OUCH!
by patienthornsfan on Jul 4, 2007 9:57 AM CDT
Email
PrintWhen was Texas ever mentioned on the same ranking list with Kansas and Tech? Well, in football anyway?
Give up? The answer is - yesterday, on espn.com.... Alright, so we've thrashed the scheduling issue to death, but this just hurts.
The Longhorns get kudos for scheduling a home game against TCU, a possible BCS sleeper. But the rest of the schedule sets up very well for coach Mack Brown. The other three nonconference games should be routs, against Arkansas State, Central Florida and Rice. The Longhorns play top Big 12 foes Nebraska and Texas Tech at home, along with the Red River Shootout against Oklahoma in Dallas.
This kind of publicity, in the national media, is not going to help our recruiting. Texas ends up at #10 on the list, with KU at #1 and Tech at #8.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
could someone please explain
I don't really understand why having an easy schedule is such a bad thing(for the school, for the recruiting, etc.) isn't it better because you have a better chance of being undefeated or at least having more wins? Or is it because they factor schedule difficulty into the BCS system(?) For example, on that same list, A&M has one of the hardest, so what does that mean between say Tech or Texas and A&M? just that tech and texas will probably win more games? That's all I see.
it's a double-edged sword
Let's say you scheduled Arkansas, Michigan, and Florida as three of your four non-conference games. Your fans would be thrilled with the big games and the media would fall all over themselves lauding how tough your non-conference schedule is in the pre-season.
But, if you lose 2 of those 3 games, plus 1 or 2 regular season games, and are all of a sudden 8-4 after the regular season is over, those same media types who lauded you for having a tough schedule will rip your team for 'underachieving' and 'only winning 8 games with all the resources texas has', etc.
Reporters like big games on the schedule for the same reason fans do, they're fun to watch.
However, the job of the head coach and athletic director is to craft a schedule that will give their team the best chance to win the national title, not keep reporters happy. If that means a few sweet, sweet, cream-filled icily frosted cupcakes before conference seasons, then cupcakes it is.
The national media doesn't pay the head coach's salary; the athletic department (and the fanbase) does.
Even today....
we don't have a single future schedule that has been completed.
it's fine to be on this list once
but if you start seeing your school on there year after year (a la K-State and Va Tech a few years back), somethings wrong.
My guess is we wont be on this list next couple of years since Arkansas and UCLA will be perceived as tough games, despite their records.
by the other Andrew on Jul 5, 2007 11:12 AM CDT reply actions
it's not a bug, it's a feature...
if anything, I think you'll see more and more of the top teams doing this kind of scheduling in the future. All the financial incentives and almost all the competitive incentives drive the creampuff scheduling.
The main reason we stand out is that the Big 12 just doesn't have the big games internally that the SEC, for instance, does. If Nebraska and, I guess, aTm start being perceived as bigtime foes, our schedule won't look as bad. But when the best team you face is an OU with huge quarterback question marks, it puts a lot more emphasis on the non-conference... and there's just no getting around the fact that it sucks.
As a fan, I'd love to see two or even three big non-conference games every year. But that would, frankly, be stupid, considering that one loss puts you out of the driver's seat for any MNC consideration. That is the primary reason I'd love to see a big ol' 16-team full-fledged, er, postseason... You could still get in with a few losses, especially if they were to really good teams, and that would completely change the dynamic of the incentives regarding scheduling.
I know, I know, it would do away with all the magic of the "regular" season, and we just plain wouldn't enjoy "meaningless" matchups with the likes of Michigan or Florida nearly as much as we do the huge Southeast Arkansas Teachers and Hairdressers College games we get to see...
by agent orange on Jul 5, 2007 3:31 PM CDT reply actions
I missed the Great Schedule Debate, but . . .
. . . evidently it wasn't fun, cuz you guys talk about it like it was the Bubonic Plague.
Sure, I'd like to see some challenges and some good matchups on UT's schedule, but according to Phil Steele, our schedule isn't all that bad.
In looking at the "adjusted" PS 2007 Toughest Schedules. Texas slips in at 38 (out of 119). While that is noticably behind such teams as USC (#2) and Texas A&M (#10), there are QUITE A FEW teams behind us in the list.
For example,
- Texas
- Wisconsin
- Kansas St
- Missouri
- Texas Tech
- Iowa
- Purdue
- W Virginia
- Mississippi
- Alabama
- LSU
- Arkansas
- Penn St
- TCU
- Oklahoma
Take note that some of the best teams in the vaunted SEC have much weaker schedules than ours. Also, our most powerful foe year in and year out, one of the best teams in the history of football is listed just 74th by Phil Steele.
by Arby A on Jul 5, 2007 9:45 PM CDT reply actions
Ah, not the case.....
if anything, I think you'll see more and more of the top teams doing this kind of scheduling in the future. All the financial incentives and almost all the competitive incentives drive the creampuff scheduling.
That's not the case at all. In fact, other marquee programs are scheduling one another at a record pace. We are the exception. Along with Wisconsin and Penn State.
Peter - none of the following is cut&paste. I put it together tonight. When one (and all) examines the immense success of our home & home series with Ohio State, it is easy to conclude these marquee matchups are extremely good for college football. Let's not hide from it. Let's embrace it and hope the Boys at Belmont will follow our lead.
The scheduling of UCLA gives us reason for hope. Their recruiting class last year had an average rating per recruit of 3.64 and they are moving at a 3.43 pace this season with 21 players committed.
Some marquee programs and their future quality games: (Don't anyone chime in with negative comments about LSU's games with TCU, as you've all sworn, over and over, about how great their team will be in Sept.)
ALABAMA: Florida State, Penn State, Penn State, GaTech, GaTech
AUBURN: Kansas State, W.Virginia, W.Virginia,
Kansas State
CAL: Tennessee, Michigan State, Colorado, Colorado, Ohio State, Ohio State
FLORIDA: Florida State, Miami, Florida State, Florida State, S.Florida, Florida State, S.Florida, Florida State, Miami, Miami
FLORIDA STATE: Alabama, Florida, Colorado, Florida, BYU, Florida, OU, BYU, Florida, OU, Florida, W.Virginia, Florida, W.Virginia, Florida
GEORGIA: Arizona State, GaTech, OSU, Arizona State, GaTech, Colorado, Louisville, Louisville, Clemson, Clemson, Oregon and Oregon
LSU: VaTech, Colorado, Colorado, TCU, TCU, Arizona State and Arizona State
MIAMI: OU, A&M, Arizona State, GaTech, OSU, Arizona State, GaTech, Colorado, Louisville, Louisville, Clemson, Clemson, Oregon and Oregon
MICHIGAN: Oregon, NotreDame, NotreDame, NotreDame, NotreDame, NotreDame
NEBRASKA: USC, Wake Forest, VaTech, VaTech, Washington, Washington, UCLA, UCLA, Tennessee, Tennessee
OHIO STATE: Washington, USC, USC, Miami, Miami, Cal, Cal, VaTech, VaTech
OKLAHOMA: Miami, Washington, Miami, Florida State, Florida State, NotreDame, Tennessee, NotreDame, Tennessee
OREGON: Michigan, Boise State, Boise State, Tennessee, Kansas State, Kansas State, Tennessee, Georgia, Georgia
USC: Nebraska, NotreDame, Ohio State, NotreDame, Ohio State, NotreDame
TENNESSEE: Cal, UCLA, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon, OU, OU, Nebraska, Nebraska
UCLA: NotreDame, Tennessee, Tennessee, Kansas State, Texas, Kansas State, Texas, Nebraska, Nebraska
VaTECH: LSU, Nebraska, Nebraska, Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Kansas State, Ohio State, Ohio State, Kansas State
WASHINGTON: Ohio State, OU, NotreDame, NotreDame, Nebraska, Nebraska, Colorado, Colorado
WEST VIRGINIA: Auburn, Auburn, MichiganSt., MichiganSt., Florida State, Florida State
impressive
to see them all stacked up like that.
the three that really jump out at me are Colorado, Florida and Michigan.
Florida never leaves their state and beyond Oregon, Michigan just has their yearly deal with Notre Dame. While Colorado isn't one of the main teams listed, they seem to be on everyone else's list.
If I'm betting on who Belmont is gonna schedule next, it'll be one of either a) Ole Miss, b) Boston College or c) Syracuse.
It won't be a name, but it'll be a name you've heard of.
by the other Andrew on Jul 6, 2007 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Colorado
always schedules a tough home and away team. I think it is because they have such a spread out alumni (45% out of state student body) that the alumni will buy a lot of tickets on the road, and they have a tough time selling tickets at home.
What would Texas look like
TEXAS: TCU, Arkansas, Arkansas, UCLA, UCLA
Not the best on that list by a long shot, but definitely comparable to the bottom half of the list you have up there.
One thing is that without the years attached to the above figures it is hard to tell if teams are just scheduling further down the line than Texas does.
Does it seem that Texas does not schedule as many seasons ahead as most teams?
Please.....
TEXAS: TCU, Arkansas, Arkansas, UCLA, UCLA
Not the best on that list by a long shot, but definitely comparable to the bottom half of the list you have up there.
.
Comparable to the bottome half? No F'in way! I'll give you Auburn and that is it! Arkansas hasn't won a Conference Championship since 1989! Last year was Nutt-job's first 10-win season at Arkansas, though he does have record on Mack. UCLA hasn't won a Conference Championship since 1998 when Bob Toledo bent us over. As I said before, UCLA does provide hope as they are greatly improved in talent. They did defeat USC last season.
.
Does it seem that Texas does not schedule as many seasons ahead as most teams?
.
At the same time Mack Brown referred to the Ohio State game as "stupid to play", DeLoss was quoted as saying "we schedule 10 years in advance." Not overly accurate was he? By waiting for all the marquee opponents to fill their schedules, by default we can claim that "there wasn't anyone able to play us." We don't even have the 2008 schedule completed. Did you realize that to be the case? USC is openly shopping for a marquee home&home, everyone knows about it as it is on virtually every board around the country. No one at Belmont can claim they didn't know. We have a hole in every season's future schedule. We don't have a single OOC game scheduled after the 2011 season. In 3 consecutive off-seasons, Miami approached us about a home&home series. We ducked them all 3 years and now A&M and OU will be playing those games against TheU.
When former Asst. Tim Brewster (now HC at Minnesota) approached us about a home&home series, we summarily dismissed him. He's trying to jumpstart his program and we OWE him better than that! Gosh, the man only delivered the signatures of Chris Simms and Vince Young! How can we possibly justify treating him in such a manner?
Alright, maybe not bottom half
If you are going to include the following teams in your lists, then Arkansas and UCLA should count:
Kansas State
GaTech
Michigan State
Colorado
BYU
Arizona State
Washington
I do realize that we don't have the 2008 schedule complete, that is why I asked the question. I was trying to see if anyone knew why.
I was not trying to attack your points, I was just trying to have a dialog, but your defensive and condescending tone makes it really not worth it.
Ok seriously
This is a great point, but you CANNOT include Notre Dame in this argument! They play the same teams every year, and they are independent so they are an OOC game EVERY Year for those teams. So you cannot use them as an example of "Brave ooc Scheduling".
I wish we could play Notre Dame every year, cause they are overrated every year and when we beat them it would be on National TV!
However, other than that, this is pretty impressive. Kudos to HC who I usually give a pretty hard time.
Having said that, what is wrong with TEXAS: TCU, Arkansas, Arkansas, UCLA, UCLA
That is one respectable ooc game every year for the next 5. And Ark and UCLA are just what everyone is crying for. A middle team from a power conference.
For reasons of perception, I understand why you don't want to be the bottom rung of Strength of ooc schedule, but if your goal is to win every game, I don't see the advantage of being at the top unless you are in a weak conference.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
