Page 3 of 4

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:00 pm
by ponyboy
What's the definition of mediocre? We're number 50 out of 120 teams in win percentage the last three years, just behind Texas Tech and ahead of A&M and Baylor.

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/rec ... by=Win+Pct

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:09 pm
by Rebel10
ponyboy wrote:What's the definition of mediocre? We're number 50 out of 120 teams in win percentage the last three years, just behind Texas Tech and ahead of A&M and Baylor.

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/rec ... by=Win+Pct

Which way are we trending as we head into the BE? By the way, I don't think we can beat ATM and Baylor on the field even though the report says we are ahead of them. Oh wait we already lost to them. Guess that report is accurate.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:10 pm
by gostangs
wow - now you are stretching. going back three years? We are making assessments based on this yrs performance and the average to poor recruiting over the last three yrs.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:15 pm
by sbsmith
ponyboy wrote:What's the definition of mediocre? We're number 50 out of 120 teams in win percentage the last three years, just behind Texas Tech and ahead of A&M and Baylor.

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/rec ... by=Win+Pct

Average quality, neither great nor terrible. Tech, A&M and Baylor all had mediocre 3 year records from 2009-2011, as did we.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:18 pm
by 03Mustang
You don't buy stocks based on past performance, you base them on a company's moves and future expectations. It should be the same for us right now - based on what you see right now, both on the field and in recruiting, are you confident that SMU football is headed in the right direction?

I would not be a buyer right now. If you are, you probably watch Mad Money.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:24 pm
by Rebel10
I also think that Tech, ATM and Baylor's competition has been better than SMU's.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:30 am
by SMU_Alumni11
Yeah no kidding stop comparing our record with big 12, huge difference and plus they typically destroy OOC games whereas we hope for win in conference

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:56 am
by ponyboy
I asked a serious question and all I get is smart [deleted] responses? What is your definition of mediocre?

By the way, here's the previous twenty years before: http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/rec ... by=Win+Pct

You'll need to scroll all the way down to find us.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:32 am
by EastStang
The weather was bad, but Gilbert was still making bad reads. He threw into double and triple coverage way too many times. Also, I have to say, even if TCU had five 1000 pound guys on the defensive line, we should have run ZL at least three downs from the 1. Try left, try right, try option. ZL is one of the best inside the 5, let him do his thing. That was in my view the worst call of the game by JJ.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:40 am
by Arkpony
My thoughts at the time EastStang! Even try a fake to Line and a rollout and run by GG. ANYTHING but 3 passes!.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
by 1983 Cotton Bowl
Man, I'm still shaking my head after Saturday. I'm no June hater. I think he was the right man for this job in 2008 and he successfully accomplished priority number 1 for his hiring, which was pulling SMU football out of its 25-year tailspin. For that, I think he'll be remembered fondly as a successful coach here.

But I'd be sticking my head in the sand if I didn't admit that the run-n-shoot has never clicked consistently in the 5 years he's been here. We've seen flashes (2009 Hawaii Bowl, last year at TCU, etc.). But every time I think this thing might be ready to click, it takes a huge step backwards. I'm just scratching my head trying to figure out why, in year 5, our offense still looks like they are just trying to learn the basics of the system. I mean, Derrik Thompson, Jeremy Johnson, Arrius Hollman, etc. have all had at least 2 years in the system. Yet, they look totally lost out there. That is not encouraging.

The COC is paying June mid-to-high level BCS money, but the results do not correspond. Something has to change.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:31 am
by sbsmith
ponyboy wrote:I asked a serious question and all I get is smart [deleted] responses? What is your definition of mediocre?

By the way, here's the previous twenty years before: http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/rec ... by=Win+Pct

You'll need to scroll all the way down to find us.


So we went from terrible to mediocre and with poor recruiting we'll soon be terrible again in a tougher conference.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:27 am
by gostangs
My definition of mediocre would be losing to every BCS team on your schedule and having to win vs 5 bad CUSA teams in a row to get to an average to below average bowl - in a best case scenario.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:35 am
by Rebel10
Weather conditions will not be perfect in the BE.

Re: Poor Working Conditions

Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:47 am
by Stallion
We do what we do!