Stop scheduling Big 12

[SMUer]

This is a mute point if we can't beat half our conference.

[Topper]

I think the best way to repay the Big 12 for not inviting us is to stop scheduling Big 12 teams. We could still schedule TCU which is a Big 12 stepchild though.
But no Baylor, Texas Tech etc.

Unless we are in that conference, we shouldn't play them. Let's build up the team using other means.

We have to play the best regional teams that will agree to come to Ford stadium as part of a home and away series. Number one we need the ticket sales. Number two, we have play big time schools in order to attract big time players. Half of the schools in the Big 12 wouldn't play us in Dallas unless it was part of one of Jerry Jones college days in Arlington. We should be thankful to Texas Tech and A&M that they agree to play us in our comparatively small stadium.

[feelthehorsepower]

I agree with Baylor fan and reedfrawg - couldn't disagree more with sbsmith.

Give me wins. Give me bowls. Give me steady increase in attendance due to growing our own fan base- not by filling up half our stadium with Aggies and raiders t o watch their team kill us.

You guys have to start living in reality - in 2014. Not 1984. SWC is dead. SMU is not a national powerhouse program. We are basically starting over like a new brand---and we have to build it up by continuing forward momentum. Wins. Bowls. Extra practice. Recruiting.

Hopefully our next coach takes care of the recruiting part.

If you look at it from a different perspective, SMU is technically a brand new program post death penalty. Any strides that we built throughout history were wiped out since we started from scratch. 1989 we fielded a walk on class. Every coach we have had since struggled because they were coaching an FCS or Division 2 caliber team and of course we were getting killed because we weren't at that level athletically. TCU and BU didn't suffer through that destruction of their program/brand so it was easier for TCU to build upon their new brand in the 2000s since they still were recruiting decently. It was tougher to recruit at SMU due to the reputation that we had all these years post DP.

Now the Phil Bennett era is where I can see SMU started to improve its recruiting to low midmajor level. June Jones built upon those recruits and jumped our program to become respectable. We have plateaued but now we are in the cusp of something else...I could say SMU is right now where TCU was in 1999. We are ready for our Gary Patterson.

And let me tell you this: everyone keeps telling me that the SMU program is good and that JJ is taking us in the right direction. Winning bowls and having 7 plus win seasons has helped our brand significantly. We cannot be impatient, building a football brand takes some time. Agreed, June has not stepped it up in recruiting how we were expecting but we have made significant progress. Now our aim should be to win 8 games in the regular season. Then we jump to 9 wins. This is how you build momentum and a following of fans coming to see you, sbsmith. People will come watch SMU play when we are a 10 or more wins per season team...since that would mean we are dominating our conference and maybe losing 1 or 2 of our out of conference games. Racking up bowls and conference championships will bring people to the stands. We have 10 years to build an elite brand, and the only way to do it is through winning American Athletic Conference championships and getting into a Fiesta bowl/Rose Bowl or other BCS bowl (playoffs are out of reach for Go5 teams)

[feelthehorsepower]

http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com ... exas.html/

This was a very interesting part of the article:

TCU made a clear decision as the football team experienced more success in the mid-2000s that it would spend the necessary money to compete at the highest level. Director of athletics Chris Del Conte hired Trent Johnson in 2012 and made him the highest paid basketball coach in school history, and the school has increased Gary Patterson’s salary to over $3 million in order to keep him at the school.

This too:

The football program receives nearly 40 percent of TCU’s athletic budget. The football budget sits around $28.1 million as head coach Gary Patterson makes over $3 million, but TCU is not required to release the exact figure because they are not a public university.

We are going to have to spend money to make money...when we get there.

[originaloverthehilltop1]

wordup and feel have got it right. for 20 years i have watched us skip important steps by declaring we should be playing all these top 30 teams from the old swc. why? because we SHOULD be. why? because we are SMU. because all 9000 of our loyal game attending alums want to see us lose to them.

we should be able to recruit against those top 30 programs too. why? because we have 9-10 win seasons every year and compete for the championship of our own conference routinely.

oh.....wait a minute.

there is no reason to lend that guy from baylor any credibility over scheduling. just look at the mess that program is in.

its not just about scheduling, though. scheduling is just something we routinely get back assward.

[gostangs]

Sb - you have been wrong about this for a really long time. By now I think we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that if we lose our first few games we go off the radar screen in Dallas for the rest of the year. That is not how you build a program or a fan base.

The recruiting improves step by step as has been proven by TCU and others. The costs of not having the other teams fans there is actually way cheaper then getting thrashed and then disappearing, since we are cycling the wrong way and the recruits (and their coaches and parents) know it. Early wins mean more SMU fans later, and eventually builds the season ticket base. It doesn't matter if they are cheap wins. Most people don't notice or care.

Everything starts with recruiting, so we should make the coaching change now in my opinion and stop being penny wise and pound foolish. But regardless of that the scheduling has to be eased while we try to build ourselves up to a nationally competitive program (and that means being nationally competitive - not backing into bad bowl games at Number 70 each year). This will lead to 25k - 30k SMU fans - but we have to be relevant. Only the 5k loyal will come to watch what we are now.

[sbsmith]

1. You gain a win and in the case of 2013, a bowl that helps the program build toward taking the next step. Missing a bowl hurts more than a brand name loss helps. The alienate your own fans thing happens only if you cancel it short notice to where expectations are mismanaged.



2. It took you from a laughingstock to a decently perceived team. It plateaued at that level but its foolish to think less frequent bowls is going to increase your odds of success. It's still the way to go as its shortcomings as you mentioned weren't tied to the philosophy schedule wise but rather recruiting issues with your staff.



3. Don't tell that to TCU. Fact is you build your program to the level it needs to be to play in and win relevant games by consistently winning small and then gradually building up. Beating EMU won't win over dallas on its own but beating them en route to year after year of 9+ wins and bowls will eventually help land recruits to pull off the marquee games.



4. Other things need to happen, but that doesn't excuse attempting a dumb scheduling strategy.



5. When your team isn't strong it's true but when the team is strong it isn't. In 2007 people would have said the same about us.

SMU has more living alumni in DFW (39,000) than is needed to sell out Ford. Compared to BU (12k undergrad and 20k local alumni in a 59k stadium) or TCU (7k undergrad and 25k local alumni) SMU has all the numbers it needs. If those two can generate support via winning its very likely SMU can.

Local alumni and undergrads are the most likely attendees. A winning team helps draw local non-grads and out of town alumni in larger numbers. There is no reason a successful SMU program couldn't draw the 30k+ that the Pony Express teams did against SWC teams other than Bevo or Aggy.

1. We drew 18,724 this season after 4 straight bowls and that includes the Tech sellout. Replacing Tech with EMU may have resulted in a bowl but it certainly would not have helped the program build toward taking the next step. All it would have accomplished is lower our ticket sales and less media exposure. Alienating fans happens regardless of when the games are cancelled, you just don’t chicken out of series your fans want to see without significant backlash.


2. All that "decent perception" resulted in our ticket sales falling after 4 straight bowls, not to mention that many still consider us a laughingstock because we can’t win our conference or beat Texas P5 teams. I don’t think less frequent bowls are going to increase our odds of success but limping to bowls without beating anyone will not move the needle which is why it’s not the way to go (hence our decrease in attendance).


3. TCU drew better in 1997 after they bottomed out at 1-10 (23544) than we did at any point during our bowl streak (2010-23515). It’s hard to give a [deleted] about what TCU did 10+ years ago when they had a much stronger fanbase and thus were able to endure weaker schedules without killing their attendance. We don’t need to hide behind fake wins to land recruits, we don’t land recruits here because recruiting isn’t a priority. Once it becomes a priority then won’t be a reason to entertain weakening our schedule.


4. For us a dumb scheduling strategy would be one that willfully ignores relevant competition. Playing EMU and the like would be dumb for us.

5. You’re right, a successful SMU program could draw 30K+ but there won’t be a successful SMU program without wins over Texas P5 teams and they need to be on the schedule for us to beat them (which means no EMUs taking up valuable schedule space).

[sbsmith]

Sb - you have been wrong about this for a really long time. By now I think we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that if we lose our first few games we go off the radar screen in Dallas for the rest of the year. That is not how you build a program or a fan base.

The recruiting improves step by step as has been proven by TCU and others. The costs of not having the other teams fans there is actually way cheaper then getting thrashed and then disappearing, since we are cycling the wrong way and the recruits (and their coaches and parents) know it. Early wins mean more SMU fans later, and eventually builds the season ticket base. It doesn't matter if they are cheap wins. Most people don't notice or care.

Everything starts with recruiting, so we should make the coaching change now in my opinion and stop being penny wise and pound foolish. But regardless of that the scheduling has to be eased while we try to build ourselves up to a nationally competitive program (and that means being nationally competitive - not backing into bad bowl games at Number 70 each year). This will lead to 25k - 30k SMU fans - but we have to be relevant. Only the 5k loyal will come to watch what we are now.

You're right about one thing, we need to make a coaching change now. The only reason anyone is even considering a "Fake Wins Initiative" is because they want to hide our lousy talent behind fake wins. A new coach means better talent that won't need to be hidden. If a season ticket base could be built from a bunch of fake wins and mediocre bowls then why did our attendance decline after 4 straight bowls? Do you have any idea how much worse our sales would have been without teams like TCU, A&M, and Tech coming into Ford? There will never be 25K-30K SMU fans in Ford without those teams on the schedule.

[SMU2007]

I agree. All these arguments are based on us having no talent and the inability to beat hardly any non cupcake teams. Why don't we work on the real problem which is a roster that is sparse on talent (and I'm not saying 4 and 5 stars. I'm saying talent appropriate for a good AAC team)

[WordUpBU]

1. You gain a win and in the case of 2013, a bowl that helps the program build toward taking the next step. Missing a bowl hurts more than a brand name loss helps. The alienate your own fans thing happens only if you cancel it short notice to where expectations are mismanaged.



2. It took you from a laughingstock to a decently perceived team. It plateaued at that level but its foolish to think less frequent bowls is going to increase your odds of success. It's still the way to go as its shortcomings as you mentioned weren't tied to the philosophy schedule wise but rather recruiting issues with your staff.



3. Don't tell that to TCU. Fact is you build your program to the level it needs to be to play in and win relevant games by consistently winning small and then gradually building up. Beating EMU won't win over dallas on its own but beating them en route to year after year of 9+ wins and bowls will eventually help land recruits to pull off the marquee games.



4. Other things need to happen, but that doesn't excuse attempting a dumb scheduling strategy.



5. When your team isn't strong it's true but when the team is strong it isn't. In 2007 people would have said the same about us.

SMU has more living alumni in DFW (39,000) than is needed to sell out Ford. Compared to BU (12k undergrad and 20k local alumni in a 59k stadium) or TCU (7k undergrad and 25k local alumni) SMU has all the numbers it needs. If those two can generate support via winning its very likely SMU can.

Local alumni and undergrads are the most likely attendees. A winning team helps draw local non-grads and out of town alumni in larger numbers. There is no reason a successful SMU program couldn't draw the 30k+ that the Pony Express teams did against SWC teams other than Bevo or Aggy.

1. We drew 18,724 this season after 4 straight bowls and that includes the Tech sellout. Replacing Tech with EMU may have resulted in a bowl but it certainly would not have helped the program build toward taking the next step. All it would have accomplished is lower our ticket sales and less media exposure. Alienating fans happens regardless of when the games are cancelled, you just don’t chicken out of series your fans want to see without significant backlash.

It may not have immediately given you the next step but it would have helped the situation vs sitting at home during bowl time.

2. All that "decent perception" resulted in our ticket sales falling after 4 straight bowls,

Ticket sales dipped after the team started 1-3 biting off more than it can chew right now. If you start 3-1 its likely a better showing- that is the trend everywhere.

[quite]not to mention that many still consider us a laughingstock because we can’t win our conference or beat Texas P5 teams. I don’t think less frequent bowls are going to increase our odds of success but limping to bowls without beating anyone will not move the needle which is why it’s not the way to go (hence our decrease in attendance).[/quote]

Compare your attendance from pre-June to the last couple of years, there has been progress despite frequently limping into league play.

3. TCU drew better in 1997 after they bottomed out at 1-10 (23544) than we did at any point during our bowl streak (2010-23515). It’s hard to give a [deleted] about what TCU did 10+ years ago when they had a much stronger fanbase and thus were able to endure weaker schedules without killing their attendance. We don’t need to hide behind fake wins to land recruits, we don’t land recruits here because recruiting isn’t a priority. Once it becomes a priority then won’t be a reason to entertain weakening our schedule.

A: Consider what going into league play with a winning record would do instead of limping in with a losing record and killing fan enthusiasm.

B: Quit griping about recruiting in our discussion here. Obviously it has to improve but scheduling honestly is its own thing. One topic at a time please.

4. For us a dumb scheduling strategy would be one that willfully ignores relevant competition. Playing EMU and the like would be dumb for us.

Playing 1-2 P5 noncons a year is ignoring relevant competition? Between those games and the top half of your league slate you have opportunity for legit wins.

5. You’re right, a successful SMU program could draw 30K+ but there won’t be a successful SMU program without wins over Texas P5 teams and they need to be on the schedule for us to beat them (which means no EMUs taking up valuable schedule space).

Playing two gives you the opportunity for the payoff without killing turnout and bowl hopes the way missing against 3-4 does. It isn't avoiding playing them, it's avoiding playing too many at a time.

[feelthehorsepower]

I agree. All these arguments are based on us having no talent and the inability to beat hardly any non cupcake teams. Why don't we work on the real problem which is a roster that is sparse on talent (and I'm not saying 4 and 5 stars. I'm saying talent appropriate for a good AAC team)

We are getting beat by our own conference in recruiting. Cincy, USF, Houston and Temple have higher rated recruiting classes than ours...

[sbsmith]

1. Ticket sales dipped after the team started 1-3 biting off more than it can chew right now. If you start 3-1 its likely a better showing- that is the trend everywhere.



2. Compare your attendance from pre-June to the last couple of years, there has been progress despite frequently limping into league play.



3. Consider what going into league play with a winning record would do instead of limping in with a losing record and killing fan enthusiasm.


4. Quit griping about recruiting in our discussion here. Obviously it has to improve but scheduling honestly is its own thing. One topic at a time please.



5. Playing 1-2 P5 noncons a year is ignoring relevant competition? Between those games and the top half of your league slate you have opportunity for legit wins.



6. Playing two gives you the opportunity for the payoff without killing turnout and bowl hopes the way missing against 3-4 does. It isn't avoiding playing them, it's avoiding playing too many at a time.

1. Actually if we started 3-1 by playing a weaker schedule the showing wouldn't have been better because those extra wins would have been played in front of Montana State-esque crowds (15,000). The season average would have dropped by over 3,000 in that scenario (18,724 to 15,365). So it might be the trend everywhere but how many of those situations are analogous to SMU?


2. There was progress up until this season where after 4 straight bowls our attendance dropped back under 20,000 (where it hadn't been since June’s first season).


3. In 2011 we went into league play with a 4-1 record (including a road win over a ranked TCU team). The next game we only drew 22,932 which was worse than 2 other home games that season; The home opener versus UTEP (which was a week after we were blown out at A&M) and the finale versus Rice (which came after we had lost 4 of the previous 5 games). If ticket sales are any indication, fan enthusiasm was lower after a great start than it was after several deflating losses.


4. You’re right, recruiting needs to improve but the schedule should remain the same.


5. We should be playing 3 Texas P5 teams a season, the extra spot will be filled by the NTSU series which should put more butts in seats than the average out of state P5 team that would be willing to come to Ford. Games like the one versus Michigan (money games) should be scheduled sparingly and only if they don’t upset the 2-2 home-road OOC balance. The league slate offers no opportunities for legit wins because those teams don’t matter here in Dallas and won’t help our attendance improve.


6. 4 straight bowls and our attendance dropped below 20,000, selling out to keep making crappy bowls at the expense of playing relevant competition isn’t worth it for us.

[feelthehorsepower]

1. Ticket sales dipped after the team started 1-3 biting off more than it can chew right now. If you start 3-1 its likely a better showing- that is the trend everywhere.



2. Compare your attendance from pre-June to the last couple of years, there has been progress despite frequently limping into league play.



3. Consider what going into league play with a winning record would do instead of limping in with a losing record and killing fan enthusiasm.


4. Quit griping about recruiting in our discussion here. Obviously it has to improve but scheduling honestly is its own thing. One topic at a time please.



5. Playing 1-2 P5 noncons a year is ignoring relevant competition? Between those games and the top half of your league slate you have opportunity for legit wins.



6. Playing two gives you the opportunity for the payoff without killing turnout and bowl hopes the way missing against 3-4 does. It isn't avoiding playing them, it's avoiding playing too many at a time.

1. Actually if we started 3-1 by playing a weaker schedule the showing wouldn't have been better because those extra wins would have been played in front of Montana State-esque crowds (15,000). The season average would have dropped by over 3,000 in that scenario (18,724 to 15,365). So it might be the trend everywhere but how many of those situations are analogous to SMU?


2. There was progress up until this season where after 4 straight bowls our attendance dropped back under 20,000 (where it hadn't been since June’s first season).


3. In 2011 we went into league play with a 4-1 record (including a road win over a ranked TCU team). The next game we only drew 22,932 which was worse than 2 other home games that season; The home opener versus UTEP (which was a week after we were blown out at A&M) and the finale versus Rice (which came after we had lost 4 of the previous 5 games). If ticket sales are any indication, fan enthusiasm was lower after a great start than it was after several deflating losses.


4. You’re right, recruiting needs to improve but the schedule should remain the same.


5. We should be playing 3 Texas P5 teams a season, the extra spot will be filled by the NTSU series which should put more butts in seats than the average out of state P5 team that would be willing to come to Ford. Games like the one versus Michigan (money games) should be scheduled sparingly and only if they don’t upset the 2-2 home-road OOC balance. The league slate offers no opportunities for legit wins because those teams don’t matter here in Dallas and won’t help our attendance improve.


6. 4 straight bowls and our attendance dropped below 20,000, selling out to keep making crappy bowls at the expense of playing relevant competition isn’t worth it for us.

1) The Montana State crowd was not that big because we killed momentum by getting blown out by Texas Tech and embarrased by their fans in our own house. I can argue that if we had our first game against UNT for example and we blew them out the first game in front of 25k fans (which is what we would get having UNT opening up for us) the next game would have had a better showing...even at that 6pm time slot on a Saturday night.

2) Attendance dropped drastically because we started 1-3 (1 close win vs an FCS team and blow outs by Aggy, Tech and an embarrasment by our rival TCU). After our loss vs. Rutgers, all interest from our fans was destroyed, which is what left us with the really bad attendance numbers we had. Temple was beating us at home early on which caused the Ford to be drastically emptied and by the time we played UConn people figured there were better things to do than watch us get upset by a team that was winless.

3) Yes, we did come off a great start and I was at that UCF game after the win at TCU and it was a pretty decent crowd. You cannot expect a sellout crowd in the first year after the death penalty that we had a 4-1 start. If we had another great start in 2012 and ended up winning 9 season games, I can bet you anything that if we had a 3-1 start going into the Rutgers game, we would have sold out.

4) We need to work on both. Ease up on the schedule, we have enough tough teams in our conference.

5) Are you kidding me? Our league is pretty much an AQ conference without the AQ bid. Cincinnati, USF, Navy, Houston, UCF...those are teams that could be ranked at any given time and that's tough enough! People do know about them and although it wouldn't be as exciting to beat Cincinnati than it would be to beat Aggy or TCU, it's still a win. When are you going to understand that people like Ws and it doesn't matter where they come fRom they are still wins!??!?

Win WIN WIN WIN WIN!

We need to start racking up AAC championships before we even think of scheduling any Texas P5 teams

[feelthehorsepower]

Winning the American Athletic Conference is what we need to focus on next, and the best way to do that is to load up on a easier schedule. When will you all understand that we need to win before we can build SMU Fans? I do not want to fill Ford with Aggy or Frog fans, I want our fans in there instead! We need to be consistent and we need to keep winning and that is the only way we will get these kids into our games and not into barley house/milos/homebar

[WordUpBU]

1. Ticket sales dipped after the team started 1-3 biting off more than it can chew right now. If you start 3-1 its likely a better showing- that is the trend everywhere.



2. Compare your attendance from pre-June to the last couple of years, there has been progress despite frequently limping into league play.



3. Consider what going into league play with a winning record would do instead of limping in with a losing record and killing fan enthusiasm.


4. Quit griping about recruiting in our discussion here. Obviously it has to improve but scheduling honestly is its own thing. One topic at a time please.



5. Playing 1-2 P5 noncons a year is ignoring relevant competition? Between those games and the top half of your league slate you have opportunity for legit wins.



6. Playing two gives you the opportunity for the payoff without killing turnout and bowl hopes the way missing against 3-4 does. It isn't avoiding playing them, it's avoiding playing too many at a time.

1. Actually if we started 3-1 by playing a weaker schedule the showing wouldn't have been better because those extra wins would have been played in front of Montana State-esque crowds (15,000). The season average would have dropped by over 3,000 in that scenario (18,724 to 15,365). So it might be the trend everywhere but how many of those situations are analogous to SMU?

I am talking about the number of SMU fans coming out for the other games, not average attendance. Fewer SMU fans came out for later games due to the spankings and the underwhelming MontState win. I don't care how many Raider fans showed up for game #1. Even if they drew 6,000 more than your average afterwards that is only a spike of 1k per game on average. If SMU had won games early they likely make up 1k per game or at least half of it based on people that probably would show up for a decent team but the bad start warded off. It's a zero sum game if the big name embarrasses you.

2. There was progress up until this season where after 4 straight bowls our attendance dropped back under 20,000 (where it hadn't been since June’s first season).

a- The attendance numbers support my argument. I am taking the following from home games not against Tech, A&M, or TCU and the 2010 bowl game at ford isn't included.
2006, 2007, 2008- Bad years give you a baseline of 15k.
2010 & 2011 SMU didn't schedule better but got off to a better start. Averaged 19k.
2012-2013: SMU got crushed early on, lost fan enthusiasm, and averaged much less and finished with around 16k.

b- Horrible starts KILL turnout. Tracking BU, TCU, SMU, and others in attendance it's a pretty common dip if the start is horrible.
c- The UCF game was probably your #2 appealing matchup for home games this year and an ice storm killed it's potential.
d- You worry about scheduling big name teams which is fun for fan pregame but isn't going to make or break your attendance. Even if one big name opponent brings an obscene 15k that is still only a 3k boost. Not enough to make or break you.

3. In 2011 we went into league play with a 4-1 record (including a road win over a ranked TCU team). The next game we only drew 22,932 which was worse than 2 other home games that season; The home opener versus UTEP (which was a week after we were blown out at A&M) and the finale versus Rice (which came after we had lost 4 of the previous 5 games). If ticket sales are any indication, fan enthusiasm was lower after a great start than it was after several deflating losses.

False. It was only worse than your home opener (one of the best attended games of the year for ANYONE) against a team that traveled respectably. The UCF game was against a team that traveled poorly and you probably had as many or more Pony fans there as you did against UTEP. So UTEP had 2 things spiking it.

Also my argument is over time, not a one game spectacle. The numbers before this break in the quote bear that out.

The Rice game was NOWHERE near it. RIce had 14k people in paid attendance and fewer actually show up!

4. You’re right, recruiting needs to improve but the schedule should remain the same.

Bad losses early are not the way to build a fanbase. Cut it back to two tough opponents and watch both the record and fanbase grow a little bit.

5. We should be playing 3 Texas P5 teams a season, the extra spot will be filled by the NTSU series which should put more butts in seats than the average out of state P5 team that would be willing to come to Ford. Games like the one versus Michigan (money games) should be scheduled sparingly and only if they don’t upset the 2-2 home-road OOC balance. The league slate offers no opportunities for legit wins because those teams don’t matter here in Dallas and won’t help our attendance improve.

We were in the BIG 12 SOUTH. Playing those teams didn't grow our attendance until our program won something. It isn't any different here.

6. 4 straight bowls and our attendance dropped below 20,000, selling out to keep making crappy bowls at the expense of playing relevant competition isn’t worth it for us.

Already pointed out that your attendance against teams that don't travel well was BETTER when you got off to a good start and tanked when you didn't. You need to get off to a good start and taking on 3-4 of BU, TCU, A&M isn't going to lend itself to consistent fast starts.