PonyFans.com

IMO we will have a much better idea when the season is over and can see the good, bad and ugly. Hopefully he will be very aggressive in recruiting and fill the gaps that are weak in his system.

mtrout wrote: Also, this NIL crap really throws a wrench into things. Sure we might get better players but I think it'll cause other coach-headache-inducing problems.

mtrout, this NIL ΓÇÿcrap’ you speak of is the best thing to happen to SMU athletics since the Pony Express days, maybe since the Doak days, arguably the best thing EVER. We now have a major legal competitive advantage over most schools in the country, including most P5 schools.

lol, I do agree with you on the Ron Meyer assessment. He was a great coach. Tex Schramm was so impressed with him that he told SMU he was one of the best coaching prospects he had ever seen. Ron was good enough to have a 54-50 winning record as an NFL coach. That’s a good coach.

Good god. Grading him after 5 games? We lost 3, all to teams that probably have more talent, and hung in in 2 of those games. Aggressive play-calling is what we'll get. He did it as our OC, and as Miami's.

Tom Landry went 0-11 in his first year. Relax.

SoCal_Pony wrote:

mtrout wrote: mtrout, this NIL ΓÇÿcrap’ you speak of is the best thing to happen to SMU athletics since the Pony Express days, maybe since the Doak days, arguably the best thing EVER. We now have a major legal competitive advantage over most schools in the country, including most P5 schools.

Typically kids would go HARD for the tiniest bit of money (if it's framed as an incentive). I think the blanket NIL 30K(?) is not helpful for the team. It might help recruiting but I think it's a barrier for team culture or whatever you want to call it.

For example pre-NIL era, do some sort of practice test and offer $100 for a reward for the top performers. Kids will go nuts. Like offer an SMU swimmer $100 to do some test or competition and they'll run into the practice like they're the Ultimate Warrior. For football now, it seems like we have a team of paid players who don't seem to be getting that type of boost.

mtrout wrote:

SoCal_Pony wrote:

mtrout wrote: mtrout, this NIL ΓÇÿcrap’ you speak of is the best thing to happen to SMU athletics since the Pony Express days, maybe since the Doak days, arguably the best thing EVER. We now have a major legal competitive advantage over most schools in the country, including most P5 schools.

Typically kids would go HARD for the tiniest bit of money (if it's framed as an incentive). I think the blanket NIL 30K(?) is not helpful for the team. It might help recruiting but I think it's a barrier for team culture or whatever you want to call it.

For example pre-NIL era, do some sort of practice test and offer $100 for a reward for the top performers. Kids will go nuts. Like offer an SMU swimmer $100 to do some test or competition and they'll run into the practice like they're the Ultimate Warrior. For football now, it seems like we have a team of paid players who don't seem to be getting that type of boost.

As I understand NIL, you cannot pay for "performance" - only name, image and likeness. So you cannot pay specifically for what a player does in practice or in a game. Obviously the better player has an image that is worth more, so they will be paid more by some portions of the NIL community. Also, the coaches can have nothing to do with NIL. NIL $ comes from supporters of the school or business community.

I know it can't be used for performance (though the whole point of it is for guys to monetize their name / performance).
Coaches (football dept) not being involved in NIL (or any thing like that) is a problem. You're trying to yell at guys then your 2nd string is getting paid 60% of what you are. It's in the same realm as trying to coach someone whose mom or uncle is in their ear telling them something else.

People think NIL is some huge win for us, just throwing money at guys... but it can create unknown new and nightmare scenarios for NCAA coaches (team management, etc). If I'm recruiting kids and I get slightly higher rated players mainly because of our NIL potential then I say those are the kids that are more likely to be headaches (aka not be Inky Johnson).

The resistance to these thoughts (entire team NIL is a massive headache) seems strong round these parts. Make the AAC title game and prove me wrong.

mtrout wrote:
People think NIL is some huge win for us, just throwing money at guys... but it can create unknown new and nightmare scenarios for NCAA coaches (team management, etc). If I'm recruiting kids and I get slightly higher rated players mainly because of our NIL potential then I say those are the kids that are more likely to be headaches (aka not be Inky Johnson).

It can and will create unknowns. Schools, coaches and players will have to navigate uncharted waters, i think everyone agrees with that.

Where i completely disagree with you is your notion that SMU will get ΓÇÿslightly’ higher rated players due to NIL. BS. We will get considerably better players + we will retain the good ones on our team.

The alternative, to minimize or completely ignore NIL is laughable. NOBODY i know is following that strategy.

We were ahead of our time in paying players. Imagine coming to SMU from humble means and wanting to take a cheerleader out for a date? That ends up being dinner at the cafeteria and a free movie at the student center or a dance at the student center. With a little cash in their pocket they could take a date to dinner and a movie. So, its worth it to us to do this type of thing. Now the players have to play well enough that people care to know who they are.

EastStang wrote:We were ahead of our time in paying players. Imagine coming to SMU from humble means and wanting to take a cheerleader out for a date? That ends up being dinner at the cafeteria and a free movie at the student center or a dance at the student center. With a little cash in their pocket they could take a date to dinner and a movie. So, its worth it to us to do this type of thing. Now the players have to play well enough that people care to know who they are.

Maybe not "ahead of our time" but SMU paid well. As Ron Meyer said: "take everything that anyone offers but come see me last"

Organize NIL events after every game and only invite top performers.

I believe NIL rules prohibit benefits from being performance-based (i.e. a certain amount per touchdown, per tackle, etc.)

SoCal_Pony wrote:

mtrout wrote:
People think NIL is some huge win for us, just throwing money at guys... but it can create unknown new and nightmare scenarios for NCAA coaches (team management, etc). If I'm recruiting kids and I get slightly higher rated players mainly because of our NIL potential then I say those are the kids that are more likely to be headaches (aka not be Inky Johnson).

It can and will create unknowns. Schools, coaches and players will have to navigate uncharted waters, i think everyone agrees with that.

Where i completely disagree with you is your notion that SMU will get ΓÇÿslightly’ higher rated players due to NIL. BS. We will get considerably better players + we will retain the good ones on our team.

The alternative, to minimize or completely ignore NIL is laughable. NOBODY i know is following that strategy.

I think this is correct. NIL is disruptive and certainly has both potential pros and potential cons for every school. But SMU needs disruptive opportunities and has to figure out how to capitalize. SMU is way better off with the chance at making NIL work than if NIL had not happened.

We have a GREAT offensive coordinator who is LEARNING how to be a head coach.

How many times have you seen the QB and/or OC wanting to go for it on 4th down, but the head coach has to be the "grownup in the room" and kick the FG or punt because it was the right thing for the team. Lashlee has spent his entire career just thinking about the offensive side of the ball. It is going to take some time for him to master the oversight role of a head coach.

docabel wrote:We have a GREAT offensive coordinator who is LEARNING how to be a head coach.

How many times have you seen the QB and/or OC wanting to go for it on 4th down, but the head coach has to be the "grownup in the room" and kick the FG or punt because it was the right thing for the team. Lashlee has spent his entire career just thinking about the offensive side of the ball. It is going to take some time for him to master the oversight role of a head coach.

^this^

You can always learn better by doing it on the job.

But doing is a subtle thing
That word "doing" encapsulates a lot
If I start a business where I go in every day and I'm doing the same thing
Let's say I'm running a retail store, stocking the shelves with food and liquor every single day, I'm not gonna learn that much, I'm repeating things a lot
So I'm putting in thousands of hours, but they're thousands of hours doing the same thing
Thousands of iterations, that would be different
The learning curve is across iterations, if I was trying new marketing, changing up the inventory, branding and the messaging, changing the sign
It's the number of iterations that drives the learning curve
The more iterations, the more shots on goal, the faster you're gonna learn
It's not just about the hours put in
The way we're built, the way the world presents itself, offers us very easily the opportunity to do the same thing over and over
Really, we'd be better served if we went off and found ways to do new things
Doing something new the first time is painful, and high odds are that you will fail
So you just have to get very, very comfortable with frequent small failures

-Naval Ravikant