Mustangs_Maroons wrote:I also think what USC was able to do this year with the transfers was akin to pillaging schools (mostly Oklahoma) to achieve immediate success. Glad they didnΓÇÖt win a bowl to reward what the NCAA now allows these really rich teams with new coaches to do. They basically bought their team this year with no payroll limitation and no transfer restrictions. TheyΓÇÖll keep doing that and will probably buy more players in the D side to match the talent theyΓÇÖre getting on the offensive side.
yep- that is what NIL is all about.. are we any different? lots of posts suggesting that we donate to be able to buy better players. kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
BTW- had to laugh the comment about USC- students rich, spoiled and arrogant. Seems like those same labels have been applied to our students as well. Not a fan of cal. universities other than Stanford and Cal. Tech.
Yes; USC and SMU have many similarities student body and alumni wise. USC has just placed more emphasis on athletics than SMU
Mustangs_Maroons wrote:I also think what USC was able to do this year with the transfers was akin to pillaging schools (mostly Oklahoma) to achieve immediate success. Glad they didnΓÇÖt win a bowl to reward what the NCAA now allows these really rich teams with new coaches to do. They basically bought their team this year with no payroll limitation and no transfer restrictions. TheyΓÇÖll keep doing that and will probably buy more players in the D side to match the talent theyΓÇÖre getting on the offensive side.
yep- that is what NIL is all about.. are we any different? lots of posts suggesting that we donate to be able to buy better players. kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
BTW- had to laugh the comment about USC- students rich, spoiled and arrogant. Seems like those same labels have been applied to our students as well. Not a fan of cal. universities other than Stanford and Cal. Tech.
Yes; USC and SMU have many similarities student body and alumni wise. USC has just placed more emphasis on athletics than SMU
The other major thing SC did was increase enrollment. SMU suffers with a very small alumni base. Add the Pye Effects, and our alma mater ends up in the pale compared to SC. Heck, even Vandy has a slightly larger student body. At a point, numbers matter.
Mustangs_Maroons wrote:I also think what USC was able to do this year with the transfers was akin to pillaging schools (mostly Oklahoma) to achieve immediate success. Glad they didnΓÇÖt win a bowl to reward what the NCAA now allows these really rich teams with new coaches to do. They basically bought their team this year with no payroll limitation and no transfer restrictions. TheyΓÇÖll keep doing that and will probably buy more players in the D side to match the talent theyΓÇÖre getting on the offensive side.
yep- that is what NIL is all about.. are we any different? lots of posts suggesting that we donate to be able to buy better players. kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
BTW- had to laugh the comment about USC- students rich, spoiled and arrogant. Seems like those same labels have been applied to our students as well. Not a fan of cal. universities other than Stanford and Cal. Tech.
RedPony, lol...California has the Claremont Colleges, pretty much all of which are top in the world. Sure, athletic experience is low, but my step brother, an All State, all LA city, CIF top player passed on major universities to attend Pomona and play football. Why? Prestige.
Well thatΓÇÖs like playing at an Ivy or top LAC, which Pomona is. There arenΓÇÖt a lot of people picking top FBS schools for academics except Stanford, Duke, Northwestern and Vandy. I remember Chandler Morris turning down USC for OU.
Yes; USC and SMU have many similarities student body and alumni wise. USC has just placed more emphasis on athletics than SMU
The other major thing SC did was increase enrollment. SMU suffers with a very small alumni base. Add the Pye Effects, and our alma mater ends up in the pale compared to SC. Heck, even Vandy has a slightly larger student body. At a point, numbers matter.
Seems to me that USC also played the urban campus real estate game much more strategically than SMU, which is how they were able to keep expanding. That's kind of ironic if you look at the day jobs of some of the folks populating the board over the past generation.
It's pointless but fun to think about what SMU could have done had they been willing to partner up and invest in redeveloping the Cotton Bowl like USC did at the Coliseum. That model hasn't worked so well for UCLA, but with SMU basically having a DART station on campus at Mockingbird Station, there could have been an interesting play that would have freed up space for a world-class football complex on campus (along with a bunch more dorms).
Last edited by laxdawg97 on Sun Jan 08, 2023 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SMU had a lot of awesome and inspiring athletics facility plans over the past ~20 years. What we implemented was the most conservative of them in regards to football.
tristatecoog wrote:Well thatΓÇÖs like playing at an Ivy or top LAC, which Pomona is. There arenΓÇÖt a lot of people picking top FBS schools for academics except Stanford, Duke, Northwestern and Vandy. I remember Chandler Morris turning down USC for OU.
You forgot ND which is the best combination of academics and football history out of anyone. I wouldnΓÇÖt consider duke, NW or vandy as options for any top football recruit who also wants to academics. ND is the best example, IMO. Stanford has also had quality athletes and football players but not the football history to compare to ND.
