PonyFans.com

SMU plays in the nation's worst conference, so it's necessary to schedule big games to stay on the map and, in a best-case-scenario, play to be the BCS buster. That's a double-edged sword though: win 2 or 3 of those 3 games, and you're ranked; Lose 2 or 3, and you go into the conference season with a losing record. SMU cannot afford to start a Big East schedule with a losing record; however, the essence of being in an AQ conference (really hoping the BE retains its AQ status) means if you win the BE, you're in a BCS bowl, thereby making OOC scheduling inconsequential. Go 0-4 and then 8-0 and you can play in the Orange/Sugar Bowl.

But let's be realistic, SMU is not going to dominate in the BE in the first 2 years, so what are we trying to accomplish? Win as many games as possible regardless of who we play to help our bowl game chances? Play some good teams and try for an upset or two even if it means losing the majority of those games and putting more pressure on the team to win in conference to get to a bowl game? What's better for the brand: winning against FBS teams or staying competitive against high-profile teams and winning once in a while? Of course the long-term goal should be to play good teams OOC and win the majority of those, but we're not there yet.

I don't have an answer, but I think one can make strong arguments for either philosophy. Either way, it's apparent that the program is still building, and we can't get ahead of ourselves. We're still a tiny, private school that hasn't been on the map nationally since well before all of the current and prospective atheletes were born. More wins and bowl game appearances should help recruiting as would beating the big programs once in a while. I think splitting the OOC schedule 2 and 2 (2 "winnable" games plus TCU and Baylor) is not going to harbor long-term success, but it works for now.

This thread is sad. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. Avoiding top flight competition reflects old thinking. TCU sought out the Oklahoma's and Notre Dame and BYU try to get tough schedules.

Big East and strong OCC competition reflects what we want (not what we want to avoid). To use my swimming analogy, I would rather be a small fish in big pond than a big fish in a small pond. We need to recruit to our schedule and in 2-4 years be a force. Quality competition will also bring fans. The Lamar's won't. SMU is College Football.

Now that we are moving to a big boy conference, I'd like to see us ease off on the killer OOC shedule. If the West shakes out like it should, we will be playing Louisville, Boise, Cincy, Houston, SDSU and later AFA/BYU. Not to mention some crossover games like Rutgers, USF, UCF, Navy, Uconn.

I'm sorry, but that is already a BRUTAL schedule. Add TAMU, Baylor, Texas Tech and TCU to that?? Really?? We are NOT that good yet, and consistent 2-9 or 3-8 schedules will absolutely kill our recruiting.

We have a bit of momentum over the last few years. Admittedly, it is not where we want it to be yet. And we aren't even sure that JJ will last beyond this year, so we may have a new staff to boot. But let's keep the bowl streak alive as long as we can, becuase believe it or not, that is a HUGE recruiting tool. Kids being able to watch SMU on National TV in Hawaii or win against Pitt is a big factor.

If we cannot get fans in the seats when we have gone 13-1 at home in conference, how many folks will show up when we are 1-5 or 2-7??? We are going to have some huge growing pains entering the Big East, as has every school thus far that has switched conferences (see Utah, Colorado, TCU, Mizzou, WV, etc.).

The only problem is that we need the bump in attendance that these big Texas schools bring. But if it was me, I'd take your advice, NC.

SMUSIC 07 wrote:SMU plays in the nation's worst conference...

So you'd rather be in the MAC, MWC, Sun Belt or WAC? Okay...

ponyinNC wrote:If the West shakes out like it should, we will be playing Louisville, Boise, Cincy, Houston, SDSU and later AFA/BYU. Not to mention some crossover games like Rutgers, USF, UCF, Navy, Uconn. I'm sorry, but that is already a BRUTAL schedule.

Brutal by what standards? Most BCS schools would laugh like schoolchildren if they had a schedule like that. If you want to be a BCS program, you have to start acting like one.

ponyinNC wrote:If we cannot get fans in the seats when we have gone 13-1 at home in conference, how many folks will show up when we are 1-5 or 2-7???

How many will show up to watch games against Lamar, GSU, TSU or any other Southland school?

So, let me see if I understand.

1. Some would like to play the big boy teams, feeling we'd probably get beaten. Despite losing, we'll still get fans, exposure, and better recruits.
2. Some would like to play a softer schedule, feeling that we'd dominate them. With that winning record, we'd be more likely go to bowl games, get exposure, more fans, and better recruits.

Good luck with those arguments. It's all conjecture.

skurtn- conjecture- not exactly. How about comparing our 'cupcake' game attendance for the last couple of years vs. some of the BCS schools we have played. I suspect the attendance for aTm (even at highly inflated ticket prices) and tcwho was greater than sfa etc.. Haven't compared the actual numbers but that is just the impression I have.

if your a 17 year old recruit are you thinking what doesnt kill me makes me stronger or are you thinking I dont want to get my head kicked in 4 games a year I will play some where else?

Nom- really? They aren't going to get 'their head kicked in' playing at OU, Ohio St. USC, bama, Fla etc.
Really? I didn't realize we played so much more hard nosed football than those schools.

redpony wrote:Nom- really? They aren't going to get 'their head kicked in' playing at OU, Ohio St. USC, bama, Fla etc.
Really? I didn't realize we played so much more hard nosed football than those schools.

You realize you're arguing his figure of speech, right?

actually arguing that playing top level bcs schools at SMU is really no different that playing them at other universities that play tough schedules. If a kid is afraid of 'tough' fball then maybe he should think d-lll.

ponyinNC wrote:Now that we are moving to a big boy conference, I'd like to see us ease off on the killer OOC shedule.

Our "killer" schedule included an FCS (I-AA) team, 1 ranked team, and the 8th and 9th best teams in the Big 12. If this is too hard, it's time to drop football.

SMUSIC 07 wrote: SMU cannot afford to start a Big East schedule with a losing record; however, the essence of being in an AQ conference (really hoping the BE retains its AQ status) means if you win the BE, you're in a BCS bowl, thereby making OOC scheduling inconsequential.

The BCS is done after next season, so that is out the window. You will have to have both a good record and a strong schedule to be considered for the playoff. (And yes, I am saying that we have no shot at winning the conference next year, our 1 BCS hope)

MustangStealth wrote:

ponyinNC wrote:Now that we are moving to a big boy conference, I'd like to see us ease off on the killer OOC shedule.

Our "killer" schedule included an FCS (I-AA) team, 1 ranked team, and the 8th and 9th best teams in the Big 12. If this is too hard, it's time to drop football.

Exactly

Hey Chicken Littles. You want the little promotion? You want the little conference? Well, its time to put your little boy pants on, and step it up. gotta love that KFC commercial. Besides Boise, is there anyone really to fear in the NBE? Louisville is good, but if they came to Ford would you consider them unbeatable? We have to step it up in a hurry and be a winning team in the NBE. The NBE doesn't have any national respect, so we have to do our part to help the league build, and that means putting our little boy pants on and beating some of the Big 12 teams on our schedule. Scheduling down does not help us, our attendance issues or our new conference to gain respect.