Football OOC Question

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:08 am

LA_Mustang wrote:So let’s drop the "worst team in D1" garbage. That’s unfair and untrue.

Love to. Tell me who was worse so we can hang the tag elsewhere.

PonySoprano · Post by **PonySoprano** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:24 am

Army. They were 0-13 last year.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:42 am

PonySoprano wrote:Army. They were 0-13 last year.

Interesting. That'd be a helluva game wouldn't it? A real nailbiter. But things continue to look up--I guess that only makes SMU the second worst team in D-1 last year.

LA_Mustang · Post by **LA_Mustang** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:33 am

Well, let’s see….

UL-Monroe, NMSU, Idaho, Ark. St., basically the whole damn Sun Belt. If you take the time to look, the entire Sunbelt Conference had a grand total of two OOC wins over D1 teams, and those two wins were by NTSU (Baylor and Memphis). The level of competition in that conference is not comparable to other D1 conferences, even the WAC. Yeah, we could have played Ark St and NMSU in OOC and ended the season with 2 wins but we chose to play TT, OSU, and TCU.

Also, there are a few teams in the mid-American conference that I would feel pretty confident about playing (Buffalo, Ohio, Central Michigan). So, if you choose to only look at the record, we are the worst team in D1 but based on talent, potential, and schedule we are not.

Southland · Post by **Southland** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:52 am

Charleston Pony wrote:0-12 speaks for itself and far too many of those games were humiliating blowouts. I sure hope those losses are burned into our guys memories when they hit the weight room.

Back to the original question: let's face it...a win over any of our 1st 3 opponents will be a shocking upset and would most likely be a turning point for the program. Win any of those 3 and you can probably expect this team to be 2004's Cinderella story. I agree that's too much to expect this year, but I do think these guys will be ready to compete at a .500 level as early as 2005.

Personally, I'd be pleased to see this football program consistently at .500 or better. CUSA may not be BCS, but there are too many respectable football programs for anyone to think SMU could ever dominate. Let's work on getting back to a point where we are dominating Rice and then maybe we can build from there.

Amen

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri May 28, 2004 11:55 am

LA_Mustang wrote:Well, let’s see….

UL-Monroe, NMSU, Idaho, Ark. St., basically the whole damn Sun Belt.

Please get real, even everyone's favorite whipping boy, UNT, is ahead of us. Based on whatever criteria you want to look at, record, talent, potential, whatever, we were definitely the worst of the metroplex teams last year. As for overall in D-1, I look at record (we lost to everyone we played, including powerhouses Rice, Tulsa and, well, everyone else) and standing on the ESPN Bottom 10. I guess Army is neck-and-neck with SMU, though.

Southland · Post by **Southland** » Fri May 28, 2004 12:54 pm

LA_Mustang wrote:Well, let’s see….

UL-Monroe, NMSU, Idaho, Ark. St., basically the whole damn Sun Belt. If you take the time to look, the entire Sunbelt Conference had a grand total of two OOC wins over D1 teams, and those two wins were by NTSU (Baylor and Memphis). The level of competition in that conference is not comparable to other D1 conferences, even the WAC. Yeah, we could have played Ark St and NMSU in OOC and ended the season with 2 wins but we chose to play TT, OSU, and TCU.

Also, there are a few teams in the mid-American conference that I would feel pretty confident about playing (Buffalo, Ohio, Central Michigan). So, if you choose to only look at the record, we are the worst team in D1 but based on talent, potential, and schedule we are not.

You're missing the point.

(1) Although perception dominates reality in college sports, the reality is we have zero wins since December 2002. If we can’t beat Tulsa, Rice or UTEP now, we’re not going to suddenly dominate them in C-USA.

BTW- there is only one power-ranking that matters - the BCS; and we aren’t on that radar screen. You’ll drive yourself nuts trying to project who is number 106 in the power rankings - go by wins, they are measurable and scalable, and free of biased opinions.

(2) The master point of this discussion is that too many fans of SMU have unrealistic fantasies of our football team becoming an annual Bowl participant beginning yesterday. That is not going to happen with the current recruiting restrictions, and people should base the success of our 2004 performance based on the talent of a 0-12 football team, not this C-USA juggernaut fantasy.

SMU fans should be happy with two wins in 2004 and elated with three, because that is the potential of our program currently. Hey, I want 11 wins this year, but I’m not going to judge the success or failure of the season on what I want, because it is just sets up Bennett and the kids to fail.

(3) Here is the problematic cycle at SMU: People project 6-7 wins based on their own fantasy or some SEGA game they played, not based on the reality of our talent. Then those people quit on the team after we start 0-4. Then they wield an October-January temper tantrum about how the coach should be fired, Copeland’s an idiot, the players stink, etc. Then the same people, who claim that the players are worthless and the coach is an idiot, turn around and project 6-7 wins again six months later. All this cycle produces is disappointment.

Currently, the program isn’t strong, and needs to learn how to crawl… then a few years from now we can walk, and hopefully the Board will finally release our Redtag restriction and the Mustangs can run again.

Bottom line: last year we bottomed out, be happy with any progress. If you are going to project 6-7 wins, don’t whine when it’s not achieved.

ponyboy · Post by **ponyboy** » Fri May 28, 2004 1:09 pm

I'll "wine", but I won't whine. Make mine a dry Alsacian riesling to quaff with a little grilled dove.

Seriously, Southland, you have just joined the list of the wise on this board. I'd put LA Mustang, Hoop Fan, Prof X, and usually our friend Stallion on that list. I am as guilty as anyone of unrealistic expectations and would be tickled to death with .500 ball as a base upon which to build.

Southland · Post by **Southland** » Fri May 28, 2004 1:43 pm

ponyboy wrote:I'll "wine", but I won't whine. Make mine a dry Alsacian riesling to quaff with a little grilled dove.

Seriously, Southland, you have just joined the list of the wise on this board. I'd put LA Mustang, Hoop Fan, Prof X, and usually our friend Stallion on that list. I am as guilty as anyone of unrealistic expectations and would be tickled to death with .500 ball as a base upon which to build.

I fixed the typo for you

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Fri May 28, 2004 2:27 pm

We've got a young team, but certainly it should match up well with other CUSA teams next year. TCU has pretty much dominated CUSA and CUSA has been miserable in bowl games the last two years (an indication of league strength). I agree this year ANY win will be a good win. But next year, I think we can begin to expect better things. Yes, we should walk first, but last year was the birth year. This year we ought to crawl, next year walk, yes it will be a wobbly walk and we will fall down once or twice, but we ought to be much improved. I have been watching this board for three years now. Each year we find some restrictions which holds us back. The first year, it was the Pye rules. Then we dropped the pre-admission restriction. Last year it was no JUCO's. This year its red tags. My view is that we don't have the best majors available to JUCO transfers, but if we keep on making excuses, we'll be in the Southland.

Charleston Pony · Post by **Charleston Pony** » Fri May 28, 2004 3:02 pm

even going 7-4 year after year won't guarantee this program bowl invitations. Until SMU demonstrates it can pack Ford Stadium and travel reasonably well to our new "regional" rivals (at least in CUSA-west), we aren't going to be an attractive bowl invitation.

Just ask our coaches whether if it would aid in their ability to sell SMU...if they could bring a kid in to watch a game in front of 30k at Ford or 7500 at Moody. Athletes are competitors, but they are also entertainers and want to be appreciated or their efforts. Seeing SMU putting les than 10k actual butts in the seats at Ford and 1500 at Moody won't make us a media darling.

If and when SMU does field a winning football team, the potential will be there for a real media circus. Can't you see the storyline: "SMU returns from the dead". Let's just hope when that day comes that all of those who are convinced "winning" will solve our attendance woes are right, because if our own students, alumni and Dallas area residents don't care enough to come out and support this program...don't count on the networks or bowls being very interested, either.

OldPony · Post by **OldPony** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:09 pm

As I said- To hope for .500 ball by the end of the decade is not a worthy goal. We continually should recruit better than Rice, UTEP, Tulsa and Tulane. If we don't, its because there is no one who cares nor believes we can ever be a winner again. The excuses are gone. Bennett has, in the eyes of most, had equal or better recruiting than the above for his stay here. If you don't expect to beat most of that that competition when his first class is seniors then you have either given up or have a recruiter who can't coach. I'm sure Stallion has the recruiting rankings since Bennett arrived (and Cavan's last year) which I believe will bolster my point.
Bennett is showing that he is learning. He is going to pass this year much more. If you are overmatched, that's what you do. Sorry to those who didn't like Rossley's "punch and Judy" but little guys sometimes beat big guys if they can run great routes and work with a mobile QB with short passes. There is much better speed defensively now albeit young.

Southland · Post by **Southland** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:13 pm

OldPony wrote:As I said- To hope for .500 ball by the end of the decade is not a worthy goal. .

A goal we've achieved once since 1986. Get real.

Southland · Post by **Southland** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:18 pm

Charleston Pony wrote:
If and when SMU does field a winning football team, the potential will be there for a real media circus. Can't you see the storyline: "SMU returns from the dead".

A picture of Ramon in USA Today following our 1997 Tulsa victory (6th win) proved that.

Southland · Post by **Southland** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:31 pm

EastStang wrote:Each year we find some restrictions which holds us back. The first year, it was the Pye rules. Then we dropped the pre-admission restriction. Last year it was no JUCO's. This year its red tags. My view is that we don't have the best majors available to JUCO transfers, but if we keep on making excuses, we'll be in the Southland.

No one who understands the recruiting process would say that. Obviously, you don't understand what a redtag is, or its importance in signing talent.

Recruiting has become sensible compared to three years ago, but our coaches still recruit with an arm tied behind their back. Don't kid yourself.

Football OOC Question

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: