SMU Football does not have a bright future

[mrydel]

I think we do. The problem is they are low when we schedule and high when we play. We cannot schedule the traditionally low P5s because they are being scheduled by the higher pecking order. And then our cupcake status leaves us ripe for the big guys to come calling on us.

[PerunasHoof]

Why not schedule low P5s and hope they don't Baylor it?

Instead of TCU and Baylor or in addition to?

[SMU Football Blog]

My only argument with you blog is that we schedule 4 or 5 years in advance. Should we not hope for some improvement in 5 years? If we had progressed under Jones in a manner that it looks like we can under Morris, we should have been competitive in all our games this year. This years schedule was built to put us in a P5 bowl game. This years team was built for Division 2 football. I think the scheduling was fine, the coaching was not up to speed. If we could schedule one year out we could work out way up, but we have wandered in the wilderness so long we are in a bind on scheduling. We are the cupcake until Morris can turn it around.

First, I don't think these schedules are nearly as concrete 5 years down the road as people believe. Kansas, for example, has at least one opening each year for the next 10 years and in some cases, has no one scheduled. Some schools are booked, but there are options.

Second, I don't think the schedule was built to put us in a P5 bowl this year and it is JJ's fault. I think the schedule, like most years, was built to make money. That Michigan game is about money. Playing the old SWC schools is about money. And I think anyone thinking otherwise is naive. I concede there is not a limitless pile of money for SMU sports, but the desire to recoup some money by renting out our stadium for Baylor home games or whoring ourselves out to get rolled by Michigan leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I really don't think SMU puts a lot into the schedule ever. It took 10 years to figure out gametimes for home games (moot point now since tv controls everything). How many times have we played the same day as Texas OU or other ridiculous conflicts?

I question who thought James Madison was a good FCS option. That opponent was scheduled less than a year ago. SMU has known it needed an opponent for its 100 year homecoming literally forever ago.

I do know that most years, including this one, no coach would want to trade nonconference schedules with us. I maintain SMU is better off getting W's over weaker competition and building confidence than getting heads beaten in and forcing the team to win 6 games in conference t be bowl eligible. Every coach we've had agreed with me and this one does too.

[RGV Pony]

And then there are the times when we do try to help ourselves like this year, only to have Alabama State back out, giving way to our James Madison adventure

[Charleston Pony]

the challenge we have with scheduling goes beyond finding enough wins to become bowl eligible; it's also about the $$$. We don't draw squat so it's tough to schedule home/home games with big time programs as they don't want to play road games for a fraction of what they could earn with a home game. That's one reason the UNT series is a good one; that game is reasonably well attended and we don't have to pay them a fortune as a visitor. We are fortunate to have home/home series with Baylor and other former SWC mates and we really need to hang onto the relationship with TCU. It would be great if we had 30k rabid fans who would pay to see SMU play regardless of who the opponent might be. That would make those games with Texas State and Arkansas State more attractive and we should be able to compete (and hopefully win those games). Rice, UTEP, La Tech and other local schools would be good to sprinkle into future schedules but I think we should always have TCU and either Baylor or UNT on the schedule to at least give us 2 local opponents every year. Because of our attendance problems, the only schools we can schedule as home games without a home/home deal are the FCS schools and those games should be reserved for scheduling gaps created by someone cancelling on us. Whenever possible, we should try to find Southland Conference schools as FCS opponents as that would at least keep those games "local" and perhaps get a little bit of visitor attendance.

[mrydel]

And then there are the times when we do try to help ourselves like this year, only to have Alabama State back out, giving way to our James Madison adventure

This is one thing I wanted to point out. The schedule was farther out and then the team backed out and we were stuck with what we could get. Also, it is my understanding Kansas, and schools in that category are pickings for the P5 schools. We do not get first choice.

And finally, although I have no evidence of this, I kind of thought the Michigan game had something to do with the BB scheduling.

[sbsmith]

I do know that most years, including this one, no coach would want to trade nonconference schedules with us. I maintain SMU is better off getting W's over weaker competition and building confidence than getting heads beaten in and forcing the team to win 6 games in conference t be bowl eligible. Every coach we've had agreed with me and this one does too.

Going forward the schedules are getting weaker (2017 & 2019 in particular make me want to vomit) so your prayers have been answered.

[SoCal_Pony]

Second, I don't think the schedule was built to put us in a P5 bowl this year and it is JJ's fault. I think the schedule, like most years, was built to make money. That Michigan game is about money. Playing the old SWC schools is about money. And I think anyone thinking otherwise is naive. I concede there is not a limitless pile of money for SMU sports, but the desire to recoup some money by renting out our stadium for Baylor home games or whoring ourselves out to get rolled by Michigan leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

To begin with, SMU has been very unlucky with its timing and that's beyond their control.

We played OK State & TTech when their arrows were pointing up while Baylor's was down and Aggies were sideways. Now Baylor & A&M are up, while OK St & Tech are down. You can't blame SMU for that.

As for your money comment, please enlighten me as to when any decision regarding this multi-billion dollar a year industry is not about money. Get real.

It's easy to criticize, tell me, what's your ideal schedule?

[CalallenStang]

Look at how TCU scheduled as they built their program. Do that. End thread.

[MustangStealth]

Look at how TCU scheduled as they built their program. Do that. End thread.

Look at how TCU recruited as they built their program. Do that. End thread.

And hire plenty of lawyers to get them out of jail.

[SMU Football Blog]

As for your money comment, please enlighten me as to when any decision regarding this multi-billion dollar a year industry is not about money. Get real.

It's easy to criticize, tell me, what's your ideal schedule?

The money comment is simple. I think there are seasons where we have hurt the football program for what amounts to about $100k. It is a small point, but we won 1 game last year and I think we all feel a little better that it wasn't an 0'fer season. Recall in 2003, when we lost 12 games, our nonconference was Tech, OSU, Baylor and TCU. That was really kind of dumb from a scheduling perspective if you actually care about the team's performance. Then, to follow it up in 2004, nonconference was TCU, Tech and OSU; another thing about that 2004 season was only 5 home games. I really think we could have scheduled our way out of that 15 game losing streak (yes I am aware that 2003 team was amazingly bad).

As for how I would schedule, I can live with this year's schedule, though I would have preferred Alabama State staying instead of James Madison. If I had my druthers, every year would be TCU, an FCS team, some low non-P5 team like NTSU and every other year alternate between a good P5 team and a bad P5 team/good non-P5 team.

People laud Memphis now and I will note that more often than not, they tend to play one FCS team, two Sunbelt/CUSA teams and one from ACC/SEC. This year was FCS, Kansas, MAC and SEC.

When I try to convince people to go to SMU games, I would rather have to defend a weak schedule than a string of losses. I don't think anybody in Preston Hollow ever said, "Honey, let's go watch SMU play ECU; they played Baylor real close for a half!" Now if we were 3-2 or 4-1, God forbid, I think that is an easier sell.

Murderer's Row nonconference schedule doesn't develop a program and the argument that it does develop players or gets them ready for conference play doesn't hold water. You can count on one hand the number of times it has happened and each case was by accident and not design. I would say the times a team got drubbed in nonconference and went to bowl are the exceptions that prove the rule rather than disprove it.

Best example actually includes SMU: SMU went 6-6 under Bennett and lost the last game of the season to 7-5 Rice, where the winner went to a bowl and the loser stayed home-; Rice's nonconference was UCLA (L), Texas (L), Florida State (L) and Army (W) and went on to win their last 6 games, and Todd Graham promptly left for Tulsa. Of course, we don't even have a 6-6 conversation, btw, unless Ark. State and Sam Houston were on the schedule that year.

[MustangStealth]

Best example actually includes SMU: SMU went 6-6 under Bennett and lost the last game of the season to 7-5 Rice, where the winner went to a bowl and the loser stayed home-; Rice's nonconference was UCLA (L), Texas (L), Florida State (L) and Army (W) and went on to win their last 6 games, and Todd Graham promptly left for Tulsa. Of course, we don't even have a 6-6 conversation, btw, unless Ark. State and Sam Houston were on the schedule that year.

So your point is that the team with the tougher schedule was better prepared by the final game? That a team using cupcakes to hit .500 doesn't actually belong in a bowl?

[SMU Football Blog]

Look at how TCU scheduled as they built their program. Do that. End thread.

Look at how TCU recruited as they built their program. Do that. End thread.

And hire plenty of lawyers to get them out of jail.

TCU nonconference scehduling is pretty straightforward since 1998. They schedule ONE good team. Then, for years, if they could help it, they tried to schedule the worst team in a major conference (Vandy/Northwerstern/Stanford) or an academy or a I-AA team and then, us. In 2005, when they beat OU and everybody thought they were so amazing, they also played us and Army.

TCU never, never ever, scheduled multiple top 10 teams and always made sure there were 1 or more layups on their nonconference schedule (usually us).

[SMU Football Blog]

Best example actually includes SMU: SMU went 6-6 under Bennett and lost the last game of the season to 7-5 Rice, where the winner went to a bowl and the loser stayed home-; Rice's nonconference was UCLA (L), Texas (L), Florida State (L) and Army (W) and went on to win their last 6 games, and Todd Graham promptly left for Tulsa. Of course, we don't even have a 6-6 conversation, btw, unless Ark. State and Sam Houston were on the schedule that year.

So your point is that the team with the tougher schedule was better prepared by the final game? That a team using cupcakes to hit .500 doesn't actually belong in a bowl?

I would say the team whose coach didn't secretly interview for the Iowa State job when he should have been preparing his team for the most important game in 10 years had an advantage. I would say we were outcoached in that game. I would say Todd Graham never scheduled that way again at Tulsa and that Rice had a IAA team on the schedule the next year.

[MustangStealth]

Graham was interviewing at the time too. Guess what... better coaching and better players are 100% more important than schedule strength.