PonyFans.com

SMU2007 wrote:I consider the AAC to be a joke thereby making our schedule an embarrassment in the scope of college football as a whole (yes I understand the AAC is the best conference we could be in at this point in time. No, that doesn't make our conference schedule any less sad relative to the big boys).

So everyone in the entire conference, plus every team in every conference worse than the AAC also has an embarrassing schedule?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Compared to every team in the acc, big 10, big 12, sec, and pac 12, yes.

SMU2007 wrote:Compared to every team in the acc, big 10, big 12, sec, and pac 12, yes.

Good to have a definition. Over half the teams in FBS have embarrassing schedule according to you. I guess everyone not in the top five conferences should hang their head in shame. You initial post made it sound to me like you thought SMU was an outlier.
In your opinion does SMU have the least embarrassing schedule of any team not in one of those conferences?

Do any of the teams in the top 5 conferences have embarrassing schedules? For example, Arizona plays Northern Arizona, UTSA and UNLV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When rationality meets dogma.

The issue is that we have a very weak conference overall. And compounding that by playing weak OOC games makes it kind of embarrassing. I can see that. This is why we need to schedule better teams than our conference opponents if we ever want to be recognized, and why the big boys can get away with weak sister teams since they have better conference competition.

mrydel wrote:The issue is that we have a very weak conference overall. And compounding that by playing weak OOC games makes it kind of embarrassing. I can see that. This is why we need to schedule better teams than our conference opponents if we ever want to be recognized, and why the big boys can get away with weak sister teams since they have better conference competition.

It was embarrassing that we dropped Baylor, I wrote hart and told him as much, but even with Montana state we were widely considered to have the toughest non conference schedule of any team. Just not seeing the embarrassment in that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You will not find a bigger Hart supporter than me right now, but saying we dropped Baylor because the schedule was too tough embarrassed me, no matter what the overall ranking was.

mrydel wrote:You will not find a bigger Hart supporter than me right now, but saying we dropped Baylor because the schedule was too tough embarrassed me, no matter what the overall ranking was.

I have said basically that same thing twice in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then you admit you were embarrassed so I have trouble finding where there is a difference of opinion.

mrydel wrote:Then you admit you were embarrassed so I have trouble finding where there is a difference of opinion.

I said I was embarrassed by dropping Baylor, I am not embarrassed by our non-conference schedule as a whole, just the fact that we dropped someone to get there. 2007 is saying that every team not in the top 5 conferences has an embarrassing schedule. I find that silly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lebanese4Life wrote:

ponyboy wrote:We've earned upper second tier status. We're a top 55 school instead of a school in the 115 of 120 range pre JJ.

Before anyone goes there, it''s not good enough. Let's keep going. But we've earned *something*

We are nowhere near the 55th best team in the nation. You're biased support for JJ is disgusting. Be honest, what is your relation to JJ?

JJ has coached 72 games at SMU. Only 6 times has he even defeated a team with a winning record, and of those 6 wins, only 4 were ranked at year-end better than 55.

TCU, Tulsa, Tulsa, East Carolina.

That hardly qualifies as a Top 55 program.

Grant Carter wrote:

SMU2007 wrote:Compared to every team in the acc, big 10, big 12, sec, and pac 12, yes.

Good to have a definition. Over half the teams in FBS have embarrassing schedule according to you. I guess everyone not in the top five conferences should hang their head in shame. You initial post made it sound to me like you thought SMU was an outlier.
In your opinion does SMU have the least embarrassing schedule of any team not in one of those conferences?

Do any of the teams in the top 5 conferences have embarrassing schedules? For example, Arizona plays Northern Arizona, UTSA and UNLV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll put a different perspective on this.

It could very well be that within 5 years, the Top 60 programs will earn ~$3 Billion dollars annually in revenues while the Bottom 60 (where we currently reside) will earn ~$80 Million dollars annually.

Within this context, I completely understand where SMU2007 is coming from.

SoCal_Pony wrote:

Lebanese4Life wrote:

ponyboy wrote:We've earned upper second tier status. We're a top 55 school instead of a school in the 115 of 120 range pre JJ.

Before anyone goes there, it''s not good enough. Let's keep going. But we've earned *something*

We are nowhere near the 55th best team in the nation. You're biased support for JJ is disgusting. Be honest, what is your relation to JJ?

JJ has coached 72 games at SMU. Only 6 times has he even defeated a team with a winning record, and of those 6 wins, only 4 were ranked at year-end better than 55.

TCU, Tulsa, Tulsa, East Carolina.

That hardly qualifies as a Top 55 program.

Hard to imagine that Fresno State is not on this list. They were not in the top 55 at year's end? Essentially the same Fresno State team that is currently 8-0 and ranked.

Stallion wrote:The Mind of too Many Ponyfans: If we raised the number of AAC teams ranked above 100 in computer bowls from 4 to about 8 then we'd have a great shot at the BCS. How about instead we build a program worthy of earning true BCS respect

Still complaining about dropping Baylor, I see. How about we build a program worthy of earning true BCS respect? Let's do that - let's see how the Purple People in Ft. Worthless did it. You always talk about following their Model so let's see what they did on their rise to see their schedule (non-conference):

1998:
Iowa State (3-8)
Oklahoma (5-6)
Vanderbilt (2-9)

This is exactly what our 2013 non-conference looked like when we set it up: Tech seemed like they would be a .500 Big 12 team (OU), and A&M and Baylor seemed like they would be poor Big 12 teams (Iowa State and Vanderbilt). Obviously, things changed from the time we scheduled the games.

1999:
Arizona (6-6)
Northwestern (3-8)
Arkansas State (4-7)
North Texas (2-9)

Now THAT is an embarrassing schedule, but it allowed TCU 2 wins on the route to an 8 win season and TCU thus built on their momentum from the year before.

2000:
Northwestern (8-4)
Arkansas State (1-10)
Navy (1-10)

One decent team and two horrible teams. Three wins for TCU on the way to their first 10 win season since 1938.

2001 (they moved to CUSA in this year):
Nebraska (11-2)
North Texas (5-7)
SMU (4-7)
Northwestern State (I-AA)

They tried for a win against a major power in this year...only after completing their first 10 win season...and they ensured that they scheduled bad teams to fill out the rest of their non-conference. They ended up 6-6 after winning two of their non-conference games - they lost to Northwestern State.

2002:
Northwestern (3-9)
SMU (3-9)
North Texas (8-5)

The best way to get back on the 10-win track: schedule easy games in non-conference (the SMU and UNT games both ended up as fairly close games for TCU). They picked up another 10 win season this year - their second in three years.

2003:
Navy (8-5)
Vanderbilt (2-10)
Arizona (2-10)
SMU (0-12)

TCU racked up an 11-win season this year, and they beat SEC and PAC teams on the way to that mark. Of course, the SEC and PAC teams were the dregs of their conference, not power teams. Those games are similar to the Washington State games that we scheduled in past years.

2004:
Northwestern (6-6)
SMU (3-8)
Texas Tech (8-4)

TCU slid back to 5-6 this year, but that was mainly due to poor performance in conference. This was the first time that they scheduled a Big 12 team since 1998 - and they didn't pick a Big 12 team that truly competed for a division title either. That game, by the way, was a classic. TCU got off to a 21-0 lead before Tech scored 56 straight points en route to a 70-35 final in Lubbock.

2005 (TCU moved to the MWC this year):
Oklahoma (8-4)
SMU (5-6)
Army (4-7)

TCU balanced their schedule with what they thought was going to be a game against a national title contender (OU was coming off an Orange Bowl appearance) with two games that they thought would be easy (TCU ended up losing to SMU after they pulled off the upset against an OU team that wasn't as good as advertised).

2006:
Baylor (4-8)
Cal-Davis (I-AA)
Texas Tech (8-5)
Army (3-9)

They put two Big 12 teams on the schedule for the first time in 2006 (coming off an 11 win season for TCU). Tech was a solid but not great team - Baylor was still pretty bad. Cal-Davis and Army were simply bad teams meant to pad wins.

2007:
Baylor (3-9)
Texas (10-3)
SMU (1-11)
Stanford (4-8)

What do you do when you put a national championship contender on the schedule? Pad the rest of the schedule with weak teams.

2008:
SFA (FCS)
Stanford (5-7)
SMU (1-11)
Oklahoma (12-2)

What do you do when you put a national championship contender on the schedule? Pad the rest of the schedule with weak teams. Stanford was better than advertised in 2008, but they still didn't even make a bowl.

2009:
Virginia (3-9)
Texas State (FCS)
Clemson (9-5)
SMU (8-5)

Two weak teams, one meant to build some credibility (Virginia) while still padding the win total, the other being an easy win. One legitimate BCS conference contender (Clemson) and one game against SMU who was expected to be OK but maybe not an 8 win team in 2009). Not exactly a strong schedule.

2010:
Oregon State (5-7)
Tennessee Tech (FCS)
Baylor (7-6)
SMU (7-7)

Two middling BCS conference teams, SMU - who was solid but not great, and an FCS school. Now THAT's challenging and "worthy of earning true BCS respect."

2011:
Baylor (10-3)
ULM (4-8)
Portland State (FCS)
SMU (8-5)

Baylor was expected to be a middling BCS team, but they were on their way up and beat TCU en-route to their best season in many years. SMU was getting better, so TCU threw in a bad Sun Belt program as well as an FCS school.

TCU moved to the B12 in 2012 and finally had a challenging conference schedule, so I won't analyze their non-conference in 2012 and 2013.

The fact is that the TCU Model that you advocate includes scheduling a certain way: schedule easy games to rack up wins in seasons where you are building the program, then over time, start to challenge teams perceived as being one level above your program. The fact is that the TCU Model does not say that "Who you play is more important than winning or losing." You advocating the TCU Model and simultaneously bashing SMU for trying to schedule the way TCU did on their way up is simply hypocritical. TCU waited to have a true challenge on their schedule until they were good and ready.

Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to play Baylor this year. But we needed to get a win somewhere and A&M didn't let us out of the contract to go down there. Over time, we need to ensure that we structure the schedule the way TCU did on their way up. Baby steps: Beat crap teams first, challenge good teams later.

Vandy, Northwestern, Wake, and Duke follow the same pattern often as well.