ecu adds teams, will SMU?

[SMU Football Blog]

With all due respect sir, I don't believe you have reviewed the historical schedules of other programs like I have. IMO, I would say that "whole schedule of patsies" applies to just about every non-BCS conference team, with the possible exception of the Mountain West. Yet time and time again, if you review the schedules of those teams you will still find that the ones that are successful are scheduling more "patsies".

N. Illinois, 0-11 in 1997, began scheduling a I-AA team every year early in the season, then went 2-9, 5-6 and have been above-.500 ever since.

After going 1-10 in 1997, Coach Fran and TCU ditched OU and entered into a 2 year deal with Arkansas State beginning in 1999.

Do you want me to continue? I am not trying to antagonize anybody. I am just pointing out examples.

And again, Copeland was scheduling tough teams not because they were tough, but because they can fill the stadium. The faculty, which still wields a stupid amount of power over such things, moans and groans on the deficit constantly. Scheduling Texas Tech, OSU and A&M was and still is about $$$. And that is why ECU is scheduling the teams it is.

[EastStang]

You guys ever so conveniently forget that until this year we had to worry about the potential of the 15,000 Butts in Seats rule. With the WAC schedule, we had to rent fans from TT and OSU. I have no argument that Copeland will have to answer for his "hires" despite the fact that Committees including Turner, Ford and Hunt helped in those decisions. The jury is out on Bennett and Tubbs (although we had few legitimate candidates knocking down the door for our football coaching vacancy after Cavan). I do agree with Old Pony, when you play most of your games against Marshall, ECU, UAB, Rice, Tulane, UH, UTEP and Tulsa, its not like we're playing top 10 teams in that portion of the schedule. We can't even run the table on those teams, how much weaker strength of schedule do you want? In 2006, we get SHS, Arkansas State and North Texas. I hope you Tastycake fans are happy with that schedule. Those games would not entice me to buy a plane ticket to Dallas.

[SMU Football Blog]

Sometime tonight, I will post my research on the schedules of 2004-05 bowl teams on my blog. I have the nonconference schedules of every bowl team for the past three years. Leaving the BCS schools out of this for the moment, every non-bcs school that went to a bowl regularly schedules Non-IA teams or Sunbelt teams.

There is one exception and that is Louisville. Even Louisville makes a point of scheduling Temple* and they have scheduled Florida Atlantic for 2005.

*Temple has the lowest winning percentage of any BCS school over the past 20 years and it isn't even close, barely winning 1 out of 5 contests. Over the past 10 years, they are the second worst team in Div. 1A. Now removed to the MAC for a lack of competitiveness.

[Eddie P]

Old Pony,

You decry the scheduling of "winnable games" for this year and next and demand games that "challenge" our teams...obstensibly, games against superior competition. What do you think has been going on for the past few years? Have you liked the results Tech, Ok st, etc? At least be consistent. And you seem to think an AD listening to his head football coach is a bad thing?? Please. Things haven't been rosy over here for a few decades but summoning the lynch mob for Copeland will not improve this program. Get over it, please.

[SMU Football Blog]

Old Pony,

You decry the scheduling of "winnable games" for this year and next and demand games that "challenge" our teams...

Take a look at my blog and let me know if you want to keep arguing this point.

[Eddie P]

Whether I look at your blog or not will not influence whether I keep "arguing" on ponyfans.com.

I do like it, however.

[BUTitan]

What will the crowd be like for our game? Some are saying its gonna be our first home game away from home since UNT in 2000. We have plenty of OU,UT,A&M home games @ FCS, but not to many that go in our favor.

[OldPony]

The reason we have had losing seasons has had little to do with scheduling decent competition. If it were, why can't we beat Navy in the first game of the season. We are losing because we have footabll players who can't compete physically and a coach who is determined to run the ball when he is physically outmatched. When we have played inspired ball, it has been against better competition (see TCU, TT, Baylor). I'm not saying that we have to schedule OU but ARk St? Copeland has had forever to get something done. Apologize for him all you want. When we go 6-5 and beat the worst 6 teams in football, be happy. Blog all you want. We play Rice, Tulsa, Houston every year now. We need a game or 2 against bowl teams. After all that is only top 60. If you consider those big dogs, you can;t be helped. If you can't run with those big dogs, stay off the porch.

[SMU Football Blog]

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never apoligized for Copeland, nor do I intend to.

To be fair, this year we play four bowl teams. Next year, that number will probably be four again, possibly five.

I don't disagree that our team has been pretty much outmatched by better talent. I can't explain the Navy game; I can't explain the 2-4 record against Navy post-DP, it is ridiculous. The Rice record is even more ridiculous.

We do from time to time rise up against superior competition. But face facts, that is only from time to time. We played Tech close last year and followed that up with back to back losses to TCU and OSU by a combined 96 points.

I do think that the team's confidence gets shelled after our nonconference schedule, which is largely so tough because we haven't been able to keep up with TCU's improvement, which is our own damn fault. I really do believe we would have won at least a game in 2003 if the team had any confidence left-the Rice game comes to mind.

I stand by my post on the schedule on the blog . There is very little opinion in it and heck of a lot of facts that took a lot of time to put together. What it shows is that every team in our situation schedules the Arkansas States of the world. I think we should to. Ideally, we schedule the way others have suggested- 1 gimme; 1 challenge; and one game that is even money.

The whole point of the blog is to point out what does and doesn't work; praise what is done well and chastise what fails. I am not pretending to have all the answers; I don't even pretend to suggest I am the best person for the job. But I am sick of doing nothing and this is one thing I can do.

Apparently some people care, the number of hits on the site is climbing, which is all I can hope for. If you ever disagree, agree, think of something I should say or shouldn't have said, by all means let me know. You can add a coment on the site; e-mail me; post something here. If you want to write something for the blog, I will put it up there and give you credit.

[EastStang]

Every team will play 3-4 bowl teams per year. Northwestern just by playing a Big X schedule plays about 5. Every BCS team plays patsies each year including by the way, our beloved SMU. Yes, we played a double home and home against OSU and got pasted. The same OSU that beat OU 2-3 years. We shouldn't get pasted by TCU. We used to beat them regularly like for 21 straight years (you can look it up). That changed after the death penalty and the self-imposed post death penalty restrictions. TCU is now a decent program, but it is not a game that we should look at as a game that is an example of overscheduling. We have played them every year for 80+ years and they now hold the series lead by 2 games. Baylor is a team we should beat and will give us some skins. Navy, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, UNC, Wake Forest are all teams we should be able to beat and wins against them will build confidence and stretch our team to play better. After last year's TCU and OSU shellings, we came back to beat San Jose State and played a very good competitive game at the Smurf Field in Boise against one of the top non-BCS teams. By the way Boise last year, played one bad team, but also played two Pac 10 teams. Fresno had a patsy, but also played at Tennessee (a place I would never want to play as the visitor). UNT played Baylor and I think either UT or A&M. Be honest in your blog and show the BCS teams non-BCS teams played and you'd see what I have always said is the ideal non-BCS schedule, one patsy, one competitive and one money game. This year's SMU schedule doesn't have a patsy but has two competitive (meaning winable games) and one money game. We are no longer constrained by the 15,000 attendance rule and Copeland has adjusted his schedule accordingly. Remember football schedules are made years in advance. And by the way the way that non-BCS teams make money in this BCS dominated world is to take their money for playing them.

[OldPony]

Well stated East. To claim that Fresno plays easy OOC to get to the bowls is a little self serving blogger. FSU will play the big dogs anytime, anywhere. They started last year by going to K St and kicking their teeth in. One easy, one winnable and one challenge. EastStang-You are correct as to how an OOC should be put together.

[SMU Football Blog]

"Be honest?" Puh-lease. There is not one inaccurate statement on the blog. Period. The statement was repeatedly made that we should not ever schedule these teams. We had a in-conference schedule "full of patsies" so it was unnecessary. I refuted that by pointing out that EVERY SINGLE NON-BCS TEAM THAT WENT TO A BOWL FROM 2002-2004 DID SCHEDULE AT LEAST ONE SUCH GAME. I did not suggest that these schools were not scheduling other teams, and I think it obvious considering every school has to have three nonconference games.

You want to talk about Fresno State? They play an in-conference schedule full of patsies, too. And yes, they schedule at least one really good team every year. And they schedule Portland State, too. There ain't no difference between a Portland State and an Arkansas State. For whatever reason, some people think what is good enough for Fresno State and every other successful team that isn't BCS is not good enough for SMU.

That is my point. I make it in every post on the subject. I am remarkably consistent. Do not infer that I am saying something I have never said.

The current 2006 schedule is:

9/2 Sat @ Texas Tech
9/9 Sat @ North Texas
9/23 Sat vs. Arkansas State

Obviously, there is another game in there to schedule. But right now, what is wrong with that? Two nonconference bowl teams. One that is in and out of the top 25 every year. And a spare sunbelt team. I don't have a problem with that.

I would have a bigger problem if we scheduled Notre Dame in South Bend so that we could pick up a big check to wipe out a big chunk of the deficit to appease the faculty. I have a bigger problem with scheduling for financial reasons and renting fans than I do with scheduling teams to beat up on.

Don't accuse me of playing fast and loose with the truth. It is not accurate and it is not fair.

[OldPony]

Blogger- you lose credibility when you say that Fresno St plays a whole conference full of patsies. Who on SMU's in conference schedule is as good as BSU, Hawaii? For that matter Nevada would look good in our division of CUSA.

[SMU Football Blog]

Huh?

2004 strength of schedule
SMU=78
Fresno State=93

I don't know if you have noticed, but you are the one that keeps bringing up Fresno State. The statement "schedule full of patsies" was (i) taken from you; and (ii) was generically used by me to refer to every team in a non BCS conference. I am not trying to make a point about Fresno State. I assure you, I could care less about Fresno State. I am sure that when the WAC added Utah State and others, Fresno could have dumped Weber State for 2005, but they chose not to.

Though to further the discussion, I believe UAB, Southern Mississippi and UTEP match favorably against Boise and Hawaii.

Nevada, by the way, I will not miss the Nevada Wolfpack one bit. Maybe you mentioned them because they had five wins, but I will point out their two biggest victories of the year were against Sacremento State (IAA) and Buffalo (one of the three worst IA programs historically). Ya see, outsiders remember the record, not who you beat. It is difficult to find rankings of teams that far down, but according to Sagarin, Nevada was ranked lower than every team in C-USA West, except SMU who happened to beat Nevada. According to collegefootballnews.com, in 2004, they were worse than every C-USA West team save Tulsa. But no matter, though I can't gamble in Reno for roadtrips, I can gamble in New Orleans. Nevada is a bad example.

[EastStang]

I started in 1997 and looked at our OOC schedule for historically weak teams.
1997 - Navy, Ole Miss
1998 -Tulane, Navy, Ole Miss (however Tulane ended up 12-0 that year)
1999- Tulane, Cal State Northridge
2000- Tulane, Kansas
2001- UNC (finished last in ACC two years earlier)
2002- Navy
2003- Baylor
2004 none

Historically, those were teams we should beat. Baylor was terrible when we played them, yet we lost. Navy was coming off a winless season in 2002, yet we lost. We beat Kansas. UNC ended up bowl eligible that year because they beat us (and almost lost). Note, I suspect that the UNC and NC State series were solely Copeland ideas from his days at U Va. I'm sure the ACC AD's were all drinking buddies of his. Ole Miss was at the bottom of the SEC until the Manning years. Last year was the anomoly and if you read the papers you would know that we tried to get out of the OSU game, but would have had to pay a penalty to $500,000 to do that, and simply couldn't get out of that. Also in 2001, you would realize that the Division 1 committee added the 15,000 average butts in seats rule which was suspended on several occasions. Given that rule, and given that schedules are made years in advance, we had to rent fans or potentially be shipped down to 1-AA. I suspect that in the future, we will try to have more balance in winnable games and one test (money) game. The real fact is that we were the cupcake for everyone at that time. We flat out stunk. I went to the NC State game in Raleigh (the fourth best team in the ACC that year) and we looked like a bad high school team. McCown was sacked about a dozen times and we had two punts blocked. OSU and TT finished third and fourth in the Big XII South. Yet OSU demolished us and we played pretty close to a TT team that hung 70 on Nebraska and TCU. TCU had a losing record last year and was embarrassed by Tech. The fact is that we have just not been very good. And no change in scheduling would make us any better. I suspect that if we had scheduled three Sunbelt teams we would have lost two of those games last year and really been demoralized. Imagine if we had scheduled Troy State last year and UNT instead of OSU and TT. We still would have probably had two losses.