SI Ranking

Mickey · Post by **Mickey** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:24 am

Sports Illustrated, in its College Football Preview, has SMU ranked 113th out of 119. The Ponies are ranked just behind Ball State and Idaho, but ahead of Utah State, Ark State, Central Fla, Florida Atlantic, Buffalo, and Florida International. We have 21 returning starters, tied for first with SDSU, who is ranked 92nd.

BUS · Post by **BUS** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:38 am

Then I guess we need to beat Baylor!

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:01 am

The ranking reflects the results of a three year rebuilding with little progress to show for it at this time.

What the ranking isn't projecting is the value of 21 returning Lettermen, experience throughout the roster, greater size and speed, the second year of the Burns as OC and a regional schedule attuned to our future.

If we win three games again this year, we might crack the Top 100. Win four games and move ten spots. Win five and the programs will get regional and some national attention. With six (my prediction) or more, the Mustangs are getting national press and we approach the top 64.

With 119 Division 1A teams, solid, competitive programs are crowding the middle. Can we be a Top Division program (60 or less)? That is the goal.

Posts on this board are already saying 2006 is our breakout season. I say it needs to be in 2005. Why not now, why not us. Phil has been given time, resources and support by administration. To me, this is The Season. No sunshine, just necessity.

Go, U, S-M-U! Go Mustangs!

BUS · Post by **BUS** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:12 am

That is a logical way to think. WE are bigger, faster and should be smarter in Coach Burns system.

Can the coaches and players pull it all together. We do have some tools and another thing... a lot of these kids come from winning programs, THEY WANT TO WIN.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:25 am

Water Pony wrote:Can we be a Top Division program (60 or less)? That is the goal.

Doubtful. We are coming off six wins in three seasons. How many top-60's can claim that impressive distinction?

Charleston Pony · Post by **Charleston Pony** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:40 am

those rankings assume we return the same players who have won a total of 3 games the past two years. If these guys want any respect, they know they are going to have to earn it.

OldPony · Post by **OldPony** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:22 am

Good news-Bad news joke. ............ Good news-The Mustangs are returning all of their starters. Bad news- The Mustangs are returning all of their starters.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:39 am

OP makes me chuckle sometimes...not sure if that's good or bad....

Bocephus · Post by **Bocephus** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:50 pm

If Bennett doesn't get it done this year, then he is gone. Win 4 and he stays. Anything less and I see him getting the boot.

MrMustang1965 · Post by **MrMustang1965** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:54 pm

OldPony wrote:Good news-Bad news joke. ............ Good news-The Mustangs are returning all of their starters. Bad news- The Mustangs are returning all of their starters.

I thought the 'good news' was going to be that you were saving money on your car insurance by switching to Geico.

OldPony · Post by **OldPony** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:53 pm

Thank you JT. You may need help too.
I understand that the Mustangs have another program under study which was put forth by Copeland. If you buy seasons tickets, you have to attend every game and stay for the entire game. That ought to take care of the remaining few ticketholders who have loved SMU over the years. If you don't, penalty is to pay an amount equal to your donations over the past 10 years. This could solve either the empty look of the stadium toward midway in the 3rd quarter or raise a lot of money.
Somebody help me. Please.

GoRedGoBlue · Post by **GoRedGoBlue** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:05 pm

Low expectations are to be expected considering our very recent past.

2006 is still the year, but in our 2nd year under Burns< I do expect much improvement...

I don't konw if that means 4-5 or dare I suggest 6 wins, but I certainly see fewer BLOWOUTs...

If we went 4-7 but were CLOSE in 6 of the 7 losses, then I would be happy, moreso than 5-6 and 6 lopsided blowouts.

PlanoStang · Post by **PlanoStang** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:57 pm

Water Pony wrote:The ranking reflects the results of a three year rebuilding with little progress to show for it at this time.

What the ranking isn't projecting is the value of 21 returning Lettermen, experience throughout the roster, greater size and speed, the second year of the Burns as OC and a regional schedule attuned to our future.

If we win three games again this year, we might crack the Top 100. Win four games and move ten spots. Win five and the programs will get regional and some national attention. With six (my prediction) or more, the Mustangs are getting national press and we approach the top 64.

With 119 Division 1A teams, solid, competitive programs are crowding the middle. Can we be a Top Division program (60 or less)? That is the goal.

Posts on this board are already saying 2006 is our breakout season. I say it needs to be in 2005. Why not now, why not us. Phil has been given time, resources and support by administration. To me, this is The Season. No sunshine, just necessity.

Go, U, S-M-U! Go Mustangs!

Yep, you got it exactly right. Our current, and breakout seasons under
Bennett are starting to seem to be a sliding window with a 2 year span.

During the OFER 2003 year, a lot of posters on here were
proclaiming "DON'T FIRE BENNETT. WAIT UNTIL HIS RECRUITING
CLASSES COME INTO PLAY in 2005. THAT WILL BE OUR BREAKOUT
YEAR". That time would be NOW!

BEAT BAYLOR!

Sam I Am · Post by **Sam I Am** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:35 pm

Well, the ratings are certainly rank aren't they. The past three years have been so miserably low, we are on the verge of becoming the Slippery Rock of college football. We keep trying to convince ourselves that the numbers are not true in hopes we can wish ourselves into respectability. Three wins is the benchmark for this year, watch an see. If SMU ever breaks this barrier, we might be on the road to recovery.

MrMustang1965 · Post by **MrMustang1965** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:07 am

Sam I Am wrote:Well, the ratings are certainly rank aren't they. The past three years have been so miserably low, we are on the verge of becoming the Slippery Rock of college football. We keep trying to convince ourselves that the numbers are not true in hopes we can wish ourselves into respectability. Three wins is the benchmark for this year, watch an see. If SMU ever breaks this barrier, we might be on the road to recovery.

We'll become the Slippery Rock when ABC's Keith Jackson begins announcing our team's score during Saturday afternoon college football broadcasts!

SI Ranking

SI Ranking

Our rating is rank

Re: Our rating is rank