PonyFans.com

If Dement had dared to schedule Montana State, Arkansas Pine Bluff and UT-Tyler, he would have caught all kinds of hell. His replacement does it, and everyone apparently thinks it's just peachy. Why the double standard?

I am not going to bother looking it up but I am pretty sure he scheduled pansies his 1st couple of years too. That combo does not excite me and equals empty seats. Some have said UT-Tyler was scheduled b/c there is no Bhop the 1st game due to suspension.

I believe Dement scheduled Ark Pine Bluff as well.

People pay attention to record, regardless of opponent. Take a look at the noteriety Tulsa got last year in football even though they never beat a decent team the entire year. Think about how much better off SMU football would be this year in recruiting as well as public support if we were 4-3 instead of 1-6? Regardless of whom we had beaten?

With the current schedule, SMU will most likely end non-conference 5-3. That gets us a lot closer to being in post-season play and getting better recruits than getting hammered by several good teams and entering conference play with a losing record.

We've had Navy, San Diego, among others that are hardly world beaters of late. I think Copeland signed the Wake deal for the possible television coverage of a game with a perennial top 15 team. 5-3 non conference with 18 conference games and up to four tournament games, gives us a really good chance to reach 20 wins.

JasonB wrote:That gets us a lot closer to being in post-season play and getting better recruits than getting hammered by several good teams and entering conference play with a losing record.

SOS has a big impact on RPI, although so does winning percentage. But that's why a 16-14 ACC team beats out a 21-9 WAC team on the bubble. Also, recruits like to be told things like "We'll be playing Wake Forest at home next year on national TV" and "You'll get to show off for scouts against Tennessee" and "How would you like to match up against Chris Paul?"

While I personally would rather see us play Wake in a normal year, with them ranked 1st in pre-season polls and SMU having a new coach and a lot of newcomers on the team, I don't think playing Wake would have done anyone any good this year. We do have Texas Tech, OSU, TCU, and Baylor on the schedule, so having a few nobodies on the schedule is fine --- as long as we beat them!!!

head coaches get to make their own schdules...including Tubbs (with the help of Carlton Cooper, assoc. A D)

Maybe Tubbs owes the Montana State coach a favor. I would think though that the AD must have some imput into the scheduling. I still think the Wake football series coming up is pay back for the basketball series.

You might get an occasional recruit by saying that we are going to play Wake, but most recruits want to win. Period. If we go 21-6, but don't make the NIT or NCAA for some reason, at least we can turn around to recruits and say that we are on the rise. And we get pub because we will be listed as a bubble team and Dickie V will compain about us making the field or not making it. If we play a tough schedule and go 15-15, it doesn't grab anyone's attention.

[quote="Pony_Fan"]I am not going to bother looking it up but I am pretty sure he scheduled pansies his 1st couple of years too. ]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Dement did schedule pushovers the "first couple of years." He might have, but that's not the point. You cannot compare the basketball program Dement inherited from Shumate --it was in shambles -- to the program Tubbs has inherited from Dement.
Dement could have made a convincing argument for padding the non-conference schedule with Division I-AA sparring partners, Tubbs cannot.
Also, I do not believe you can find any season in Dement's last five, six or seven, when SMU played three teams of the caliber of Montana State, Arkansas-Pine Bluff and UT-Tyler.

And, to reiterate, if Dement had done that, he would have been roundly and loudly criticized. But, if the responses to my original post represent the prevailing opinion, I now understand why Tubbs is not catching any flak. Some think the number of wins is all that matters and that Strength of Schedule is a maritime distress call, while others are willing to cut Tubbs the slack they refused to cut for Dement.

[quote="QuietManDisciple"]
Also, I do not believe you can find any season in Dement's last five, six or seven, when SMU played three teams of the caliber of Montana State, Arkansas-Pine Bluff and UT-Tyler.

And, to reiterate, if Dement had done that, he would have been roundly and loudly criticized. But, if the responses to my original post represent the prevailing opinion, I now understand why Tubbs is not catching any flak. Some think the number of wins is all that matters and that Strength of Schedule is a maritime distress call, while others are willing to cut Tubbs the slack they refused to cut for Dement.[/quote]

Actually, no one said a word Dements first year when he scheduled Hardin Simmons, McMurry, and Penn. No one said anything when he added Prairie View the year after that. But after 5 years and a steady diet of Stony Brook, Savannah State, Pine Bluff, Harvard, Yale, Hardin-Simmons, Prairie View, and every team Mike could find at the bottom of the RPI, people did start to question the wisdom of this approach.

Mike Dement was a big proponent of JasonB's theory, he wanted guaranteed wins in his non-conference games to make hs final record look good. He thought that was the way to draw fans. Unfortunately, it blew up in his face.

Grab a copy of the media guide, and look at the schedules from the years you're talking about, before you say anything else. Its kind of obvious that you havent. Here's a small sample, in the 1999-2000 season the SMU fandom were treated to home games against Hardin-Simmons, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Maryland-Eastern Shore, Stony Brook, Southeast Louisiana, and Navy. That was fairly typical of the schedules from 97-2000.

My personal feeling is that this years schedule is a little too soft. It wasnt neccessary to step all the way down to UT-Tyler, any of the the lower D-1 schools in Texas (southland conference) would have provided a beatable first game opponent, drawn more fans, and been better for the RPI. And I have no idea why we are playing Montana State, again any southland conference team could have filled that spot. The rest of the schedule seems fine though, TCU and Baylor should be better this year, Tech will be tough in Lubbock, and OSU is a Final Four contender. I might have liked to have seen one more strong team on the schedule to help our RPI, but I also think the WAC will finish with 5-6 teams in the top-100 of the RPI, so there will be decent SOS, there.

Between the "SMU fans are the worst I've seen in my career" and the heat that The Leech caught for his act in September, I'm sure our boys will get one hell of a reception when they go to Lubbock. Winning that would be awesome, but I bet TT pulls out all the stops to win, and maybe to win big.

The basis for my opinion is that you don't know what you're talking about. We've always had a few low hanging fruit type teams on the schedule, along with some high caliber teams, just like we do this year (and just like about every other team in the country does). There is no "double standard" because the scheduling is not much different from Dement's years. More importantly, in the past, we've had 2 exhibition games to warm up the team in game situations. With the rule change we can't do that anymore, so it's important to have some "warm up" type games without risking a loss. A strong strength of schedule is absolutely meaningless to an 18-15 WAC team. To the so-called mid-major, SOS means nothing if you lose. SOS only means something to a 16-14 Georgia who gets in over a 1,2, or 3 loss "mid-major."

Even if you exclude the like of San Diego, App State, and Oral Roberts because we've actually occasionally struggled against them our past schedules under Dement have included plenty of marginally Div. IA and lower teams.

2003-04
UT- Pan American PLUS EA Sports and Inter-Hoop


2002-03
North Texas and Gardner-Webb PLUS EA Sports and Slovakia

2001-02
Savannah State, LaSalle, North Texas PLUS EA Sports and Czech Select

2000-01
Lamar, Ark Pine Bluff, Puerto Rico-Mayaguez PLUS Sports Tours and Athletes First

1999-2000
Hardin Simmons, Lamar, Ark Pine Bluff PLUS MBK Odessa and Global Sports

You know "exhibition games" never counted, so why include them? To make Dement's schedules look softer than they actually were?

Excluding the exhibitions, you are left with 2003-04/ UT-Pan Am; 2002-03/North Texas & Gardner-Webb; and 2001-02/North Texas, LaSalle & Savannah State. Even the weakest trio (Hardin-Simmons, Lamar & Arkansas-Pine Bluff in 1999-2000) is stronger than Tubbs' three this season.

And you know better than to equate UT-Tyler, Montana State and Arkansas-Pine Bluff with San Diego, Appalachia State and Oral Roberts. That's just plain silly.

This entire thread is just plain silly. Who cares if UT-Tyler, Montana St. and Ark PB are easier games than App St., San Diego and Oral Roberts. We are playing a legit top 10 team in OK St., at TT, Baylor and TCU. What is so easy about that?? BTW, if things continue, Baylor will be one of the most improved programs in the country in the very near future. Drew is bringing in elite national players and getting things in place, big-time in Waco.