SMU’s June Jones ranked behind Larry Coker and Dan McCarney

[Stallion]

"So, first you win, then you get better recruits, then you play better competition'

Not true-see Larry Brown, see Ron Meyer, see Dave Bliss, see USF, see TCU. see just about every young dynamic Coach that ever took a basement job and turned it around. You build by recruiting.

[sbsmith]

Winning and good records fill up the stadium/generate interest. It is chicken and the egg. We aren't going to beat the better teams until we get better recruits. We aren't going to get better recruits unless we win on a consistent basis. So, first you win, then you get better recruits, then you play better competition.

The AAC is going to be a significantly better conference year in and year out than the MAC, MWC, or any other G5 conference. NO MATTER HOW GOOD WE ARE AS A PROGRAM, we have a much better chance statistically to beat a G5 team non-conference than we do a P5. Sure, beating a P5 team will be great, when it happens, but as we saw this year in recruiting the difference in recruiting between P5 and G5 increased significantly, so it will become even less likely. We have a much higher percentage chance of beating a G5 team, which will not only maintain a perfect record for a chance at the open bid to a major bowl, but it will also establish our conference as better than theirs. Win-win.

The ONLY reason to schedule P5 teams is a money grab. That is it. And I would strongly argue that a better record has a bigger influence on long-term attendance than one game against a P5 team that we logically have a high probability of losing because we are in a lesser conference and have a smaller recruit pool to pull from.

You're right about us not being able to beat the better teams until we get better recruits but the way you get better recruits is to make recruiting a priority. We have the model in place now we just need the HC and staff. No amount of wins against junk is going to attract the type of recruits we need to beat better teams.


A win against junk is a win against junk, doesn't matter how much more likely it is to happen statistically versus a win over a P5 team because it won't do us much good in the new model where SOS matters. Playing junk hurts SOS (which will hurt our chances at the Access Bowl) and attendance and TV ratings which will hurt us in the eyes of recruits. You think it's hard to recruit to SMU now, just schedule an OOC full of junk and try to explain to recruits why you opted out of series against relevant teams to play a bunch of junk they've never heard of before. We already have one series versus a team from a "lesser" conference and that's plenty.


Money is only one of the reasons to play P5 teams. Playing P5 teams also helps improve a program's attendance, recruiting and exposure. 2-3 yearly series versus P5 teams will have a bigger influence on long-term attendance than a record full of wins over junk. Fix the staff and the recruiting pool will get larger and our probability of beating P5 teams will improve.

[WordUpBU]

sbsmith- I disagree that regular series with P5 teams will have a bigger impact than continued wins.

Assume you get TWO P5 teams at home every year (about the maximum you can expect) and they BOTH bring 15k more combined SMU and visitor fans than you'd get otherwise.

30k combined
6 home games

5k attendance spike under ideal conditions

BUT...

If you lose the 3 or 4 P5 games (you have to at least do H&H with one if not two to get them to come to Ford) you can EASILY dampen your own fanbase's enthusiasm to show up by around that much if you lose in disappointing fashion.

Winning 9+ games annually won't give you as early of a spike but it will give you a more durable and lasting one. Both Baylor and TCU are good examples here. The Frogs turned attendance in their favor by winning consistently. Other than maybe 1 game per year against a P5 team (which wasn't always a good one) they grew their fanbase by pounding programs like Wyoming, CSU, UAB, Southern Miss, UNLV, and New Mexico into the ground. The appeal became the strong home team, not the logos on the other helmet.

Baylor is another example. When we sucked it didn't matter how many other teams brought to FCS, our attendance sucked despite playing UT, OU, A&M, Tech, OSU, and Nebraska. Give us a few years of winning and a strong team and our home games last year averaged around 15k more BU fans than they did a when we sucked. Last season we drew almost 46,000 per game with only an average of around 2.6k being visitor fans according to estimates.

You grow your attendance with sustained growth in the win column, not the appeal of the opponent.

[Stallion]

Baylor isn't SMU
K-State is not SMU
SMU has to play a decent schedule to remain relevant in Texas
SMU averaged 18,000 this year-less than 15,000 of their own fans
We don't have UT, OU, OSU, Tech, K-State, West Virginia on our schedule to strengthen our schedule and fill our seats
We don't sellout our season like TCU
Too many people prescribe remedies for SMU based upon what they think they learned from disparate schools
Nobody gives a damn about playing a [deleted] schedule
a healthy percentage of the increase in interest in SMU Basketball was the national profile of the AAC teams we played this year-then we beat their [deleted] and the momentum was rolling-that's what sbsmith is describing

[sbsmith]

sbsmith- I disagree that regular series with P5 teams will have a bigger impact than continued wins.

Assume you get TWO P5 teams at home every year (about the maximum you can expect) and they BOTH bring 15k more combined SMU and visitor fans than you'd get otherwise.

30k combined
6 home games

5k attendance spike under ideal conditions

BUT...

If you lose the 3 or 4 P5 games (you have to at least do H&H with one if not two to get them to come to Ford) you can EASILY dampen your own fanbase's enthusiasm to show up by around that much if you lose in disappointing fashion.

Winning 9+ games annually won't give you as early of a spike but it will give you a more durable and lasting one. Both Baylor and TCU are good examples here. The Frogs turned attendance in their favor by winning consistently. Other than maybe 1 game per year against a P5 team (which wasn't always a good one) they grew their fanbase by pounding programs like Wyoming, CSU, UAB, Southern Miss, UNLV, and New Mexico into the ground. The appeal became the strong home team, not the logos on the other helmet.

Baylor is another example. When we sucked it didn't matter how many other teams brought to FCS, our attendance sucked despite playing UT, OU, A&M, Tech, OSU, and Nebraska. Give us a few years of winning and a strong team and our home games last year averaged around 15k more BU fans than they did a when we sucked. Last season we drew almost 46,000 per game with only an average of around 2.6k being visitor fans according to estimates.

You grow your attendance with sustained growth in the win column, not the appeal of the opponent.

The Frogs turned attendance by recruiting better (you've all seen Stallion's figures on their recruiting) without that none of the winning would have occurred. There's too much talk of weakening the schedule with no regard to how improving recruiting can help you beat better teams. Improve recruiting and there won't be any need to run from legit competition.

[Big12Mustang]

No matter how hard we recruit, we will end up with the same kind of quality we have now if we win 6-7 games. Kids want to go to winning programs. 10+ wins is impressive. Northern Illinois plays nobodies all year and they end up ranked and in BCS bowls, so that BS about SOS matters not-we are in G5 so we will never go to the Playoff (only reason for a strong schedule).

It's about the home team, not the visiting team and that is the problem with SMU fans in football...we make it about who comes to our house to play. Next year the AAC will suck in basketball but fans are excited because of OUR team, not Cincy or Memphis or whoever comes and play. The NIT proved that we overcame the mentality of having "quality" opponents play you to sell out. We sold out with Cal, LSU and UC Irvine, in other words schools no one cares about in basketball, yet we packed our house solidly. And next year our fans and future local fans are coming to watch our team because it is great.

We need to change up our schedule ASAP. Pay off BU since we gain nothing at this moment and focus on building our program. (I care not for your whining about "June had 6 years to build it up.." Bullcrap)
Schedule TCU, UNT and 2 local programs from TX. 1 FCS like Stephen F Austin and 1 FBS like Texas State or UTSA.

Guarantee a 3-1 every year and we come into the AAC with confidence. Not beaten down on a 0-4 schedule hoping to win 6 games to go bowling...

[Big12Mustang]

And don't start with the "we only brought 30k fans in the pony express" bs, because we only had from 1979-1986 of a winning program. If the program kept winning consistently, we would have had packed houses in the '90s and probably built a stadium where Ford is after a Nat Champ win. And by the way take a look at our OOC in the SWC during pony express...we played North Texas State, UTA and UTEP so the let's play a strong OOC is crap!

[mrydel]

It is absolutely embarrassing to listen to people afraid to play big boy football. Recruit players and we can compete. We barely edged Montana State last year. That is a game you win by 30 if you want to draw fans. The problem is not the opponent. The problem us our product.

[Big12Mustang]

It is absolutely embarrassing to listen to people afraid to play big boy football. Recruit players and we can compete. We barely edged Montana State last year. That is a game you win by 30 if you want to draw fans. The problem is not the opponent. The problem us our product.

It's not being afraid to play big boy football, it's that big boy football is in a different league with unlimited resources and prestige to take into the recruiting trail. The best G5 schools do not recruit better than the bottom tier of Big 12 and in the field I can guarantee Kansas, Iowa State, West Virginia or TCU would roll over most of the AAC.

The only way we can recruit better is if we start making splashes and winning 10 games or more per season. We did it in Basketball this year. We played no one OOC and then came into conference with a boost.

[Lebanese4Life]

Listen FTHP - you are wrong in thinking that we need to win 10+ games to recruit. You can recruit 3-star players by selling the school, facilities, coaches, program. We're not asking for 4 and 5 star players with offers from Alabama, Texas, Florida, etc. Based on our situation we should be recruiting against the low tier P5 schools, but our coaching staff doesn't want to put forth the effort.

[Big12Mustang]

Listen FTHP - you are wrong in thinking that we need to win 10+ games to recruit. You can recruit 3-star players by selling the school, facilities, coaches, program. We're not asking for 4 and 5 star players with offers from Alabama, Texas, Florida, etc. Based on our situation we should be recruiting against the low tier P5 schools, but our coaching staff doesn't want to put forth the effort.

Stop it with the FTHP bull crap.

Recruiting and winning have to happen simultaneously. We need to coach up what we have and upgrade with new talent.

[PlanoStang]

...to be honest there was only one way to go when he took over.. up

Then why couldn't anybody do it in the two decades before him? They didn't take us up, they took us sideways through the gutter. It's really ok to give JJ credit.

I'm curious. How long have you been paying attention to SMU football? No disrespect. Just a question.

SMU did not have a Football team from 1989-2008. Recruiting did not exist and coaching was horrible. We are complaining about going 5-7 after several 7-8 win seasons. 5-7 used to be the "best years" between 1989-2008. My how far we've come.

I am giving June a chance since he won't be out this next year. If he gets his [Deleted] together and recruits the heck out of DFW and gets us 9 wins, I will want him to stay and improve. If we go 6-6 or less, and our recruiting is horrible, then I WANT HIM GONE.

From 1987 - 1996 recruiting, and coaching DID exist at SMU. Under NFL caliber coaches we did get 1 or 2 of the state top 100 recruits per year in that period Forrest Gregg, and Tom Rossley were great coaches. Gregg was relegated to AD under that major college athletics hater, Pye. Then, successor Rossley got canned under new AD DOHPEY who under pre internet ponyjerks LYNCH MOB pressure decided to shake things up.

After 2 disasters at head coach Cavan, and Bennett 18-52, we hire a NFL caliber, and proven college coach who improves things by a GREAT margin Then ponyjerks get impatient with the progress, and want to roll dice probably ending up with a Bennett look alike

IDIOCY

[Big12Mustang]

[quote="Lebanese4Life"]...to be honest there was only one way to go when he took over.. up

Then why couldn't anybody do it in the two decades before him? They didn't take us up, they took us sideways through the gutter. It's really ok to give JJ credit.

I'm curious. How long have you been paying attention to SMU football? No disrespect. Just a question.

SMU did not have a Football team from 1989-2008. Recruiting did not exist and coaching was horrible. We are complaining about going 5-7 after several 7-8 win seasons. 5-7 used to be the "best years" between 1989-2008. My how far we've come.

I am giving June a chance since he won't be out this next year. If he gets his [Deleted] together and recruits the heck out of DFW and gets us 9 wins, I will want him to stay and improve. If we go 6-6 or less, and our recruiting is horrible, then I WANT HIM GONE.

From 1987 - 1996 recruiting, and coaching DID exist at SMU. Under NFL caliber coaches we did get 1 or 2 of the state top 100 recruits per year in that period Forrest Gregg, and Tom Rossley were great coaches. Gregg was relegated to AD under that major college athletics hater, Pye. Then, successor Rossley got canned under new AD DOHPEY who under pre internet ponyjerks LYNCH MOB pressure decided to shake things up.

After 2 disasters at head coach Cavan, and Bennett 18-52, we hire a NFL caliber, and proven college coach who improves things by a GREAT margin Then ponyjerks get impatient with the progress, and want to roll dice probably ending up with a Bennett look alike

IDIOCY [/quote

And from 1987 to 1996 we were still in SWC, so you could argue the crappy record had to do with us playing UT and Aggy every year.

[JasonB]

The comparison to basketball flat out does not stack up. It doesn't come close.

In basketball we have a Hall of Fame head coach. We also have the highest paid assistant coach in the country. And we have rock star assistants and front office staff below that. The coaching is on a completely different level. We are spending money on the assistant coaching staff in basketball that we are not in football.

We were also able to recruit under an expectation that we were going into the Big East. Even after the Big East fell apart, the AAC was regarded as a very good conference with storied teams. Honestly, the AAC in basketball is probably better regarded than the SWC was in football when the league fell apart.

When TCU started recovering, they recruited better than they had been. But the databases on Scout and Rivals don't go back prior to 2002. They got massive, massive benefits from bringing in non-qualifiers like LT. The game was different then. Houston did the same thing.

I am NOT saying that recruiting doesn't matter, because it does. The TCU staff went out and formed great relationships across Texas, and they got the "next best player" at every school - the players the big schools weren't looking at, but that didn't want to play at lesser schools in big conferences. That is what built their program (along with the non-qualifiers). I am absolutely NOT reducing the impact that had.

But I am ALSO saying that TCU didn't start out with multiple hard non-conference games. When they played BCS schools, it was often Northwestern or Vandy, both of which were awful at the time. They ended up playing Oklahoma a couple of times after they got on a run, but they never scheduled Texas or A&M until 2007.

From a SOS perspective, I am not saying to play the sisters of the poor every weekend. I am saying you schedule Northern Illinois, Boise, Nevada, Fresno. Traditionally decent teams in the lower conferences. If you beat teams in those conferences and run the table in the AAC, you get the bid.

As long as we are not in a major conference, we are not going to be able to recruit the DEPTH to compete weekly with those larger conferences. That is why Boise and TCU didn't schedule a lot of hard games. They got to the point where they could compete in an occasional game, but they new they didn't have the depth to compete every week. That is why TCU is getting their [deleted] kicked now that they actually made it into a major conference.

The ONLY benefit of scheduling up in 3 of 4 non-conference games is money. That is IT. We aren't in the SWC anymore. TCU realized that. Houston realized that.

You want a chance at that major bowl game? Winning your conference along with beating teams in the MAC, WAC, MWC. That is what gets you there. Playing a game against even one team in the P5 doesn't do you as much good.

[Big12Mustang]

The comparison to basketball flat out does not stack up. It doesn't come close.

In basketball we have a Hall of Fame head coach. We also have the highest paid assistant coach in the country. And we have rock star assistants and front office staff below that. The coaching is on a completely different level. We are spending money on the assistant coaching staff in basketball that we are not in football.

We were also able to recruit under an expectation that we were going into the Big East. Even after the Big East fell apart, the AAC was regarded as a very good conference with storied teams. Honestly, the AAC in basketball is probably better regarded than the SWC was in football when the league fell apart.

When TCU started recovering, they recruited better than they had been. But the databases on Scout and Rivals don't go back prior to 2002. They got massive, massive benefits from bringing in non-qualifiers like LT. The game was different then. Houston did the same thing.

I am NOT saying that recruiting doesn't matter, because it does. The TCU staff went out and formed great relationships across Texas, and they got the "next best player" at every school - the players the big schools weren't looking at, but that didn't want to play at lesser schools in big conferences. That is what built their program (along with the non-qualifiers). I am absolutely NOT reducing the impact that had.

But I am ALSO saying that TCU didn't start out with multiple hard non-conference games. When they played BCS schools, it was often Northwestern or Vandy, both of which were awful at the time. They ended up playing Oklahoma a couple of times after they got on a run, but they never scheduled Texas or A&M until 2007.

From a SOS perspective, I am not saying to play the sisters of the poor every weekend. I am saying you schedule Northern Illinois, Boise, Nevada, Fresno. Traditionally decent teams in the lower conferences. If you beat teams in those conferences and run the table in the AAC, you get the bid.

As long as we are not in a major conference, we are not going to be able to recruit the DEPTH to compete weekly with those larger conferences. That is why Boise and TCU didn't schedule a lot of hard games. They got to the point where they could compete in an occasional game, but they new they didn't have the depth to compete every week. That is why TCU is getting their [deleted] kicked now that they actually made it into a major conference.

The ONLY benefit of scheduling up in 3 of 4 non-conference games is money. That is IT. We aren't in the SWC anymore. TCU realized that. Houston realized that.

You want a chance at that major bowl game? Winning your conference along with beating teams in the MAC, WAC, MWC. That is what gets you there. Playing a game against even one team in the P5 doesn't do you as much good.

THIS