PonyFans.com

2015 Tennessee Tech, Louisville, Texas State, Vandy
2014 UTSA, Grambling, BYU, UNLV
2013 Southern, Rice, UTSA, BYU
2012 Texas State, Louisiana Tech, UCLA, UNT

CalallenStang wrote:2015 Tennessee Tech, Louisville, Texas State, Vandy
2014 UTSA, Grambling, BYU, UNLV
2013 Southern, Rice, UTSA, BYU
2012 Texas State, Louisiana Tech, UCLA, UNT

This is the scheduling philosophy I've said SMU should adopt. The formula is:

FCS School
P5 or BYU (this can be TCU for us)
Weaker G5 opponent (UNT for us)
G5 or low level P5 (Kansas, Vandy, Wake, Rice fit the bill here)

UH plays Oklahoma and Louisville next year

Houston is killing it

Stallion wrote:UH plays Oklahoma and Louisville next year

Correct because you can do that after several years of success (one bad year notwithstanding Houston has been very successful for years now)

15 BCS schools in 8 years plus they play Rice

i feel like we played 15 BCS schools last year alone.

Stallion wrote:15 BCS schools in 8 years plus they play Rice

The "BCS" schools count is increased when you talk about playing Vandy (2015) and Miss State (pre-Mullen). Those are the types I'd like to see us play. Let's get teams in that we have a chance to beat. We are competing for recruits with low to mid level P5 schools now. Our pitch should be "go to Colorado and lose or come here and win" because the P5 school will have an advantage over us in pretty much every area except in winning percentage.

And they only have played Rice once in their non-conference in that time.

I got an idea-keep natural rivals on schedule and recruit players that can beat them. Those are only game SMU fans give a damn about. Even scheduling Division 1AA has been a disaster-NTSU has beaten us 3 straight in Denton

Stallion wrote:I got an idea-keep natural rivals on schedule and recruit players that can beat them. Those are only game SMU fans give a damn about. Even scheduling Division 1AA has been a disaster

You don't recruit 100 top 100 players in 1 year. You have to build the talent level first. And SMU fans care about winning. Look at basketball - we don't play our "natural rivals" there at all. SMU fans don't show up to see us play Texas A&M, that stadium was 2/3 Aggies. Win and the fans and recruits will come and THEN you play the A&Ms and Baylors and OUs and beat them.

See TCU

And don't schedule from the freaking 1-AA Top 25. Play crappy 1-AA only. See Houston scheduling Tennessee Tech

Calallen is right on this one and always has been. We have tried the other way for years and our fans lose interest in game 4 after 0-4. Move up the schedule as you win, cause if you try to move it up before you can win you never do...

gostangs wrote:Calallen is right on this one and always has been. We have tried the other way for years and our fans lose interest in game 4 after 0-4. Move up the schedule as you win, cause if you try to move it up before you can win you never do...

I don't get how Stallion talks about TCU as a Model and doesn't look at how they scheduled over that time.

because SMU isn't TCU and SMU isn't UH and I have 50 years of experience realizing that SMU has an entirely different set of problems than those schools

SMU has 12,000 fans that don't give a damn about the teams you want to play. You take away those games and watch season ticket sales plummet. Rice has had multiple 10 win seasons-IT DOES NOT WORK at a school like SMU. They get 3,000 to many of their games

You aren't building anything by scheduling light-weights-Doherty won 20 games in Basketball-who the hell cares. Beating lightweights in no way makes you a stronger football team

The actual building of the program is done by recruiting quality talent for at least 3 years and I want those rivalries to remain on our schedule to beat them when we get good. Its complete and utter [deleted] that inflating your record helps recruiting. Its hard work and personal relationships that build recruiting classes. But playing half our games in front of 10,000 like we do in about half our games kills recruiting

i think this argument has happened several times - so it is a bit tired. I actually see both sides. Scheduling 3-4 definite loses makes no more sense then scheduling 4 nobodies. Rick Hart thankfully has it right - and we are getting a blend of both regional rivalries and softies. I agree we need to trade out a softy (hopefully trade out UNT for lower p-5's in a non Big 12 conference. We need to show the ACC and the PAC what they can get if they dial into the Dallas market.

CalallenStang wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:2015 Tennessee Tech, Louisville, Texas State, Vandy
2014 UTSA, Grambling, BYU, UNLV
2013 Southern, Rice, UTSA, BYU
2012 Texas State, Louisiana Tech, UCLA, UNT

This is the scheduling philosophy I've said SMU should adopt. The formula is:

FCS School
P5 or BYU (this can be TCU for us)
Weaker G5 opponent (UNT for us)
G5 or low level P5 (Kansas, Vandy, Wake, Rice fit the bill here)

Stallion's assertion that I would drop regional rivalries is an unfounded red herring when I clearly show how regional rivalries can be integrated into the proper scheduling philosophy

As for the idea of getting your head smashed over and over and how it helps or hurts in building a fan base, see the past two years of attendance.