The Final Piece Of The Pathetic Puzzle

by Peter Bean on Dec 5, 2006 7:06 PM CST in Football Comment 55 comments

We knew it was gonna be a buy game. We knew it was gonna be a miserable opponent. We knew the 2007 football schedule had no hope for redemption...

And yet, as the home opener is officially confirmed today by the Statesman, I'm still flabbergasted. If I weren't such a windbag, I'd be beyond words.

With today's announcement that Texas will face Arkansas State to start the season, the most feminine, chicken-sh*t schedule ever to be assembled by a major college football team that fancies itself a national title contender has been completed.

Your 2007 non-conference schedule, in order:

Arkansas State
TCU
@Central Florida
Rice

Give me Rupaul, four pink darts,
and a map and I could assemble
a more masculine schedule.

TCU's a decent team, and Rice has definitely seen worse days, but in the aggregate, that's about as lousy a non-conference schedule as you can assemble. If Texas misses out on a big prize next season because of this schedule, you won't find me anywhere near the line of people arguing on Texas' behalf.

And that's because we won't deserve it.

What makes me madder are all the "bleed burnt orange through and through" apologists that want to tell me to show up, take my medicine, and just cheer, cheer, cheer for the home team.

You know what? Damn right I'll be cheering my ass off for Texas. I'll always root for the Longhorns. But this kind of pansy-ass scheduling is a slap in the face to the fans. They schedule this B.S. because apologists like that are happy to be taken for granted. To make it simple: they do it because they can. Well, I've got the pulpit. And I cry foul.

Funny, too, that the Texas football site should have a giant pom pom story about all the money we're throwing into the North End Zone expansion, and nary a word about the garbage that they're bringing in to face the mighty Longhorns. Why? Because they know we'll still come. They know that the tradition and the chance to enjoy football Saturdays with our friends and families is something they can take for granted.

So instead of sacking up to bring some real competition to Texas on the quest to win another national championship, we're treated to a schedule that would make Bill Snyder proud.

Congratulations, Deloss Dodds and Mack Brown. Outsiders must glow at your ability to make so many people pay so much for so little. Quite an accomplishment.

Where's my whiskey?

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The 12th game

Dodds lacking a spine and the knowledge that "if you schedule them they will come" has brought us this. They know fans will hand over the scratch and pay for this pansy line-up.

I've been trying my best to stay level headed and not over react to the events of the last few weeks. I don't want to sound like a fair weather drama Queen, but this is just utter dog shit.
Thank god I don't live in Texas and I'm not shelling out the dough for season tickets on this trash (instead saving money on Northwestern tickets).

While OU, USC and OSU step up to the plate and play marquee games Dodds and Mack keep manufacturing excuses.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Dec 5, 2006 7:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yup

I've kept a level head about most of this. Even tried to keep things light and humorous.

Not this, though. This is a direct slap to the face.

And I'm not going to turn the other cheek.

by Peter Bean on Dec 5, 2006 7:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What about Hawaii?

Was Mack Brown the coach a few years ago when UT pulled out of the Hawaii game at the last minute? Classy move.

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Dec 8, 2006 11:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't get it

You'd think after the 2-year media love fest about the OSU series, we would learn. One of the only things that I like about USC is the "we'll play anybody because we're better" attitude that Carroll has scheduled with - sort of how Miami used to be before they sucked. I wish we thought the same way a little bit. At least schedule someone from a major conference.

by SaintBevo on Dec 5, 2006 7:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Right

It's carried them far, too. When was the last time they lost a regular season non conference game? 2002 at the latest.

by boomhauer25 on Dec 5, 2006 7:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not surprised

Did you really think they'd schedule anyone of note for the first game...the last time Mack did that, UT had 3 punts blocked and lost. He's gotten accostomed to taking the team for a Test Drive on Green Slopes.

Though I will admit that I will have to look Arkansas State up to even locate it on the map. It's probably in Mississippi.

And talk about insult to injury, they sent the email for soliciting foundation donations (aka, "the seat tax for keeping your season tickets") just a few days ago.

You should interview a Wisconsin fan to find out what our season is going to be like next year.

by 54b on Dec 5, 2006 7:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Some don't remember

I remember everyone asking what the hell we were doing playing NC State as first game of the season. They said Mack should've scheduled an easier opponent, what a idiot he was, ruined the season on opening day.

Now this.............

I like it, it's old school, find out what your team can do,you've lost some-players, how will there replacements perform.

Good move Mack.................
P.S. Remember everyone saying it was going to be tough starting a Freshman QB against tOSU. Almost like some already thought we lost the game.
oh well, we do have The University of Arkansas in '08. Hope McFadden is gone by then,he'd be a senior.

Just Remember, No Matter What Happens, ou SUCKS.

by ouALWAYSsux on Dec 6, 2006 8:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

darned if you do...darned if you don't....

54b, you are a bastion of great commentary on this board but I happend to humbly disagree with you here [although much sympathy is extended given the aforementioned seat tax notice just being received].

I still had my season tix when we lost to NC State in the opener and remember the drunken blatherings of many a puffed up ex-frat boy who literally were calling for Mack to be fired because of it!

Another thought as well, wasn't TCU considered to be one of the 'up and coming' teams that deserved a chance at BCS bowls, and for which they completely fudged up the most recent tweaking to the BCS scoring system? Point being, you make these schedules far in advance trying to appease two completely different camps.

Perhaps along with a playoff system the NCAA needs to try and make scheduling non-conf games more flexible and easier on teams.

I've heard Ags preaching from the hill tops how tough their schedule was for years, well Fran and Co. bailed on that concept this year and they are in the Holiday Bowl making no apologies...

by longhornJ on Dec 6, 2006 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

Thank you for the compliment and the professional courtesy, but I welcome counter opinions and usaully only comment on the BON when I do have something that will be constued as contraversial. I'm just as full of it as anyone, I just add a little more style to my bullshit than most.

I think your points are valid if you're talking about 95% of college football teams. Texas is one of the 5% of teams in college football who, realistically or not, believe the title is within reach every year. And in today's BCS, if you're serious about going after the title, you better have the SOS to back it up.

So even if you take out the emotional backlash from the fans, logic still says you have to play some decent non-con teams if you want to give yourself a realistic shot. And yeah, you can't tell if a team is going to be good when you put them on your schedule three years from now, but you can bet beyond a reasonable doubt that teams like tOSU, Michigan, USC, and SEC Powerhouses are going to be better than TCU and UTEP.

And yes the Aggies are laughing all the way to Holiday bowl with one decent win on top of a bunch of trash. However, let's say A&M went undefeated this year...their SOS would preclude them from the BCS title and we'd be the ones laughing at them. When you've been as down as they've been the last five years, ensuring a bowl game invitation is more important chasing a title.

So do you want a team that schedules not to lose, or a team that schedules to win? In my heart, I believe that if it's your year, it doesn't matter who's on your schedule, if you're the best team, you're going to take care of business. UT was proof of that in 2005. That being said, I also don't condone scheduling nothing but head toppers in your non-con, but I do suggest scheduling one elite team, one middle-weight and two also rans.

Better to have played and lost, than to have never gotten the chance to play at all.

by 54b on Dec 7, 2006 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I am all for a strong non-confernce schedule

But saying that it is logical that you need to have a strong non-conference SOS is just not true.

Flordia is in the national championship game with one loss and played Southern Miss (60th, all sangarin rankings), Central Flordia (111th), Western Carolina (I-AA), and Flordia St (52nd).

If the only goal is to make the BCS championship, then playing cupcakes and winning your conference is the way to go. The only time this did not work was Auburn, but this is the exception, not the rule.

by Wells on Dec 7, 2006 4:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But

I've got to echo 54b's sentiments here (also noted by the other Andrew). If it's your year, it's your year. Won't matter if your schedule is dinky dunk or hellacious. So why put yourself in a position to get Auburned? Especially when all the other reasons (fans, national interest, program reputation, etc.) indicate to scheduling tough games?

by Peter Bean on Dec 8, 2006 9:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What are we getting mettaphysical here?

that is a bunch of bullshit.

Are you telling me that Florida is 100% to win if they had played UM instead of Western Carolina because it is their year to got to the national championship game?

by Wells on Dec 8, 2006 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, but come on

I'm not talking about "destiny" or any malarky like that. I'm saying that if you're gonna win it all, you're good enough to beat a real team. Or at least schedule better than this crap. I think that's reasonable.

by Peter Bean on Dec 8, 2006 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you

I am all for scheduling better. Fans deserve it. Players deserve it.

I just dont think the arguement holds water that scheduling better makes it more likely that you will win a BCS NC, I think the oppsite is true. I am willing to take the lower chance of a NC to watch better games throughout the year, but for Mac and Delos, why risk it?

We need to orgnize enough fans to tell them that the lower chance at a NC is ok with the fans and that the fans feel they want better product for thier money. Just dont tell them that is the way to a NC, because it is just not true.

by Wells on Dec 8, 2006 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Missed my point

My argument:

Every single factor points to a tougher schedule being better except one.
That one factor is that if you win all your games at Texas, you'll play for the MNC 4 times out of 5.
If you're good enough to win it all, you can handle a far better schedule than this crap.
There is some chance with a pansy schedule that you'll miss out on MNC. Small chance, but a possibility.
Given (1), (3), and (4), Texas should schedule better.

Justifying a weak schedule with (2) ignores (1), (3) and (4) in an offensive way. If you ask me.

by Peter Bean on Dec 8, 2006 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But, for Mac and Delos

Number 2 will keep them thier jobs.
Numbers 1, 3 and 4 may not, unless enough fans get vocal about prefering a stronger schedule.

by Wells on Dec 8, 2006 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right and...

...that's why I'm getting vocal.

#2 is no way for the University of Texas to run its football program.

by Peter Bean on Dec 8, 2006 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Write a letter to Delos for us to all sign.

by Wells on Dec 8, 2006 12:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i dont get it

I had all my hopes on atleast one BCS School. Just ONE. I mean, anybody. Vandy, Northwestern, Pittsburgh, anybody. But we schedule Ark State.

Nothing against Arkansas State, but we could've scheduled them in 2008 when we atleast have Arkansas in the OOC. Don't look now, but there's still an August 30, 2008 spot open for Western Idaho State Tech aTm of Russett Potato Farms (Annex Branch).

Seriously though, this is insane. I will never stop cheering my beloved Longhorns, but like I said nearly 2 months ago....I'd rather be left out of the BCS top 2 because of 1-loss in a tough schedule, than be left out in an undefeated team with a weak schedule. This gives us absolutely zero credibility if we drop 1 game. Hell, it gives us zero credibility if we toast everybody by 30.

The only way we can slip into the conversation is if Nebraska, Oklahoma, and K State each have less than 3 losses. It would also help if Colorado wins the Big Xii North by going undefeated and we light them up for 50 in the Championship game. TCU would have to win the MWC and UCF would have to win Conference USA, but who does that impress?

by bleed burnt orange on Dec 5, 2006 8:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

In Defense

Next year is our only year that we don't play a credible out of conference opponent. After that we play Arkansas and UCLA.

I do think the Big XII will be on the rise next year with OU, A&M, Nebraska, and Okie State leading the march.

Hook 'em

by TarHorn on Dec 5, 2006 8:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Poor OOC schedules

I feel your pain. I've been very frustrated with the University of Florida's propensity to schedule lesser OOC opponents lately. See below.

http://www.orangeandbluehue.com/2006/11/30/floridas-schedule-myths/

O&BHue

by KelticGator on Dec 5, 2006 9:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Big XII will be tougher.....

thank God, because the OOC schedule does suck. I can't believe Ark. St. was the best we could come up with. Here's to hoping that A&M, OU(sux), Ok St, K St., will all be better than this year. I believe they will and Colorado and Baylor too. But, it still would be a tough arguement if we go undefeated and are in the NC game whether we deserve the chance or not. I agree that we will need our Big XII foes to have 8 or 9+ win seasons.

You do have to admire USC's scheduling.

Time to focus on our very young, but very talented basketball team, after the bowl of course.

Hook 'em

by amcdavid on Dec 5, 2006 9:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Nothing will change because it works

The games are sellouts no matter who comes to Austin. Do you really think Texas wants to give up a seventh home game?

As to the we will get no respect argument, many people are talking about how great Wisconsin is. They played one team, and lost.

Florida played a crap OOC sked as usual and the Gators are in the MNC Bowl. Texas wins 'em all next year and the Horns will be back in the MNC Bowl too.

by milevin on Dec 5, 2006 9:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Agred

That's true and the more I think about it, I agree with you. IF we go undefeated in the Big XII, we will be in the top 2. Big XII still is a tough conference and we would get much respect for going undefeated.

by amcdavid on Dec 5, 2006 9:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"Agreed"

Whoops, I'm a bit distracted........it sucks that my wife works for Victoria's Secret and their Fashion Show tonight is MANDATORY WATCHING.......sigh

by amcdavid on Dec 5, 2006 9:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

it's actually fairly uncommon for even 2 teams from BCS conferences to go undefeated in any given year, and 3 teams going undefeated? the only reason we think about that possibility is because it happened to occur recently. Can anyone remember it happening any other time in recent history?

And if you look at most years, 1-loss teams get that loss in-conference, not out of conference, so even if every great team starts up scheduling nothing but OOC patsies like Ark St and Rice, I don't think you'll see an increase in undefeated teams at the end of the season.

so just go undefeated every year out of the big xii and at least 9 times out of 10, you'll be in the MNC game.

by billyzane on Dec 5, 2006 10:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh

You pretentious Longhorn fans. I am going to laugh my ass off when TCU beats ya'll next year. Any team that had a late season collapse to both Kansas State and an overrated A&M needs to be worried about something besides the national championship in 2007 - like how y'all are going to stop teams from throwing the ball up and down the field on y'all.

by foosball on Dec 5, 2006 11:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That RuPaul chick is hot...

I dont see what all the complaining is about. She's like a 9 out of 10.

Seriously though, hopefully the Big 12 competition will make things look better. TCU should have a good record next year as their other non-conf games are: SMU, Baylor, and Stanford.

At least 08 gets a little better depending on if Arkie plays like they played this year or if they played like they did last year.

by the other Andrew on Dec 5, 2006 11:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Dont worrry

My Buckeyes have some bullshit as well:
Vs. Youngstown State
Vs. Akron
At. Washington
Vs. Kent State.

Seeing that makes me go, WTF????

by 303Dub on Dec 6, 2006 12:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Devils advocate for this type of scheduling...

A few caveats before I begin:

As a college football fan, I hate seeing these types of schedules.
98% of this nonsense would end with a playoff that involved at least 8 teams.

So, with that in mind here's how I can defend this type of patsy scheduling.

I've been watching Texas long enough to know that the truly great teams only come along once every 20 years or so. Sometimes they make a run of a couple of years but for the most part 12 out of 15 teams are good, but not great. 2 out of 15 are mediocre and maybe one of those is Championship worthy.

So, as a die hard fan, knowing how the BCS and the MNC work, when do you want to see your team eliminated from the title hunt?

Do you want it to be in week two or three when you have to travel to a decent, but hostile Tennessee or Virginia team? Or do you want it to be in the last game of the season when you're playing in Glendale, AZ or wherever the MNC is played.

If you have a truly great team like we had last year (and USC had in 04-05) it wont matter who you schedule. You'll win games with enough style points to put yourself in the MNC.

If you have a good but not great team like we had this year, it wont matter if you play the hardest schedule or the softest schedule in the world if you get a little dinged up and cant beat K State/ A&M or Oregon State/ UCLA.

As for the "we should play the toughest teams so we can be ready for the MNC" arguments. That's hogwash. Every team we play plays their toughest when they play us. It sounds cocky to opposing fans of lesser schools, but it's true. Every team wants to think that they're the other teams Super Bowl. It's true for us, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, OU and a few others. Hell you dont need any more proof that we're the other teams super bowl than in 1997 when we were 4-7 and sucked and most opposing teams tore down their goalposts after beating us.

Scheduling should also be about making a name for yourself in recruiting hotbeds. Yes, most people know Texas but it's gonna take a lot more to convine the 4* kids to travel 1500 miles to play for us. So we need to go to places where high school football has a lot of talent. Places like Florida, California, and Ohio. Well day-um, I wonder if it's a coincidence that we travel to Florida next year and California a few years later. If you beat up on the lesser schools in that state the good high school kids don't have that hometown pride to contend with and can give Texas a legitimate thought. If you play Big State U, kids might feel like they're betraying their home. I know I wouldve if I was actually good at football and Florida recruited me by showing up in DKR and playing Texas.

To sum up, I dont like this type of scheduling, but I understand it... I also dont live in Austin, so I dont have to put up with the 11-am-early-September-sweaty-ass-shitty-competition games.

by the other Andrew on Dec 6, 2006 12:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

well put...

true dat, double TRUE to everything you said there, nice summation of my sentiments.

by longhornJ on Dec 6, 2006 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Weak schedules

This sort of scheduling shows disrepect to the fans and the players. It communicates to the players that they are not sure they can beat even a "mid-Level" team like Washington, Kentucky, Pitt, or Purdue. It also laughs at the fans who they have over a barrel. They know in order to get tickets to games like A&M, Tech, and Neb, we have to buy season tickets and get stuck with the likes of Central Fla and Ark State. I have bought season tickets for over 35 years and will continue to do so, but am I going to drive 250 miles each way to see them play the likes of Sam Houston or Ark State? Not hardly. There is only one thing that will change this and that is we go undefeated and get passed over for the NC game for two one-loss teams. Wouldn't that be poetic justice. That is not out of the realm of possibilities, especially if the prestige of the Big XII continues to drop. Just ask Boise State.

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Dec 6, 2006 7:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

that is in fact out of the realm of possibility

Boise St? you think Texas and Boise St are comparable?

name recognition and history alone would preclude an undefeated texas from EVER being left out of a MNC game in favor of two one-loss teams, as long as UT is still in a BCS conference. that's just ridiculous.

by billyzane on Dec 6, 2006 7:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Boise State

No, I do not think UT and Boise State are the same. I am saying that if the prestige of the Big XII continues to fall, we may find ourselves in the position of being undefeated and still left out of the championship game. Keep in mind also that computers have no name-recognition. They aren't aware of Texas' rich heritage and past football glories. they are not even allowed to consider margin of victory over the likes of Central Florida and Ark.State. Remember how far down the computers had UT even before the late-season melt-down? But we are missing the point. The idea is not just making it to the title game; the idea is winning a NC. Do we really want merely to get to the game thanks on a weak schedule and then get blown out? Do you want the rest of the nation saying we don't belong there. Or do you want to take a confident, battle-hardened team who had played a tough schedule into the NC game?

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Dec 6, 2006 8:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you can't win it if you don't get there

and that's the real point, in my opinion. how often do you even get the opportunity to win one game for the MNC? before 2005, Texas had....uh, 1983 was it? if you schedule yourself really had OOC games so you'll always be the "best prepared" for the MNC game, then you run a higher risk of not getting there in the first place and even if you do, you're still not guaranteed to win. do what you can to get there and hope for the best.

as for the computers, they sure don't take into account history and all that, but they definitely take into account whether you're undefeated or not. and human polls make up 2/3 of the formula.

by billyzane on Dec 6, 2006 8:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

At least

Arkansas State is a 1-A team. I think.

by Kahuna on Dec 6, 2006 8:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

This how you spell chicken shit

IF this schedule is about winning games why bother with Div I teams? Why not Div.II or Div.III and see if the longhorns can beat them by 100 points and really run up some ridiculous stats. They could have running backs get 400 yards a game and QB's throw for 600 yards. This way everyone feels good, records for everyone and victories for the fans.

xerxes

by Xerxes on Dec 6, 2006 8:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Central Florida

Why in the world are we going there?

by Caradoc on Dec 6, 2006 10:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

i imagine it's harder to buy off C-USA teams

we got a 2 for 1. they're going to come to Austin in '09 and '11. and they're opening a new stadium next year so maybe that's why we went there first.

also, being able to take a few recruits out of florida each year wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. See Brantley, John.

by billyzane on Dec 6, 2006 11:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not really a good answer, but...

George O'Leary is the coach there. Maybe we like to give coaches who have lost their way a help up.

You can also use that excuse to explain UTEP and MIke Price being on our future schedule as well.

by the other Andrew on Dec 6, 2006 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

TCU is no slouch...

They beat OU in '05 and TT this year. Unfortuntely, as long as we have this stupid BCS system, there is no incentive for Texas and any other top 10 school to schedule one another early in the season.

by jwill on Dec 6, 2006 11:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

In all fairness to Mack Brown

Who would really want to play Texas right now to start the season? It would take balls the size of concrete OR an absolutely nothing to lose mentality on the other end.

The Big 10 schools don't want to play you guys. Only Ohio State can roll with your speed. Michigan hasn't played a game in the Southeast since the 1950s. Not sure when the last time they went into Texas.

Auburn had an open date and UGA had an open date to start the season. I heard that we talked, and neither of us were all that interested in tangling.

That said, it's a candy ass schedule for sure, and I hate it for you or anyone that's a college fan.

Note: Our experience is that the Pac 10 schools are the most willing to play anyone. They're so desperate for media respect beyond the Pacific Time Zone that they'll tangle with anyone.

Rumors are that UGA has had productive conversations with Washington, UCLA, Oregon, and Oregon State. We just haven't inked a deal with anyone but oregon so far.

by Paulwesterdawg on Dec 6, 2006 1:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

One problem, though

The problem, though - well, there are several problems - but one problem is that Texas acts as though it's the biggest baddest kid on the block. Well, schedule like it then. OU is scheduling far better than we are. It's shameful that our schedule is so pitiful.

Second, it's not just the Arkansas State game, which, taken on its own, is forgivable. It's that when Rice, TCU, and Central Florida round out your non-con schedule, the aggregate is shameful.

by Peter Bean on Dec 6, 2006 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Baddest on the Block

Well said. Remember a few years ago when everyone (including us) used to laugh at the weenies Kansas State was scheduling? Now we are Kansas State. Do we really want to just slip into the NC game thanks to a weak schedule and hope we can win and grab a fancy trophy? Or do we want to be respected as a great football program playing the best and afraid of no one?

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Dec 7, 2006 8:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd just like to know

what 'balls the size of concrete' actually look like!

just kidding lil'dawgie, I've got mad respect for Georgia, and the struggles they had with playing in a wicked tough conference just highlight the problem that AD's are forced to juggle when they sit down to make out these schedules years in advance. things that pure fans don't want to think about like: willingness to take a 2 for 1 deal (i.e. extra home game in the future, cha-ching!), recruiting options in an area we otherwise might not get to, even the 'style' of team you play. After all the Ags almost looked really stupid playing a fiesty Army team running their throwback flexbone or whatever offense. How much time do you think their coaches spent on film for Army, or instead were they sneaking a peek at a what Tech was doing that week, etc...

point is, sitting at home in September I want to see a really good game too...but I'll take a few cakewalks in scheduling until the NCAA grows some balls [of the concrete variety or no] and puts a playoff system into effect. That would change scheduling forever, and make a team like Texas (or Georgia) that's good enough to beat OU, Nebraska, (Auburn and GT) survive let downs and not be out of the hunt altogether. That's the ONLY think I still like about the NFL, that you can be 4-4 in the first half of the season and still come back to be 11-5 and got to the SuperBowl.

by longhornJ on Dec 6, 2006 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a MACK BROWN problem, not DeLoss

From 1977 (1st season after DKR's retirement) until Mackovic's last season at UT, our Longhorns played THIRTY-SIX(36) ranked opponents in our OOC schedule. That is 21 seasons and 36 ranked opponents in the OOC.

Coach.......#Ranked OOC Opponents/Season

Mackovic........... 2.33
McWilliams......... 2.00
Akers.............. 1.10

Brown.............. 0.33

ZERO point three three! Gee, thanks Mack! What makes that number even more pathetic is that ALL THREE ranked opponents (UCLA, (2)OhioSt.) played during Mack's 9 seasons at UT were scheduled by his predecessor, John Mackovic.

The problem isn't DeLoss Dodds, as he clearly had no fear of scheduling marquee opponents prior to Mack Brown's arrival. The fearful one, the one wringing his hands, the one scheduling all the cannon fodder patsies is Mack Brown. As if that wasn't bad enough, we know from Archie Griffin that Mack was attempting to have the series with Ohio State cancelled as late as June prior to the first game. That, and he referred to the games as "stupid to play".

This isn't some new phenom, as it is just a continuation of Mack Brown's scheduling at North Carolina. Here is a list of every OOC game played during Mack Brown's final 9 seasons at North Carolina.

VMI, (2)Kentucky, (2)Navy, (3)S.Carolina, Miami,OH), UConn, Cincinnati, (2)Army, William & Mary, Furman, (2)Ohio, UTEP, (2)Tulane, (2)TCU, SMU, (2)Syracuse, (2)Louisville, Houston, Indiana and Stanford. Oh, and his AD forced him to play an (8-5)USC team in a PigSkin Classic for the money. That is one patsy after another for 9 full seasons!

Everyone knows the path to Big-12 Championships leads through OU and the RRS. Again going all the way back to 1977, when playing a RANKED opponent prior to the RRS, our record against OU is 13-4-2 (.737). When our Longhorns did NOT play a ranked opponent prior to the game with OU, our record is 2-8 (.200). If it is true we are "all about winning Championships" and we know the way to Big-12 Championships is through OU, then wouldn't it make logical sense to take the path with 74% success, rather than the path with a success rate of 20%?

Mack Brown has NEVER defeated OU without first playing a RANKED opponent! Not once.

Yet Mack Brown's OOC at Texas is littered with the likes of (3)N.Mex.St, (6)Rice, NCState, (2)Stanford, Rutgers, (2)LaLafayette, (2)Houston, N.Carolina, (2)Tulane and (2)N.Texas.

All that to be followed by lots more Rice, lots more UCF, Ark.State, TCU, UTEP, along with a couple of mediocre Arkansas and UCLA teams.

Anyone believing Mack Brown has any concern for the value our fans receive for their entertainment dollar, needs some help from the couch.

--- We have pansies scheduling our patsies. ---

by HornChamps on Dec 6, 2006 4:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

nah, Brown

wants to win Championships. Given the current shitty circumstances in the BCS, there is no real reason to put your neck on the line early in the year. I agree that it is lame and would rather see us fight it out with good competition, but I guarantee none of ya'll will be complaining next year during the BCS selection when we are undefeated going to the MNC. Then we should re-post this whole thread...

by kicker on Dec 6, 2006 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not really

Mack, I don't think, is the problem. Big teams play down. Bad teams play up. Before Mack, Texas was a bad team. Texas was the bad team that teams scheduled.

41-38

by inVINCEable on Dec 6, 2006 7:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Scheduling Patsies

Thank goodness William & Mary weren't available for next year. Don't know about William but I have heard that Mary is pretty tough. Seriously though, HornsChamps, great research and insight. I vaguely recall after last year's (not this year's) Ohio State game, Mack Brown saying they were never again going to schedule tough opponents like that. I was hoping that was tongue-in-cheek, but apparently it wasn't. Did anyone else recall that quote?

For those who believe Texas can play a soft OOC schedule and automatically make it to the NC if they are undefeated, consider this hypothetical situation: Let's say there are 2 teams from tough conferences with 1 loss (e.g., LSU & USC) and an undefeated UT, having rolled over the likes of Central Florida, Rice, and Ark. State). Here are the final polls: HP = Human Poll, Comp = avg of computer polls

HP1 HP2 Comp Avg
UT 1 1 6 2.77
LSU 2 3 1 2.00
USC 3 2 2 2.33

USC & LSU would play in the NC !

If you don't believe UT could be undefeated and ranked 6 by the computers, remember the computers per BCS aren't allowed to consider margin of victory, so 1 point victory over Ark State and a 70 point win are the same. Also remember how low the computers had UT ranked this year even before the Nov. crash and burn.

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Dec 7, 2006 7:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That is ridiculous

let me make up some numbers and try to make an arguement.

The truth is, we have a much better chance of getting in going undefeated than not. Also, your averages dont work like the BCS, it depends on the number of votes in the human polls, so even if we were ranked 6th (not verry likely, even without margin of victory, going undefeated counts way more in the computers) We would have to be close to the #2 team in both human polls. If we won all of the first place votes in both human polls, even in you made up situation we would still be in.

by Wells on Dec 7, 2006 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Brown's preferred opponents

We were all worried about playing Boise State in a bowl game because we would have nothing to gain and so much to lose and vice versa. The same argument applies to playing this sort of weak sister OOC schedule. If this is what Brown wants, he better make damn sure one of the patsies doesn't reach up and bite him on the butt because his team is on cruise control. The season really would be in the toilet.

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Dec 7, 2006 8:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Non-conference schedule

Our primary driver appears to be playing teams from states which are already on our schedule (we play Arkansas fairly routinely so Arkansas State arguably qualifies). This screen leads us to (with Sagarin rankings):

17    TCU
47    Houston
50    Tulsa
68    Rice
76    Air Force
88    SMU
86    Colorado State
104    UTEP

I don't see any reason not to play:

a.    a Houston team every year (Rice or U of H);
b.    a Dallas/Ft. Worth team every year (SMU or TCU);
c.    pick one team out of Tulsa, Air Force, Colorado State and UTEP (or even #80 New Mexico or #115 New Mexico State); and
d.    play one top 10-20 team from another region (or even 2 teams from the list in c).

by JM on Dec 7, 2006 12:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Negative on NM St.

I don't ever want Texas to play those Aggies again. What a waste of time. It seemed like they were the opening game for every season of the mid to late 90's. I think Ricky Williams ran for like 1,300 yards against New Mexico State over his career...

by Kahuna on Dec 7, 2006 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

New Mexico State.

Would be a fun game, and one that would get us ready for the Red Raiders. They are now coached by Hal Mumme, and they throw the ball about 50 times a game.

It'd at least be an entertaining non-conference game.

by Blitzburgh on Dec 7, 2006 3:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The more I think about it

the more I understand why we schedule nobody. The people who said there is no great incentive for a team like Texas to have a hard schedule are right. For a premier name school that the media and the polls tend to favor (which we are) you are better off getting wins than risking an upset. Anybody that thinks a 1-loss LSU would play in the NC game over an undefeated Texas is fooling themselves. No way the voters let that happen. We're not Boise State or Tulane.

That being said, it does stink for fans because those marquee matchups are loads of fun. But as long as 1 loss puts you at such a disadvantage, we'll see these schedules. As longhornJ said, if there were a 4 or 8 team playoff you would probably see teams more likely to play a harder game because it wouldn't cripple you.

by SaintBevo on Dec 7, 2006 9:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs