PonyFans.com

UNT should always and forever be a winnable game. Chads first team beat UNT and we had no one. Always a guaranteed game.

PonyTime wrote:

Charleston Pony wrote:

ericdickerson4life wrote:Well...maybe not next year.

SMU fans better prepare for a losing season next year. Just take a look at the schedule and tell me where even 7 wins are going to come from.

I had heard that Chad was fighting desperately with the Administration to back out of the Michigan game. I think he realized that if he was around for another year and wanted to jump ship next year, he had to get that game off the schedule or the upward trend was going to take a turn for the worse. I think he wanted out of the Michigan game as much as he wanted the IPF.

The admin was not willing to get out of the Michigan game.

Thus you are right to think that there was a "sense of urgency" for Chad to get out now.

I think this is really telling if true. If in year 4, you’re scared to play a team that went 5-4 in the Big 10 this year, then you don’t have much faith in the team you’ve spent 4 years building

SMU21TCU10 wrote:The admin was not willing to get out of the Michigan game.

Thankfully. I'd have been pretty upset if political nonsense took away my opportunity to see SMU play at "The Big House".

SMU_Alum11 wrote:CP, I understand your criticism. I just can't take the fact that we made an idiotic hire. I could understand Jeff Traylor to at least stabilize the program for a year and see how he does in the bowl game but Sonny Dykes. I mean thats Rick Hart and company just putting in the white flag. The only way you can show your displeasure is to threaten giving up bowl tickets and season tickets. Assuming someone didn't over-rule Hart, I'm good with getting rid of him. If it's a money thing, again Jeff Traylor should have been something we could afford. A low level analyst from TCU is who we put for HC. I mean that's called giving up.

Hey...I got a great idea! Let's hire someone to "stabilize the program for a year" and see if he doesn't [deleted] the bed in the bowl game! That's the equivalent of hiring someone to see if he sucks too hard...or maybe survives. I can't fathom this level of decision making. It's just excellently...idiotic.

Puckhead48E wrote:

SMU_Alum11 wrote:CP, I understand your criticism. I just can't take the fact that we made an idiotic hire. I could understand Jeff Traylor to at least stabilize the program for a year and see how he does in the bowl game but Sonny Dykes. I mean thats Rick Hart and company just putting in the white flag. The only way you can show your displeasure is to threaten giving up bowl tickets and season tickets. Assuming someone didn't over-rule Hart, I'm good with getting rid of him. If it's a money thing, again Jeff Traylor should have been something we could afford. A low level analyst from TCU is who we put for HC. I mean that's called giving up.

Hey...I got a great idea! Let's hire someone to "stabilize the program for a year" and see if he doesn't [deleted] the bed in the bowl game! That's the equivalent of hiring someone to see if he sucks too hard...or maybe survives. I can't fathom this level of decision making. It's just excellently...idiotic.

Idiotic or out of choices? I'm saying that in the world that it seems we were in at the time: either Jeff Traylor or Sonny Dykes. Yes I would take Jeff Traylor for: 1) stability 2) continuation of the offense 3) see what the next coaching carousel looks like next year given we were the last school (or one of them) to have to find a coach. That to me made the most sense than the bargain shopping of trying to get someone's failed career back up again.

I wish we kept Jeff on the staff as an OC but he doesn't deserve a HC job at a top G5. I swear people just make up crap when it comes to sports.

Would you hire a director to then become CEO just because he is an up and comer? Wasn't Traylor the special team's coach when Strong's football team couldn't kick field goals or cover anyone after a kick off?

Traylor showing up at arky said it all. This IS NOT a highly desirable spot. Coaches hate it here. They talk. Even HCLB, who I love for restoring the b-ball program, noted that SMU does things differently. It's reality. It's not going to be better next year. Do you really want to train another coach for cm and let him scout Texas talent for cm while on our payroll? I don't. We kicked Traylor to the curb, which I would have done the minute he showed up in arky, and now things are Sonny.

Puckhead48E wrote:

SMU_Alum11 wrote:CP, I understand your criticism. I just can't take the fact that we made an idiotic hire. I could understand Jeff Traylor to at least stabilize the program for a year and see how he does in the bowl game but Sonny Dykes. I mean thats Rick Hart and company just putting in the white flag. The only way you can show your displeasure is to threaten giving up bowl tickets and season tickets. Assuming someone didn't over-rule Hart, I'm good with getting rid of him. If it's a money thing, again Jeff Traylor should have been something we could afford. A low level analyst from TCU is who we put for HC. I mean that's called giving up.

Hey...I got a great idea! Let's hire someone to "stabilize the program for a year" and see if he doesn't [deleted] the bed in the bowl game! That's the equivalent of hiring someone to see if he sucks too hard...or maybe survives. I can't fathom this level of decision making. It's just excellently...idiotic.

...And why in the world would Traylor accept a one-year contract? He'd be an idiot to take that gig and we'd have been idiots (or alternatively, delusional) to even make that offer.

Puckhead48E wrote:

SMU_Alum11 wrote:CP, I understand your criticism. I just can't take the fact that we made an idiotic hire. I could understand Jeff Traylor to at least stabilize the program for a year and see how he does in the bowl game but Sonny Dykes. I mean thats Rick Hart and company just putting in the white flag. The only way you can show your displeasure is to threaten giving up bowl tickets and season tickets. Assuming someone didn't over-rule Hart, I'm good with getting rid of him. If it's a money thing, again Jeff Traylor should have been something we could afford. A low level analyst from TCU is who we put for HC. I mean that's called giving up.

Hey...I got a great idea! Let's hire someone to "stabilize the program for a year" and see if he doesn't [deleted] the bed in the bowl game! That's the equivalent of hiring someone to see if he sucks too hard...or maybe survives. I can't fathom this level of decision making. It's just excellently...idiotic.

So...we hired someone to see if he sucks too hard. It's just idiotically...excellent.

I don't know because it's a head coaching job. We would say look you can take the 1 year deal or we will bring someone with experience (not quality) instead. If you can show a bowl win and another bowl season with decent recruits then we will sign you for a 3 or 4 year deal. I'm not sure how that is worse than the failed HC/analyst approach. Traylor probably has more contact with recruits then Dykes by a mile. Traylor knows the offense and could coach the team through a bowl. Dykes is going to be lucky to pull a win. Traylor probably has more contacts to OCs/DCs especially if Chad would rep for him. Whereas I don't think Dykes is going to find strong OCs and DCs. Just my opinion.

yeah I'm sure our recruits would be really excited about committing to a Head Coach on a 1 year contract--but sure our opponents wouldn't bring that up in recruiting more than a hundreds times

SMU_Alum 11 a lot of ifs and probablys in the above statement. Now can you see the problem?

Firing him after 1 season at SMU would be a PR nightmare and would devastate recruiting for 2 classes.

SMU_Alum11 wrote:UNT should always and forever be a winnable game. Chads first team beat UNT and we had no one. Always a guaranteed game.

It was UNT’s coach first year as well

SMU_Alum11 wrote:I don't know because it's a head coaching job. We would say look you can take the 1 year deal or we will bring someone with experience (not quality) instead. If you can show a bowl win and another bowl season with decent recruits then we will sign you for a 3 or 4 year deal. I'm not sure how that is worse than the failed HC/analyst approach. Traylor probably has more contact with recruits then Dykes by a mile. Traylor knows the offense and could coach the team through a bowl. Dykes is going to be lucky to pull a win. Traylor probably has more contacts to OCs/DCs especially if Chad would rep for him. Whereas I don't think Dykes is going to find strong OCs and DCs. Just my opinion.

1) Of course Traylor (and the former assistants) had more contact with the recruits at this point - by a mile. That is what happens when a coach leaves and a new coach comes in from outside the program. Do you think Bret Bielema's staff had more contact with Hogs' old recruits than Chad did?

2) Traylor knows "the offense." Dykes "knows offense" having coached it at the college level since 1995. He has almost exactly 20 years more experience at the college level than Traylor - despite being younger than Traylor. He has 10 years experience as a HC or OC at the college level. Traylor has no HC or OC experience at the college level.

3) The only thing you are right about - Dykes will be lucky to win the Bowl Game with less than 2 weeks to prepare for it.

4) He doesn't need an OC.