would not qualify as winning consitently?

Consistency means always beating teams of a certain level and always losing to teams of a certain level.

That clearly is not SMU under June, and the Tulane loss underscores that point.

CalallenStang wrote:

Grant Carter wrote:

CalallenStang wrote: 3) Losing to Tulane disproves the "win consistently" claim

Sorry, you are going to have to explain this one to me. How does one loss by itself disprove whether a team wins consistently? According to your statment, SMU could have gone undefeated other than a loss to Tulane and it would not qualify as winning consitently?

Consistency means always beating teams of a certain level and always losing to teams of a certain level.

That clearly is not SMU under June, and the Tulane loss underscores that point.

By your definition a team that goes 2-10 but always beats and loses to the same teams "wins consistently". Is that really what you mean to say?

I think most people would say a team that goes wins more than they lose most years wins consistently, even if some years they beat team A and lose to team B, and some years it is the opposite.

Regardless, now you are saying that the loss to Tulane underscores a point that is evidenced by a number of games, whereas before it disproved the claim without reference to any other games.

Grant Carter wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:

Grant Carter wrote: Sorry, you are going to have to explain this one to me. How does one loss by itself disprove whether a team wins consistently? According to your statment, SMU could have gone undefeated other than a loss to Tulane and it would not qualify as winning consitently?

Consistency means always beating teams of a certain level and always losing to teams of a certain level.

That clearly is not SMU under June, and the Tulane loss underscores that point.

By your definition a team that goes 2-10 but always beats and loses to the same teams "wins consistently". Is that really what you mean to say?

I think most people would say a team that goes wins more than they lose most years wins consistently, even if some years they beat team A and lose to team B, and some years it is the opposite.

Regardless, now you are saying that the loss to Tulane underscores a point that is evidenced by a number of games, whereas before it disproved the claim without reference to any other games.

No, a 2-10 team as you referenced loses consistently. The wins/loses verbiage changes at an inflection point of .500. I challenged not the "wins" portion, but the "consistently" portion of the claim. And it is not about beating Team A every year, but beating THE SAME LEVEL of team CONSISTENTLY within a year. We have not had one year under June, save for year one, when we have done anything consistently.

As for the final portion of your post, I only had to bring up the one game to disprove the point. Bringing up more than one in my original post would have served no purpose other than to rub the original poster's nose in how wrong his statement actually was. I see no need to do that.

However, before you try to twist this post and make another off-base retort, may I suggest that you actually employ your logical reasoning abilities? Thanks!

I will give you the inflection point, makes sense. I disagree that it is all about consistently beating and losing to different levels of teams 100% of the time. If a team has the same or similar record every year, they win/lose consistently, even if the specific teams (or levels of those teams) they win or lose to are different each year. If a team goes 11-1 each year but loses to teams like Alabama some years and teams like SMU other years, to me they are consistently winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Grant Carter wrote:I will give you the inflection point, makes sense. I disagree that it is all about consistently beating and losing to different levels of teams 100% of the time. If a team has the same or similar record every year, they win/lose consistently, even if the specific teams (or levels of those teams) they win or lose to are different each year. If a team goes 11-1 each year but loses to teams like Alabama some years and teams like SMU other years, to me they are consistently winning.

Perhaps if you win 9 or more games over a period of years, the levels of teams don't matter as much...I can concede that. But, to me, when you're closer to a mid-range team, there have to be fewer peaks and valleys for me to consider that team a consistent winner.

The one thing consistent across June's time here has been inconsistency.

When I said consistently, I meant that in the big picture sense: each year he has delivered wins. Enough to get us to a bowl. That has not always been the case. If there is another word to use for that, I will gladly retract.

I think that winning run may very well end this year, but let's see it play out. Totally irrational to fire June after one game.

Fooball wrote:Totally irrational to fire June after one game.

I agree with this. However, in my mind, June either has to earn an extension by winning the conference and getting us to a BCS bowl, or we have to part with him

Comparing a NFL loss to a college loss is stupid.... 1 loss at the college level can be the determining factor for not making a national championship where you can lose 6 or 7 games in the NFL and still have a shot to make the superbowl.

East Coast Mustang wrote:Bottom line if you want June out then stroke the check for his buyout. Otherwise, your opinion doesn't matter. None of our opinions matter

Yes, let's ban everyone from posting anything, unless they are certified COC. Let's make Ponyfans.com their private chat room.

CalallenStang wrote:I just paid June's entire buyout clause.

I can pitch in too