PonyFans.com

It's sad to be bickering about whether to play these particular Big XII OOC teams, when they were once IN conference teams for SMU.

WildBillPony wrote:It's sad to be bickering about whether to play these particular Big XII OOC teams, when they were once IN conference teams for SMU.

True

WildBillPony wrote:It's sad to be bickering about whether to play these particular Big XII OOC teams, when they were once IN conference teams for SMU.

Well wildbill, we are so far away from our old conference mates at this point, we are basically playing another sport

And exhibit no earnesty to get there...

I think with the level of SOS in the AAC it's probably best for SMU to have two power 5 conference foes. It allows you two opportunities for marquee wins (with one of them at home) and also if it goes bad you are at worst 2-2 needing only 4 wins for a bowl. The worst thing is to be 1-3 or 0-4 right off the bat.

The only way I would encourage SMU or anyone to schedule more than that is if they can get 1-2 of them later in the season. You don't want to kill fan momentum if you lose. I feel the same way about Baylor's out of conference scheduling. I mean I am sure TCU fans would trade the LSU game for a bowl right now.

WordUpBU wrote:I mean I am sure TCU fans would trade the LSU game for a bowl right now.

I completely disagree. Give me an LSU type game over a bowl game any day of the week. That game was more fun and exciting (tailgating, build-up, etc.) than any bowl game TCU has been to outside of the Fiesta and Rose bowls. Just about every TCU fan I know would rather play an LSU type game than go to a low level bowl. Bowl games don't mean much if you aren't in one of the big ones.

WordUpBU wrote:I think with the level of SOS in the AAC it's probably best for SMU to have two power 5 conference foes. It allows you two opportunities for marquee wins (with one of them at home) and also if it goes bad you are at worst 2-2 needing only 4 wins for a bowl. The worst thing is to be 1-3 or 0-4 right off the bat.

The only way I would encourage SMU or anyone to schedule more than that is if they can get 1-2 of them later in the season. You don't want to kill fan momentum if you lose. I feel the same way about Baylor's out of conference scheduling. I mean I am sure TCU fans would trade the LSU game for a bowl right now.

The level of SOS in the AAC won't help our attendance. We can't ease up on the OOC schedule and expect to actually fill seats because Texas P5 teams are the only teams anyone in this town cares about seeing us play. With our current level of talent 1-3/0-4 will be on the table no matter how much junk we put on our OOC schedule . The logical solution would be to improve our talent level so that we don't have to run away from relevant competition. A lot of people thought us chickening out of the Baylor game was a smart move but all it turned out doing was depriving us of a sellout and our "win" versus random FCS team was more deflating than a loss to Baylor would have been.

sbsmith wrote:

WordUpBU wrote:I think with the level of SOS in the AAC it's probably best for SMU to have two power 5 conference foes. It allows you two opportunities for marquee wins (with one of them at home) and also if it goes bad you are at worst 2-2 needing only 4 wins for a bowl. The worst thing is to be 1-3 or 0-4 right off the bat.

The only way I would encourage SMU or anyone to schedule more than that is if they can get 1-2 of them later in the season. You don't want to kill fan momentum if you lose. I feel the same way about Baylor's out of conference scheduling. I mean I am sure TCU fans would trade the LSU game for a bowl right now.

The level of SOS in the AAC won't help our attendance. We can't ease up on the OOC schedule and expect to actually fill seats because Texas P5 teams are the only teams anyone in this town cares about seeing us play. With our current level of talent 1-3/0-4 will be on the table no matter how much junk we put on our OOC schedule . The logical solution would be to improve our talent level so that we don't have to run away from relevant competition. A lot of people thought us chickening out of the Baylor game was a smart move but all it turned out doing was depriving us of a sellout and our "win" versus random FCS team was more deflating than a loss to Baylor would have been.

People show up more for the home team. So priority needs to be on the home team, whether it reaches a bowl, and whether it has momentum going into league play. Yes games against BU, TT, and ATM will draw better at Ford Stadium than other games probably will but too many of those kills fan enthusiasm, makes bowls unlikely, and over time it makes it harder to build up to the next level.

How did TCU get their attendance up? Winning a lot over a long time. It wasn't the result of New Mexico or Wyoming traveling in bulk. Fans follow a winner and that is the biggest correlation no matter which program.

If you rely on the opponent to fill the stands you are hoping for a maximum of 15k on one or two games to spike the average. It needs to be a schedule that encourages the prospects of going bowling and/or qualifying for the playoff or access bowls. In college hoops playing tough OOC is encouraged due to RPI, in football the biggest thing that matters in the # in the L column so it should be limited in it's implementation.

This isn't unique to SMU. You want to make the schedule manageable and keep aim at your most important goals:
- Reaching bowls for added recruiting edge and practice time
- Performing well in league play

You have an AAC schedule that isn't as appealing as a power 5 schedule but should give you at least 4 tough opponents per year. This year it was UCF, UH, Rutgers, and Cincy. Adding 3-4 tough games on top of that leaves over half the schedule as a grind, front loads the tough games, and isn't a good recipe for program growth.

If I had to design a schedule for SMU in rebuilding mode it would be 2 BCS level foes per year spread out as such:

1 BCS foe early
2nd one in late October or early November.
Nonaq games early on
One early AAC game, preferably against one of the weaker teams.

Only one big game early (assuming the first AAC isn't a big opponent) allows the team to stay healthy, develop a bit, and not take bad losses early on. Team has a lot to play for which helps draw Pony fans to the stands. Continued bowl games and improving records slowly helps attendance build annually.

ReedFrawg wrote:

WordUpBU wrote:I mean I am sure TCU fans would trade the LSU game for a bowl right now.

I completely disagree. Give me an LSU type game over a bowl game any day of the week. That game was more fun and exciting (tailgating, build-up, etc.) than any bowl game TCU has been to outside of the Fiesta and Rose bowls. Just about every TCU fan I know would rather play an LSU type game than go to a low level bowl. Bowl games don't mean much if you aren't in one of the big ones.

Fan experience, I can see it. I don't think GP and the staff would agree that it's a help to continued program growth when paired with a big 12 schedule of 9 games. In a down year for the Big 12 it effectively killed a bowl shot and that is practice time and development that you don't get back. Also the danger isn't in ONE year of it. It's the 2 years or 3 years or every other year that it costs you adding up over time affecting program perception. People remember the L column more than who you beat.

WordupBU always has such good things to say that make so much sense.

Thank you and, aside from you TCU LSU comment, I agree

I've heard the "slow and steady" argument before but it makes little sense (being generous) for a team in our situation. Too many seasons would be wasted racking up fake wins in front of nobodies which will kill attendance and ratings. It would basically be saying that we want to be an FCS program.

sbsmith wrote:I've heard the "slow and steady" argument before but it makes little sense (being generous) for a team in our situation. Too many seasons would be wasted racking up fake wins in front of nobodies which will kill attendance and ratings. It would basically be saying that we want to be an FCS program.

Disagree with you. It's the way others have done it. Racking up the 9 plus win seasons does wonders for a program.

sbsmith wrote:I've heard the "slow and steady" argument before but it makes little sense (being generous) for a team in our situation. Too many seasons would be wasted racking up fake wins in front of nobodies which will kill attendance and ratings. It would basically be saying that we want to be an FCS program.

I disagree. It's scheduling three or four tough games that is making your turnaround harder. If either Tech, A&M, or TCU was replaced with a win you guys would be bowling in a winnable game vs ECU. That would be half a decade straight of bowls vs no practice development and no recruiting benefit.

To put it another way, 2008 Baylor played 8 league games and six were against bowl teams. We were dumb enough to load a rebuilding team up with 3 BCS level foes in non-con (UConn who was good then, Wake who was good then, and Wazzu who we lucked into not being good)

If we replace the UConn and Wake games with winnable games we go bowling and the Briles turnaround gets a huge recruiting boost early despite playing in a division with 4 top 10 caliber teams that year and playing 2 of the best in the north. That was a HUGE missed opportunity as many potential victories in recruiting were lost by giving the impression of "same old baylor".

Look at our initial turnaround year- 2010:

We had ONE difficult non-con game with TCU's Rose Bowl team. We ended up going 7-5 on the year largely due to close victories over KSU, UT, and CU. Had we replaced 1 or 2 of our non-con wins with tougher opposition the bowl season stands a very good chance of NOT happening and Baylor may not be playing in the Fiesta right now. Taking 7-5 to possibly 6-6 where one of those close games going the other way (possibly due to injuries sustained vs a tough foe early on?) kills your bowl shot just isn't good planning.

The basic point is this- you build your program's attendance slow and steady by winning. Playing big teams will NEVER get you there unless your team develops. My team was exhibit A of this for much of the 2000's. Now our attendance is up significantly and where only 24-26k of the paid attendance was BU fans a decade ago it's now up to 43-44k once you estimate the visiting fans out of the numbers. That only comes by improving the home team's product.

Once a team is established, by all means go take on Bama, Oregon, or anyone you can get. Until it's established though it needs to be designed to yield consistent results. SMU is facing a talent issue right now and efforts to turn that around on the recruiting trail aren't helped by missing bowls and not having winning records.

It doesn't get any easier next year either. You replace Tech with Baylor, MSU with a UNT team that went 8-4 in CUSA, and return to play A&M and TCU. I don't think that is setting you up for success when it demands that the team win a lot of it's league games in order to finish 6-6.

feelthehorsepower wrote:
Disagree with you. It's the way others have done it. Racking up the 9 plus win seasons does wonders for a program.

We don't have time to do it the way others have done it. The game has changed while we were busy ignoring football. These days it's all about how much are you drawing and how many people are watching your games. Slow and steady is going to get us put frequently on ESPN3 while we draw sparse crowds and get little media coverage (which will look terrible to P5 conferences). Gotta ask yourself whether you want this program to be P5 or FCS (pretty sure it's FCS based on your previous posts).

WordUpBU wrote:
I disagree. It's scheduling three or four tough games that is making your turnaround harder. If either Tech, A&M, or TCU was replaced with a win you guys would be bowling in a winnable game vs ECU. That would be half a decade straight of bowls vs no practice development and no recruiting benefit.



If we replace the UConn and Wake games with winnable games we go bowling and the Briles turnaround gets a huge recruiting boost early despite playing in a division with 4 top 10 caliber teams that year and playing 2 of the best in the north. That was a HUGE missed opportunity as many potential victories in recruiting were lost by giving the impression of "same old baylor".


The basic point is this- you build your program's attendance slow and steady by winning. Playing big teams will NEVER get you there unless your team develops. My team was exhibit A of this for much of the 2000's. Now our attendance is up significantly and where only 24-26k of the paid attendance was BU fans a decade ago it's now up to 43-44k once you estimate the visiting fans out of the numbers. That only comes by improving the home team's product.

Once a team is established, by all means go take on Bama, Oregon, or anyone you can get. Until it's established though it needs to be designed to yield consistent results. SMU is facing a talent issue right now and efforts to turn that around on the recruiting trail aren't helped by missing bowls and not having winning records.

You made a few good points about recruiting which is an area in which we should emulate Baylor. In fact recruiting is the primary reason why this turnaround has been so hard. Back when things were trending up no one was afraid of the schedule at all because it was assumed that June would get the talent to beat the teams that we needed to beat to be relevant. Now that June has been exposed as a fraud everyone is scared to death and wants us to play a Southland Conference schedule. If the talent problem gets fixed (by finally prioritizing recruiting) then we won't have a reason to run away from relevant competition. In this town no one will be fooled by fake wins and mediocre bowls, you have to actually accomplish something if you want to be relevant.

sbsmith wrote:

feelthehorsepower wrote:
Disagree with you. It's the way others have done it. Racking up the 9 plus win seasons does wonders for a program.

We don't have time to do it the way others have done it. The game has changed while we were busy ignoring football. These days it's all about how much are you drawing and how many people are watching your games. Slow and steady is going to get us put frequently on ESPN3 while we draw sparse crowds and get little media coverage (which will look terrible to P5 conferences). Gotta ask yourself whether you want this program to be P5 or FCS (pretty sure it's FCS based on your previous posts).

That isn't an accurate reading.

- How much you draw and how well you are viewed depends more on building your own program than the opponent. Look at BU-ISU this season vs the draw for BU-Tech most years. I could list other examples but in the interest of keeping this short lets hold off.

- Getting out on espn3 is temporary until you win. Once you win you move up.

- SMU won't develop the perceived brand, ratings, attendance, etc for realignment as well with 3-4 tough noncon games that they will will 2 tough ones. Going 7-5 instead of 5-7 helps you springboard to 9-3 or 10-2 which is what is needed to make waves in attendance, ratings, and realignment.


Missing bowl games by scheduling 3-4 tough games may help shirt term concessions and ticket revenue but won't help long term program goals. SMU needs all the recruiting it can get and missing bowls stunts that pretty heavily.

By the way, the P5vsFCS jab is pretty weak.