PonyFans.com

Northwestern, who like us went to three bowls in the last three years, was 4-13 against teams with winning records during those three years. I'm too tired to do any more right now.

Since the start of the 2009 season, SMU is 13-1 in C-USA games played at Ford Stadium and 20-9 in league games overall. #PonyUp

A tweet I just received from SMU Football. Good night.

ponyboy wrote:

Since the start of the 2009 season, SMU is 13-1 in C-USA games played at Ford Stadium and 20-9 in league games overall. #PonyUp

A tweet I just received from SMU Football. Good night.

Sounds like CUSA has alot of teams with losing records.

ponyboy wrote:

mrydel wrote:How about Northwestern. They set a national record for most consecutive losses. Gary Barnett came in and in a relatively short period of time took them to the top of the Big 10. They, while not a powerhouse have been able to maintain respectability since and bowl eligible more often than not. Oh, and also, while in the midst of a 29 game losing streak set attendance records at their games. My father started going just to witness the thrill of the game they played even while losing.

Or Vanderbilt. No bowls and locked in the cellar for years as a small private school in the toughest conference in the nation. Franklin has turned them around in 2 years, not into a conference champion but into a team that no longer is looked at as a walkover in the SEC and improving daily and going to bowl games, again, in the toughest conference in the nation.

We, while coming back from the dead, have maintained only a level of mediocrity for the past 2 years rather than continuing to climb or building respect.

Northwestern and Vandy seem to me good comparisons. Let me go run numbers on how they did against teams with winning records the last three years versus how we did the last three years against winning teams.

They are not good comparisons because a losing record team in the Big10 or SEC and a losing record team in CUSA are not comparable. You know this. You are discrediting your other more legitimate arguments by fighting so hard in this self-evident one.

SMU2007 wrote:I think another fair expectation would be for us to not get absolutely embarrassed in the majority of our losses. When we lose, we constantly seem to lose by 3+ TDs, which I find really frustrating. I don't want to spend the time scouring TCU's box scores, but it sure seems like they are in most games, underdog or not, and it's been that way for a while.

That too.

When we talk about reasonable expectations let's talk about coaching salaries. June makes more than any head coach in CUSA. And actually, he makes double what most of them make. I think the only coaches that make over $1M are O'leary and, previously Sumlin. 5th year on the job as the highest paid coach in your conference you should be competing with the best in your conference, at very least.

ponyboy wrote:

Since the start of the 2009 season, SMU is 13-1 in C-USA games played at Ford Stadium and 20-9 in league games overall. #PonyUp

A tweet I just received from SMU Football. Good night.

0 conference championships to show for all that league dominance.

mr. pony wrote:

ponyboy wrote:Somebody give me a midmajor team you reasonably wish we were equal to at this point in the June Jones era.

TCU
BAYLOR
TECH
We shouldn't BE a "mid-major" at this point. Who started this "mid-major" crap anyway?

Jones was hired to get us back to "1982-major."
It's clear now he never intended that.

I think these are great places to start.

Tech had been okay for a while before Leach, so I don't think it is an appropriate comparison.

TCU was awful for a long period of time. Had a steady improvement of success, and then got a superstar (LT) that bumped them to the 10 win level where they have stayed since. They had a lot of solid players in place when LT came along and he elevated them.

Baylor was a doormat for a long time, then landed a great coach and a superstar (RG III) that took the program to the 10 win level. Unfortunately, they have not been able to sustain that this season, although the recruiting class they had last year will pick them up again probably next season.

I think SMU has been elevated to a "solid" level in the conference, but we will need a superstar to come in and bump us to 10 wins and get us in play with the "next level" of recruits who come to play for the program. I do think that GG has come along significantly, and with Burcham in place behind him we are in a good position at the most important position on the field for the next several seasons. Things are never going to be perfect at this stage in our program (next year will have a young o-line and d-line, although we improve in the secondary and receiver), but superstars can elevate us to the next level. I do think that our QBs and Stewart at WR have the ability to be superstars and take us to that next level offensively if we can surround them with decent players.

Great playmakers take average teams and make them great, regardless of the conference they play in. Look at what a single player, Johnny football, has done for A&M this season. He was the only reason they scored on us in the first half of the game this season.

I am not a big "blame the scheme" person, but I will say that the R&S is much more of a team concept. In a running based offense, a great RB can turn things around single handedly - see LT and see Charles the half season he was great here. In a true spread, you can have a klein or a Manziel who picks up the rest of the team. In the R&S you are running a true passing attack, which means your QB and a WR have to be playmakers. It adds a second piece that is necessary to take the team to the next level.

I do think we have potential at QB. I think JJ and Dieter are really good, solid WRs, but they aren't game breakers. The only player I see in practice who has that potential is Stewart, but that is just my measly opinion. We saw the difference when we had a very good receiver and very average QB play with Sanders, it was a more effective offense. For us to go to the next level, we need both positions to be stars.

The best thing that could happen for this program is if, regardless of W and L, the OL can create enough time for GG to just go off in a couple of the games at the end of the season attract a really good receiver to the program.

ponyboy wrote:I don't know if taking a team that for two decades was the fourth or fifth losing-est team in all of college football to a 90 percent win percentage (or even 70 percent in the case of Stanford) in his first four and half seasons is even a remotely reasonable expectation.

You seem to want us to believe a team never changes players. Being a "losing team" for decades has nothing to do with the team we have today. Those players are no longer here. JJ has had 4 years to improve the talent level by aggressive recruiting which obviously hasn't happened. We may well have better players than we have had in the past, though I'm not sure that is true across the board, but we have not raised the overall talent level as high as one would expect a really good coach to do after 4 years of recruiting his players. At this point we should be at least matching the recruiting results TCU had in their first 4 years of Fran and Patterson coaching.

PK wrote:

ponyboy wrote:I don't know if taking a team that for two decades was the fourth or fifth losing-est team in all of college football to a 90 percent win percentage (or even 70 percent in the case of Stanford) in his first four and half seasons is even a remotely reasonable expectation.

You seem to want us to believe a team never changes players. Being a "losing team" for decades has nothing to do with the team we have today. Those players are no longer here. JJ has had 4 years to improve the talent level by aggressive recruiting which obviously hasn't happened.

While I usually enjoy disagreeing with ponyboy, that is a silly argument PK. Being one of the losing-est teams for decades clearly impacts our current team in terms of recruiting, fan support etc, whether or not the current players are the same. That's what a football "program" is all about.

ponyboy wrote:Since the start of the 2009 season, SMU is 13-1 in C-USA games played at Ford Stadium and 20-9 in league games overall. #PonyUp

Nice play on words to say ‘league games’ as it conveniently excludes our conference championship game in 2010 against UCF that we loss, so in reality we are 20-10 against C-USA. Of course, had we won that game, I am sure it would have been excluded as well since it wasn’t a ‘league’ game.

But to my bigger point here. Of those 30 C-USA games, 13 have been to UTEP, Rice, Tulane and Memphis. That is over 43%. Those teams have been dreadful. Since the start of the 2009 season, UTEP, Rice, Tulane and Memphis have an average Sagarin ranking of over 136. To put this in perspective, Missouri State currently resides at #136 in the most recent Sagarin rankings.

Missouri State is a D-AA school with a 3-7 record.

So we are paying JJ top dollar to beat up on inferior C-USA teams, which he is pretty good at, Tulane this year excluded. What he is not good at is recruiting or playing teams which are C-USA good.

ponyboy wrote:

Since the start of the 2009 season, SMU is 13-1 in C-USA games played at Ford Stadium and 20-9 in league games overall. #PonyUp

A tweet I just received from SMU Football. Good night.

Thats nice but Whats our ooc and road record??

The 4-21 doesn't mean very much. Some posted the average ranking of the teams we have beat - it is much more miserably descriptive

SMU2007 wrote:

PK wrote:

ponyboy wrote:I don't know if taking a team that for two decades was the fourth or fifth losing-est team in all of college football to a 90 percent win percentage (or even 70 percent in the case of Stanford) in his first four and half seasons is even a remotely reasonable expectation.

You seem to want us to believe a team never changes players. Being a "losing team" for decades has nothing to do with the team we have today. Those players are no longer here. JJ has had 4 years to improve the talent level by aggressive recruiting which obviously hasn't happened.

While I usually enjoy disagreeing with ponyboy, that is a silly argument PK. Being one of the losing-est teams for decades clearly impacts our current team in terms of recruiting, fan support etc, whether or not the current players are the same. That's what a football "program" is all about.

We are not a team that has been the losing-est for two decades. We have had a series of teams that have had losing records over the last two decades. We have had a losing Program for two decades not a losing team. Semantics, I know. The main point I was making is that with the changes in admissions and our acceptance in to a better conference, the real problem for the stagnation in our progress is the lack of aggressive recruiting of the higher rated players that could up the talent level of our teams...that should be obvious.

MustangIcon wrote:When we talk about reasonable expectations let's talk about coaching salaries. June makes more than any head coach in CUSA. And actually, he makes double what most of them make. I think the only coaches that make over $1M are O'leary and, previously Sumlin. 5th year on the job as the highest paid coach in your conference you should be competing with the best in your conference, at very least.

This argument has got to go away. From everything i am aware of JJ was offered $2 million to come coach here. He took the offer. You can say it wasn't worth it but you didn't pay it. How much you are paid is not a barometer of the number of wins. That is pure SMU "but daddy we can just buy it" mentality.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2