Personally after a 1-4 start in season six I was ready to throw him off of a building.

What's done is done but I would have liked to wait until after 2005, where we should have no more excuses.

I know having four years on your contract helps in recruiting but you don't extend a contract just for recruiting. He's graduating players and running a clean program which clearly is important and part of the equation. But winning on the field counts, too (or at least it should). And to point out that he's won as much as this coach or that to me doesn't cut it. We're playing a weaker schedule than we used to play.

If we do what we should do next year then I suppose all will be right with the universe. Extension or no, if we screw the pooch next year, there had better be some air tight, plausible reasons.

The pressure should have been on him big next year to break it out. All the pieces are in place to do so. An extension reduces that pressure. Also, the message is that if you graduate players, and stay out of trouble, you can collect your $400k/yr until you retire. I think it was a mistake by Dickson.

If we are playing a weaker schedule than we used to, it is only because scholarship limits and other restrictive factors have limited the potential of some teams. But, because parity is an effect of those restraints, it may even be harder for Tulane to be successful. In 1967 Tulane's schedule was filled with patsies such as Miami of Ohio, North Carolina, Miami, Air Force, Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt and Virginia. Tulane should have been able to beat every one of them. The sterner tests on the schedule that year were Florida, Tennessee and LSU. Comparatively speaking, this year's schedule was much more competitive than the 1967. I think Scelfo is doing just fine.