PonyFans.com

So here's a question. . .just popped into my head. For non-conference, we seem to be favoring putting one FCS school on the schedule most years. Why not just go with Rice? Seems to me they might actually be an easier game than some of these FCS schools, we have tradition (mayor's cup), and it would get us some more exposure to Houston recruits. I understand we already have some exposure with the UH game. But a non-conf slate of TCU, UNT, Rice, and maybe Baylor every year would be pretty decent from a tradition and travel perspective.

Is there a reason we bailed on the Rice game? Is it because we want an extra home game every year (instead of every other year)? Just curious.

Prepare to hear "Rice is too tough"

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:

Is it because we want an extra home game every year (instead of every other year)? Just curious.

Yes, plus random FCS team draws about as much as Rice and those teams are generally easier to beat (we've been weakening the OOC schedule for the 6 Wins Minimum people).

sbsmith wrote:

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:

Is it because we want an extra home game every year (instead of every other year)? Just curious.

Yes, plus random FCS team draws about as much as Rice and those teams are generally easier to beat (we've been weakening the OOC schedule for the 6 Wins Minimum people).

OK, makes sense. Although I'll say that if "weakening the OOC schedule" is the motivation for scheduling FCS teams, we haven't done a great job of it so far. Montana State was hairball, and we lost to JMU. I know a lot of that was because of our own issues, but both those teams looked pretty legit. Hopefully Liberty will be a little more digestable.

I more expected to hear how difficult it is to get rich Dallas kids and rich Houston kids to drive 4 hours to a game against each other.

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:
OK, makes sense. Although I'll say that if "weakening the OOC schedule" is the motivation for scheduling FCS teams, we haven't done a great job of it so far. Montana State was hairball, and we lost to JMU. I know a lot of that was because of our own issues, but both those teams looked pretty legit. Hopefully Liberty will be a little more digestable.

We were supposed to play Alabama State this year but they backed out. Liberty won't be as good as JMU or Montana State but they won't be a pushover either.

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:So here's a question. . .just popped into my head. For non-conference, we seem to be favoring putting one FCS school on the schedule most years. Why not just go with Rice? Seems to me they might actually be an easier game than some of these FCS schools, we have tradition (mayor's cup), and it would get us some more exposure to Houston recruits. I understand we already have some exposure with the UH game. But a non-conf slate of TCU, UNT, Rice, and maybe Baylor every year would be pretty decent from a tradition and travel perspective.

Is there a reason we bailed on the Rice game? Is it because we want an extra home game every year (instead of every other year)? Just curious.

I think thats a terrific idea and plus the SoS might get ticked up with no FCS on the schedule. Also, if we lost to Rice sounds so much better in the water-cooler arena than SMU lost to FCS school...

FCS teams are generally scheduled when you have a hole to fill...because you aren't going to do a home/home deal with them. Rice would want a home/home and their attendance is as bad as ours so it is not an attractive series financially.

Charleston Pony wrote:FCS teams are generally scheduled when you have a hole to fill...because you aren't going to do a home/home deal with them. Rice would want a home/home and their attendance is as bad as ours so it is not an attractive series financially.

I would think it is better than paying for a FCS loss. SMU shelled out, what, $450k plus lodging?

HarvCrimYaleBlue wrote:

Charleston Pony wrote:FCS teams are generally scheduled when you have a hole to fill...because you aren't going to do a home/home deal with them. Rice would want a home/home and their attendance is as bad as ours so it is not an attractive series financially.

I would think it is better than paying for a FCS loss. SMU shelled out, what, $450k plus lodging?

I wonder what the revenues were for the JMU game. With our attendance, I can't imagine we are raking it in. It makes me wonder how it works for us when we pay another team several hundred thousand dollars to come play in our house. For a UT or A&M, who is raking in millions at the gate for every home game, I get it.

I guess if you factor in revenue from the Blvd. it might look better.

Get a 2 for 1...2 trips to Dallas 1 to Houston.

Here is my Non-Conference Schedule over a 10 year period:

Rivalry - 10 games
TCU

Old SWC - 8 games
Baylor 4, Tech 2, Rice 2

Easy - 12 games
NTSU 6, SFA/Ark St/UTEP 6

Respect - 10 games
Virginia, Purdue, Minnesota, Kansas, Pitt, Colorado

Haha. Arkie State would kick our butt right now. I would not list them as easy. They have built better than us with a different coach every year. They finally have one that stayed 2 years and he has a good program being built. They are limited by location but that makes what they are doing even more impressive.

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote:

HarvCrimYaleBlue wrote:

Charleston Pony wrote:FCS teams are generally scheduled when you have a hole to fill...because you aren't going to do a home/home deal with them. Rice would want a home/home and their attendance is as bad as ours so it is not an attractive series financially.

I would think it is better than paying for a FCS loss. SMU shelled out, what, $450k plus lodging?

I wonder what the revenues were for the JMU game. With our attendance, I can't imagine we are raking it in. It makes me wonder how it works for us when we pay another team several hundred thousand dollars to come play in our house. For a UT or A&M, who is raking in millions at the gate for every home game, I get it.

I guess if you factor in revenue from the Blvd. it might look better.

We reportedly paid JMU $425,000 plus travel costs, and sold 22K tickets. Add to the cost the lost attendance over the remaining games. ECU the next week had only 17K for a more recognizable, conference opponent. We had only 18K for family weekend against Tulsa.

I hope we can continue playing TCU every year and like the idea of playing another former SWC mate as well. Baylor and Tech have given us home/home deals and you know Rice would as well. The question is whether A&M or Arkansas might do the same because I really don't like taking on "road warrior paycheck games) but until we can attract 30k of our own fans no matter who we play, that's probably something we will need to consider.

Rather than categorizing any game as easy, I do like the idea of playing another "regional" FBS opponent and that could be UNT, UTEP, Ark St, La Tech, TX St or UTSA because we can schedule home/home series with those schools. We should only have to schedule FCS games with SFA and other Southland Conference schools in years where we have to offset those "big" trips like the one to Michigan. I do think it is important to get a nice paycheck and to have an opportunity to knock off a "Goliath" once in a while. I personally hope Morris stays a long time and builds a strong program that someday comes to play at Clemson or South Carolina in one of those years.

As for playing other P5 programs on a regular basis, I would target programs that don't draw 50k plus for home games because they are more likely to be willing to give us home/home deals. That might include programs like Northwestern, Indiana, Wake Forest, Boston College, Duke, Vanderbilt, etc...