SMU_Alumni11 wrote:Better to lose to Baylor with a full stadium than barely win to an FCS team (show the world where our program is at) with a 1/4 full stadium...
I have a slightly different perspective. I would rather barely beat a FSC team now, for a better chance at a bowl later, than to play Baylor when we obviously aren't ready (regardless of the crowd) and have less of a chance for a bowl later.
Bowls mean money and exposure. Bowls get us on the map. Losing to Baylor gains us nothing.
For me, its about the long game. And the long game is post season play.
And yes, if we had a team in mid season form, I would then like to play Baylor.
Listen to ESPN announcers when they say that SMU has been to bowls the past 4 years. They use to say nothing about post season play but yacked it up about the DP.
If nothing else, those worthless bowls that mean nothing at least shut up the TV announcers about the DP!
And I would rather watch us play in a bowl game than sit at home because we didn't win enough games to make a bowl.
SMU_Alumni11 wrote:Better to lose to Baylor with a full stadium than barely win to an FCS team (show the world where our program is at) with a 1/4 full stadium...
Hell no. Losing is never better than winning. Eff that.
I agree that playing Baylor with our D would be a mistake. Perhaps we should have chosen a UTEP or someone that is more highly regarded in football minds but a worse team then Montana State. Nonetheless, playing four far superior teams before conference is dumb. We needed a game that we could at least be competitive in. As far as winning, winning is EVERYTHING. SMU needs every win we can get.
In the future, we should schedule UTEP before considering another game with these FCS schools. UTEP always brings a good crowd and those are games we should win, although we would have to schedule them home/home. That's the only positive about scheduling FCS schools...they know they won't get a home/home with any FBS school.
This ^^ ... I clearly remember the days when we would play ugly and get blown out. We played ugly, without some key players, and won against a team that is better than a lot of people realize.
ponyte wrote:Eliminate two red zone fumbles and the game is different. Eliminate a vast number of utterly stupid penalties and the game is different. And bring in healthy Rambo and Shead and the game is completely different. Heck, a healthy Line the whole game makes a difference.
This was a disappointing loss, er, I mean win. But we did have two key starters out (Rambo and Shead. And Rambo is key, key, key to our defense.
We complain but the fact is we didn't have our best team on the field and we made way too many mistakes but still found a way to win.
Not pretty and not satisfying and plenty of areas on both sides of the ball to improve. But the team did win despite adversity (sure, much was self inflicted).
Last night's game showed how lucky we are that Joyner's injury wasn't as bad as it looked last week.
ponyte wrote:Listen to ESPN announcers when they say that SMU has been to bowls the past 4 years. They use to say nothing about post season play but yacked it up about the DP.
If nothing else, those worthless bowls that mean nothing at least shut up the TV announcers about the DP!
And I would rather watch us play in a bowl game than sit at home because we didn't win enough games to make a bowl.
How dare you bring logic into this?
Rayburn wrote:
SMU_Alumni11 wrote:Better to lose to Baylor with a full stadium than barely win to an FCS team (show the world where our program is at) with a 1/4 full stadium...
Hell no. Losing is never better than winning. Eff that.
