We Need to Look at Scheduling UConn

[leopold]

Northeast presence? Contradicts everything going on with the program. Save some money and get a flight to Dallas once a year rather than insist we schedule a meaningless game way outside our area code. Need to get the old SWC foes back on the schedule. Keep TCU and add a Baylor, TT, hell even A&M.

You realize we can do both, right?

An ideal OOC schedule, to me, would incorporate both. A realistic goal would be something like

- UNT (Local FBS school from Sunbelt/CUSA. Also includes Rice, UTEP, Texas State, UTSA, etc.)
- TCU (Regardless of circumstances. We need to keep this game relevant)
- UConn (FBS School outside our geographic region, hopefully winable. Maryland is a good example of this - we need these to be either 1-1 or possible 2-1)
- Texas Tech (Old SWC foe or the Reach Game. We may be big underdogs, but we need this for money and the times - like this year - where we can reasonably hope for a win)

Goals for scheduling would include

1. KEEP TCU ON THE SCHEDULE
2. At least two home games
3. NO FCS SCHOOLS


This, too me, is managing expectations and working to further our interests.

[SMU_Alum11]

Disagree on the old SWC foes - those losses suck the wind out of us for the year. We DO NOT need to go back to that. We need to be auditioning for other conferences - PAC and ACC specifically. we are NEVER getting in the Big 12 because they have 2 privates already and we add nothing to them. Bring in one lower level PAC or ACC teams, add in two FBS patsies, and TCU.

No offense but I really hate this mentality. It's very JJ-esque. I understand why we did it this year to only have one tough opponent since NTCC clearly just had a 1 hit wonder year.

My ideal that would generate interest

1) Baylor or Tech
2) TCU
3) Rice
4) Consistent low grade P5 (e.g. Kansas, Pitt, NC State, Minnesota, etc).

That schedule above would easily get us attention, help our conference especially we can go 3-1 or better. I bet the team we have now could have gone 4-0 with this and we would have been ranked in week 5.

[mustangxc]

Disagree on the old SWC foes - those losses suck the wind out of us for the year. We DO NOT need to go back to that. We need to be auditioning for other conferences - PAC and ACC specifically. we are NEVER getting in the Big 12 because they have 2 privates already and we add nothing to them. Bring in one lower level PAC or ACC teams, add in two FBS patsies, and TCU.

No offense but I really hate this mentality. It's very JJ-esque. I understand why we did it this year to only have one tough opponent since NTCC clearly just had a 1 hit wonder year.

My ideal that would generate interest

1) Baylor or Tech
2) TCU
3) Rice
4) Consistent low grade P5 (e.g. Kansas, Pitt, NC State, Minnesota, etc).

That schedule above would easily get us attention, help our conference especially we can go 3-1 or better. I bet the team we have now could have gone 4-0 with this and we would have been ranked in week 5.

I rarely agree with anything 11 posts, but agree 100% on this!

[SMU_Alum11]

No worries XC. I'm glad we agree on the above.

[ponywhupp9202]

OOC teams I wouldn't mind playing/would like to play on a semi regular basis. These may or may not make sense logistically or image, but this is personal preference:
Baylor/Texas Tech/Arkansas, Illinois/Northwestern/Maryland, Vanderbilt, mid-tier PAC 12 schools, Boston College, San Diego State/pick another Mtn.West team, BYU

Keep TCU, and I go back and forth on the UNT games. I sometimes think it is a good idea, other times think the risk/reward just doesn't make sense.

If we can ever sustain some success, I'd like to mix in a U of Texas or Notre Dame every now and then. Good measuring stick, even if we lose.

[Charleston Pony]

UNT makes a lot more sense than Rice. At least UNT moves the attendance needle whereas Rice has resulted in some of our worst attended games since the breakup of the SWC but I agree there is no reason to schedule UConn in football. We go to Annapolis every other year and to Philly once every 4 years so northeast Mustangs can attend those games. I agree with taking Big XII and/or SEC games but the challenge in scheduling is to come out with 2 home and 2 road games.

[gostangs]

Disagree on the old SWC foes - those losses suck the wind out of us for the year. We DO NOT need to go back to that. We need to be auditioning for other conferences - PAC and ACC specifically. we are NEVER getting in the Big 12 because they have 2 privates already and we add nothing to them. Bring in one lower level PAC or ACC teams, add in two FBS patsies, and TCU.

No offense but I really hate this mentality. It's very JJ-esque. I understand why we did it this year to only have one tough opponent since NTCC clearly just had a 1 hit wonder year.

My ideal that would generate interest

1) Baylor or Tech
2) TCU
3) Rice
4) Consistent low grade P5 (e.g. Kansas, Pitt, NC State, Minnesota, etc).

That schedule above would easily get us attention, help our conference especially we can go 3-1 or better. I bet the team we have now could have gone 4-0 with this and we would have been ranked in week 5.

Not sure that what i am saying is that far apart from yours - I just don't want to keep scheduling SWC foes that bring people but are 90% likely to be a loss - and it doesn't do anything for us. Replace your number 1 with a lower tier team from a conference we have a shot at getting in when the reset happens in 3 years. Rice is perfect for a patsy but generates zero interest. They should give up football frankly.

The worst thing we can do is what we used to do. Engineer a 3 loss start to the schedule and nobody cares about you the rest of the year. Look at the excitement this years 5-0 team creates - nobody cares it hasn't been the toughest competition.

[leopold]

Not sure that what i am saying is that far apart from yours

It's not.

We all tend to agree on basic stuff - TCU, a reach game with an old SWC style opponent, and a Rice/UNT/UTEP type game where we are the favorites in a regional FBS school.

It's the fourth opponent that's the toughie - it's difficult to try to get that one right sometimes due to schedule limitations and balancing program needs like fan interest, logistics, setting up the team for success.

But to get back to the original point, that's why UConn offers a legitimate option. Winnable, FBS, and available. Not sexy, no, but might offer the other upsides I previously mentioned. Just something to bear in mind.

[SMU_Alum11]

I would argue that my point #1 is where we are off. Respectfully, I think we should always have two difficult games. Now if Sonny gets picked off then it makes sense to go back to the cupcake model + TCU. I'm saying with my recommendation (and others on here) if we had played what I suggested, I think we would have been 4-0 and #16 in the Top 25 or better depending on road/home.

I'll say my main criticism is we will never garner any attention if we go to a cupcake model just to boost wins. If were in a city where there was no competition for fans then sure but we are in Dallas and if we want people to show up we need to go up against SWC foes or similar.

[skyscraper]

This is a terrible thread.

[gostangs]

I would argue that my point #1 is where we are off. Respectfully, I think we should always have two difficult games. Now if Sonny gets picked off then it makes sense to go back to the cupcake model + TCU. I'm saying with my recommendation (and others on here) if we had played what I suggested, I think we would have been 4-0 and #16 in the Top 25 or better depending on road/home.

I'll say my main criticism is we will never garner any attention if we go to a cupcake model just to boost wins. If were in a city where there was no competition for fans then sure but we are in Dallas and if we want people to show up we need to go up against SWC foes or similar.

But isn't our current year proof that cupcake wins are better than hard game losses? Our only tough team win has been TCU. But nonetheless everyone is fired up for the Mustangs and we will have 26k for a game in October that we normally have 15k - and be a relevant conversation with increased attendance the rest of the year.

If we had scheduled as you suggest we might have 3 losses and its same ol "season over in September" SMU, not 5-0 excitement.

And the schedules are too far out to be able to pick your spot. You schedule to a philosophy not a coach.

[smitty329]

Cupcake schedules add no value - Losses to P5 schools that could boost attendance (i.e. not UConn), and a conference championship means something. Going 50-50 or winning those P5 games has tremendous upside - think playoff. Wins against a cupcake schedule and a conference championship will only get us a bowl game later in December than week one.

Until there is a different playoff system (8 teams), we need to adopt the UCF model and have signature wins against P5s.

[SMU_Alum11]

Yep to the above. We need to set ourselves up for low side 2-2 and upside 4-0 mentality. This team could have gone 4-0 against the schedule I recommended and we would be getting way more attention and possibly more fans. Beating TCU is great, please do not get me wrong but the problem is people can associate it with: 1) Rivalry game that brings out the best and/or 2) fluke performance. Had we beaten Baylor and TCU then people can't say that.

[ponyte]

One could make a good case for a variety of teams. I would like us to get some more P5 teams. Maybe an Indiana or Purdue. Possible a Colorado. Wouldn't mind a Wake Forest or Duke. Old Miss or Miss State would do for a more local team. Contiune TCU. Might consider a Kansas team again.

The idea is to play mid, lower end P5 teams to get a bit of respect.

Keep it home and home.

I'm not opposed to one off to Michigan or Florida or some other team. Respect and a good paycheck.

Not sure I would feed TTU, UT, or TX A$M for now.

[ponyboy]

How did TCU do it? By scheduling and beating the teams 11 talks about above