http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/notebook/stories/060204dnspocolbriefs.95ed8.html

forgive my not knowing how to link this, but...

I'd be curious to hear everyone's thoughts regarding the possibility of putting SMU back on the schedule.
Personally, I don't see what A&M has to gain from this, other than a patsy on the schedule. SMU certainly doesn't draw enough fans to make the big $$$, and if the idea is to play a team in the DFW area to help recruiting, it seems that either North Texas or TCU would make more sense.

You said it. We need 3 teams to clobber before getting into the Big 12 schedule every year.

I would love to see us have 2 teams to clobber and a name team for a test but I doubt if we have that in the future.

Fran's point is that a team that has confidence often times plays over its head and a team that's down on itself often plays under its potential.

His point is that we need to be 3-0 heading into conference every year.

(Don't make me dig up the quotes)

We're opening ourselves up for some serious criticism considering how much crap we give the sips for their patsy non conference schedule.

I understand and agree with the concept of having a "soft" non conference schedule, but I still think North Texas is a better choice. They are a team on the way up in the eyes of many, but still beatable. SMU is....well, SMU.

It was for the 2005 season? We have an opening. FSU cannot play us. How is this Texas A&M's fault? Most teams already have everyone scheduled for the 2005 season, even SMU does, but they are trying to eliminate their OSU game.

Oh, and I am excited about driving 5 minutes to get to the game.

quote:

---

Franchione later added of his 4-6 Aggies: “We all feel like (opponents) need to get their licks in while they can.”

---

[This message has been edited by BigD Ag (edited 6/2/2004 8:30a).]

We're not considering SMU because they're beatable. We're considering SMU because they play in Dallas and will generate Dallas media coverage. Same reason the horns play UH and Rice. TCU and UNT may be better teams, but the Dallas media won't cover that game like they would an SMU/A&M game. Dallas TV and print media dominate north central and northeast Texas, and we need to tap into that.

I personally would like to see us play the other former SWC teams, including Arkansas on a rotating basis of some kind.

It helps within the state.

If I had my way we'd have our 3-4 non-conference games like this:

Open w/ former SWC foe, unless its Arkansas. If it is Arkansas push it back a game or two. If we play either Rice or SMU as our former SWC foe then that game should be considered our gimme. If we play TCU, UH or even Arkansas we should consider that our mid-level opponent.

Then play a big-time match up against an elite program. I would love to see a series against a Big 10 or PAC 10 team.

Then one gimme against the Wyoming's or ULALa...




You know me, gotta roam. Gotta bird-dog. Gotta cross females and fences, and if you'd all just come along you'd see...

Here's the blurb:
Mustangs, Aggies talk about football schedule

UNIVERSITY PARK – Discussions have started between SMU and Texas A&M about playing each other in football for the 2005 season, and possibly three of the next four seasons. A&M has an open date for 2005. SMU has no open dates but is looking to move Oklahoma State off its schedule.

BTW, getting OSU out of Dallas would be a bonus. They don't need any help recruiting in the Metroplex.

I'd love to see us play the Mustangs again....! Maybe two years at Kyle and one in Dallas. We may not have much to gain, but it cannot hurt recruiting and honestly, I'd rather play SMU than Wyoming or the Citadel....................!

quote:

---

It was for the 2005 season? We have an opening. FSU cannot play us. How is this Texas A&M's fault? Most teams already have everyone scheduled for the 2005 season, even SMU does, but they are trying to eliminate their OSU game

---

This is the bottom line.
FSU backed out of our '05 game, leaving us with an opening. NOBODY has an opening for that year in Division 1. It will take a team to back out of one of their regular games to fit us on, and SMU seems to be the one willing to do that.

This will play well. I can see the headlines in the stoolwater gazette now:

SMU drops OSU for easier game against Texas A&M

Fortunately nobody in stoolwater can read, so there won't be a lot of audience for it, but that will be the spin.

I guess I'm okay with this....as long as we don't play it in the freakin' ALAMO DOME.

I'm still pissed about that game.....

Dang FSU for reneging.

I don't want to play SMU unless they agree to a 2 for 1 home series contract. And Greg Hood ought be allowed to toss the coin prior to the game when they and their stupid Purina fight song come back to Kyle.

I lived through all the years as a student when we had a weak OOC schedule. We paid for it at bowl time.

I am totally against us EVER going back to playing teams that suck as OOC foes. Groff had the right OOC mix: patsy, name game, and marque. FSU dropping us really screwed up our OOC schedule in 05 and 06. We could really suffer those years in BCS rankings if Fran has us back on top by then. Ture the XII is strong, but most all of the really strong programs play at least one really tough OOC game every year. We should as well.

Besides, I don't want to pay $75 a pop to see us play Judy's Hair and Nail Institute 3 times prior to XII action.

The Second Amendment is in place in case they decided to ignore the other ones.

Chicken: I agree but I think the way the BCS formula has panned out that the way to go now by most schools in the strong conferences to get easier teams now to fill up the non-conference games. Still, I think N. Tx. beats SMU 9 out of 10 times and even Sam Houston could probably compete against them. NCAA's death penalty just killed their program.

I can see what Byrne and the athletic department see in this game. It gives us more exposure in the Metroplex. We definitely need it. I would like for us to play another in-state team.

We need two patsies and 1 middle of the road type team.

quote:

---

I lived through all the years as a student when we had a weak OOC schedule. We paid for it at bowl time.

---

And it'll be the same now because the Big 12 = the dying SWC?

Please.

LSU won half of an MNC with one of the weakest OOC schedules in the country last season. In the latter days of the SWC, you needed a tough OOC schedule. In today's Big 12 and SEC, you want a weaker OOC..... if LSU had scheduled someone like FSU and lost, they never would have been in the Sugar Bowl............

Personally I'd rather get lsu back on the schedule, but I guess that's for another debate.
Being from Houston, I'd definitely rather have cougar high than smu. Plus you get the bonus that UH is an up and coming team in most eyes.

Just to add some data to the discussion, here is the non-conf schedule of some of the BCS teams from this past year:

LSU: La-Monroe, W. Illinois, Arizona, La. Tech
USC: Auburn, BYU, Hawaii, Notre Dame
OU: N. Tex, Bama, Fresno St, UCLA
Mich: C. Mich, Cougar High, Notre Dame, Oregon
Ohio St: Wash, SD St., NC St., Bow Green

OSU and OU were the two at large bids in the BCS, and both scheduled some marquee names on their schedule. OU's didn't pan out real well as Bama and UCLA were down this year, but you can't really plan on that one way or the other. LSU's non-conf schedule probably cost them the outright MNC, and USC's probably helped them claim a share.

Here is our non-conf for the next few years:

'04: @Utah, Wyoming, Clemson
'05: @Clemson, SW Texas, ________
'06: Citadel, @Army, Troy State
'07*: @ Miami,__________, __________, _________
'08*: Ark St., Miami, Air Force, Army

Here is the sips non-conf over the same time:
'04: N. Tex, Arkansas, Rice
'05: Utah St. @ Ohio St., Rice
'06: N. Tex, Ohio St., @ Rice
'07*: Rice, Utah, ______, ________
'08*: Rice, @ Utah, ___________, _________

*According to the sip site, teams can have a 12 game reg season in '07 and '08.

Apparently Rice agreed to some kind of 3 or 4 to 1 home and away series with the sips. We may be trying to do the same thing with SMU. Our '06 non-conf schedule looks really weak right now, although Troy St suprised a few teams last year. In '08 we currently have 4 home non-conf games scheduled, so look for one of those to be moved to '07 where we currently lack games.

In LSU's defense, Va. Tech cancelled last offseason (remember LSU opened the 2002 season in Blacksburg - that was a home/home arrangement) and Marshall backed out as well. If either of those two schools don't run, LSU wins the MNC outright.

Byrne didn't seem to make it sound like playing in the metroplex was a big deal. He talked about playing national games, and now look where we are heading. I'd much rather play TCU rather than SMU personally, and I do think that game would gather more regional media exposure than SMU.

And LSU did not win half a MNC, they were the MNC.

Byrne is indeed wanting more national but we're limited in filling in the 2005 slot as there aren't many choices with it being so close.

A 3 for 1 home contract would be even better than a 2 for 1 if we're seriously going to play SMU.

Sorry, but USC has just as much of a claim to it as LSU..........!

AgLaw-

You are right that LSU did have to fill in some spots, and I don't blame them for the weak non-conf schedule they had last year. And they did win the BCS portion of the MNC this year, so the weak schedule didn't hurt too much.

Looking at their future schedules, they don't leave the confines of Baton rouge for any non-conf gae the next three years and Oregon St is their toughest opponent over that time.

I think it's a GREAT idea. Bring back as many old-school SWC matchups as possible for an OOC game (Only one per year though). It'll re-establish some in-state cred, especially in the Metroplex. I think we should switch off between a TCU/SMU series and a Rice/UH series every four years.

Make sure to beat 'em every year too, of course.

Couple of thoughts.

1. Smu would rather have A&M than the Okie lite inbreds for one real reason. Money!!

There would be a lot more Ags than inbreds at the gate. They could charge more as well.

Thought 2. If Va Tech plays the coonies they might have beat them, Especially early in the years! In that case the coonies go no where close to a a MNC. They played better as the year went on while VT played worse. VT always starts strong and I would of put my money on VT to win even in Baton Rouge in an early engagement.

"only one thing is important!"

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=334429&forum_id=6

PJYoung: I totally disagree with you. I would rather see us play a tough OOC schedule and possibly lose one really tough game than go 3-0 in OOC play simply because we loaded the schedule with SHSU, SWT, The Citadel, etc. If we win the XII, we are BCS bound. And in that case, with a little luck, we are in the MNC mix.

It is always better to play a tough schedule than to play a weak one, not to mention the intangibles that accompany a tough OOC schedule - larger gate revenue, more tv exposure, etc.

The Second Amendment is in place in case they decided to ignore the other ones.

Chicken Ranch- There is good and bad with a tough OOC schedule. However, no matter who our ooc opponents may be, if we go through the Big 12 undefeated we will be in the MNC mix.

I realize the perception is that A&M has a larger fan base in Houston (which is probably true) but with as many alumni (or FORMER STUDENTS) as you guys have, the SMU game makes sense. There have to be plenty of Aggies in Dallas.

If nothing else, it would create an additional home game on the "away" year where Dallas-area Ags can see the team in their own backyard.

I will be very surprised if Miami stays on our schedule. I look for Byrne to drop them the first chance he gets. Replacing them with an SMU might be just what he is looking for.

Nope. SMU is to fill a void left by FSU bolting. Miami is still a long time away. The SMU games would begin in 05.