Taking Jim Copeland's Lead?

Bergermeister · Post by **Bergermeister** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:45 am

Guess those Big XII ADs finally passed Scheduling 101. Our former conference pals will tee it up with the Burrowing Owls, Golden Panthers, Indiana State, Huntsville State and Orkansaw State (!)... how did DeLoss let the Buckeyes slip in there?

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:16 am

Actually its the other way around. Our former SWC neighbors have been scheduling OOC cupcakes for years. Given our lowly status post-DP, I'd hazard a guess that we are pretty close to meeting that cupcake name tag ourselves. I think we all expected the Navy game several years ago to be a walk in the park and we got our heads handed to us.

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:55 pm

The Navy game was a real education. Their new coach, Johnson, had the Midshipmen well prepared and we didn't adjust during the game to their option offense. I am impress with all the service academies, who are disciplined and team oriented. It is like watching Princeton play BB.

huntnfish · Post by **huntnfish** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:02 pm

Navy has not been a cupcake since the early 90s. The have had a several bowl teams of late.

And they recruit the exact type of kids we should be going after.

youngalumpony · Post by **youngalumpony** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:12 pm

well actually they were a cupcake a few years ago when they went 0-12 in 2001, then came in here to open the 02 season and killed us at Ford in Bennett's first game

OldPony · Post by **OldPony** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:59 pm

Who doesn't understand the concept that you can play cupcakes OOC only if your conference games have some merit ie strength of schedule?

abezontar · Post by **abezontar** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:07 pm

who understands that playing a tough schedule only matters if you have a chance to go to a BCS game?

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:40 pm

who doesn't understand that BCS schools schedule these games because they can get 60,000-80,000 for 6-7 home dates per year. SMU would get 4,000 for Florida International.

gostangs · Post by **gostangs** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:06 pm

Who does not understnd that playing before 4,000 of our fans for a win (and it would be 12,000 more likely) is better for THIS program then playing in front of a sell out of their fans and getting mauled.

youngalumpony · Post by **youngalumpony** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:28 pm

We've said it before, but clearly the two sides of this issue are divided by age. Those that remember watching SMU football 20, 30, and 40 years ago don't want to accept that times have changed. The rest of us, while respecting and wishing that we had seen some of the great SMU teams of the past in person, understand that this is a different time and a much different program, and that with the current stucture of NCAA football will never experience the exact kind of success they did 20 years ago. While I am not a fan of TCU, I think their program is a great model for us to follow, they made a full commitment to the program and they scheduled super easy, which allowed them to get wins quickly. So in short, I WANT WINS, and don't give a damn who we beat or how many people are there at first to see the wins.

Dooby · Post by **Dooby** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:20 am

Stallion wrote:who doesn't understand that BCS schools schedule these games because they can get 60,000-80,000 for 6-7 home dates per year. SMU would get 4,000 for Florida International.

Again, I don't think that is true. We had 17k+ for San Jose State. SJSU brought zero fans. SJSU doesn't exactly have a lot of name value in Texas. I really don't see a difference between San Jose State and Arkansas State and the Florida Int'l's of the world from a name recognition point of view.

And don't tell me we had 17k for SJSU because it was a conference game. You and I both know that the vast majority of people at SMU games cannot name a mojority of the WAC schools.

I have mentioned the SJSU attendance a half dozen times and nobody even wants to acknowledge this.

Losing has an effect on attendance. SHOCK. :shock:

Dooby · Post by **Dooby** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:15 am

Norm is talking about this issue right now.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:32 am

we had 17,000 for SJSU because it was Parents Weekend-that always means a big influx of fans. Everyone that goes to the games knows our attendance figures are inflated and we've had plenty of games over the last few years even in Ford when there was no more than 5,000 at our games. And to the above posters who said the older generation doesn't understand the changes in the last 20 years-you're damn right-don't you think you morons have done enough harm as it is. Please spare us from the failure that is the "Modern SMU Athletic Program". If SMU had been doing what TCU has done all a long then we wouldn't have been in this mess anyway. TCU's success has nothing to do with its schedule-you guys have just run out of ideas to explain SMU's ineptitude because you've been wrong now for 16 years.

Dooby · Post by **Dooby** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:59 am

Stallion wrote:we had 17,000 for SJSU because it was Parents Weekend-that always means a big influx of fans. Everyone that goes to the games knows our attendance figures are inflated and we've had plenty of games over the last few years even in Ford when there was no more than 5,000 at our games. And to the above posters who said the older generation doesn't understand the changes in the last 20 years-you're damn right-don't you think you morons have done enough harm as it is. Please spare us from the failure that is the "Modern SMU Athletic Program". If SMU had been doing what TCU has done all a long then we wouldn't have been in this mess anyway. TCU's success has nothing to do with its schedule-you guys have just run out of ideas to explain SMU's ineptitude because you've been wrong now for 16 years.

Hmmmmmm......

1) It was all because of parents weekend. Yet homecoming didn't draw squat. You'd think you get amuni to equal out the parents from parents weekend.

Also, under your hypothesis, it appears the parents would revolt and refuse to attend a game against Arkansas State. "Sorry, Muffy, I know we enjoyed the SJSU game last year, but I'll be damned if I'll watch Florida Int'l!"

2) Yes, our attendance records are inflated. I like to walk in the gate with mannequins that look eerily like Kim Cattrall wearing Ramon Flanigan throwback jersies.

Our attendance records have been inflated for nearly every game the last 20 years if not before that. Half the schools in Div. 1's attendance records are inflated.

3) Seems to me the aged alumni are more responsible for "the failure that is the 'Modern SMU Athletic Program'." I seriously doubt I had much influence over the decision to hire Pye when I was more worried about getting a decent score on the SAT.

The people that have any influence on the institution that is SMU, aren't post-death penalty graduates. When I was a student at SMU, I didn't see the Hunts, Dedmans and Fords of the world sitting in McElvaney smoking dope and listening to Blues Traveler. So explain exactly how this is my fault?

4) So, since this is all my fault, what do you suggest I do differently? Should I stop going to games? First, you go to the games. Second, there are plenty of folks doing that for me. Should I give less money? More money? You don't give money, we know that. That must be part of your plan. The other part of your plan appears to act belligerent towards the young whippersnappers.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:13 pm

gostangs wrote:Who does not understnd that playing before 4,000 of our fans for a win (and it would be 12,000 more likely) is better for THIS program then playing in front of a sell out of their fans and getting mauled.

If by "better" you mean accelerating our move to a lower division by virtue of the D-1 attendance requirements, then your point is hard to argue with.