There was a time in the not so distant past that I was oblivious to the importance of football recruiting. For most of my early life, SMU was a member of the Southwest Conference (SWC), what would easily be a Power conference by the standards of today. SMU played and recruited against Arkansas, Baylor, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, and Rice. Getting top players to come play in the SWC, in Dallas, and get an outstanding education was pretty simple. And if you were willing to "play the game" that other big schools were playing, you could dominate recruiting - and SMU did.
But something changed in the 80s. The NCAA wanted to make an example of a school in an attempt to reduce the rampant cheating throughout college football, and SMU was the perfect target. It was a private school, smaller fanbase, and less likely to fight back against the selective nature of the investigation and penalty. The NCAA lowered the boom on SMU, shutting down the program for a year. SMU was allowed to play 6 away games in 1988, but opted not to play at all. We would start from scratch in 1989 with a whole new staff and recruit a team from the ground up. I watched coaches/recruiters from every college land on our campus like vultures picking at a carcass, recruiting our players who the NCAA graciously allowed to transfer without penalty. Many of these same programs routinely offered money, cars, prostitutes - whatever it took on the recruiting trail. It was a disgusting day to be a Mustang.
Many people look to the events surrounding the Death Penalty (DP) as the primary reason SMU underperformed for almost 40 years. Certainly it played a major part. But it was truly just the spark that led to the program being put in a position where it could not compete. The real damage came from three key events.
#1 - The End of the SWC - Had the "merger" with the Big 8 occurred in the early 80s, there is no doubt SMU would have been included - as the best team outside the major state schools. Had it not been for Texas politics, Baylor and possibly Texas Tech might have been left behind. When the dust settled, Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU had no conference home. Houston chose wisely to look East, and joined with schools who would become Conference USA. The other 3 went West and created the first SUPER conference the WAC 16 - which included teams like BYU, Utah, Air Force etc. On paper, it actually looked like a promising group. But these were teams nobody in Texas followed. The games were late at night, and some programs quite literally could not keep their lights on! Within a couple of years, there was a split, followed by additions and subtractions. And for the next few decades, SMU would wander from one lousy conference to another.
During this time recruiting hit rock bottom. Nobody wanted to play in some no name conference against some crappy state university. The travel was far and inconvenient for fans. The dates and times sucked. There was little television coverage, and even less national media coverage. And then out of nowhere, the college football experts declared that some universities were more special than others. The special ones were declared morally and physically superior, received more media dollars, better bowls, and were almost guaranteed that one among this anointed few would be DECLARED - NOT EARN, National Champions. So roughly half of FBS, including some schools like SMU who had National Championships, Heisman winners, and 70+ years of playing in a top conference were effectively left behind. And there was little that could be done. Why?
 |
| If You Haven't Won A Conference Championship Since The 70s - Maybe You Don't Belong In A Power Conference? |
#2 The Pye Penalty - After the DP, SMUs leadership overreacted to the situation. There was NEVER any academic scandal at SMU. Players went to class, made their grades, and graduated with legitimate degrees. In their zealousness to "clean" SMU, administrators first attempted to cancel football, thinking a focus on academics was what the doctor ordered. This was quickly shut down. Athletics are the front door for a university, and every study has confirmed that a successful athletic department keeps alumni engaged and supportive. Plus, a successful and visible program increases applications and quality of applicants. My first real exposure to SMU came from a church youth group watching a game in the Cotton Bowl.
So the "hate athletics" types decided they would "castrate" SMU sports to make sure it would never get out of control, or be nationally competitive. What did that mean? The standards for admittance were raised above any FBS school. Players had to be admitted before they could visit, or even be offered by coaches. For those unfamiliar with college acceptance, getting admitted to a school can be an arduous ordeal - especially before computers. A high school student might be on the edge and dependent on grades in the final semester to pass. Plus, every decent athlete had already accepted an offer elsewhere before SMU got around to accepting and inviting them to visit. It KILLED recruiting, probably as much as our crappy conferences.
The few athletes who were willing to wait, often were rejected in very public and disastrous ways. In football, we were fighting against FCS and JUCO for recruits, and getting excited when we stole a recruit from North Texas. In the early days of recruiting services, our classes were rated among the worst of FBS schools, behind all our natural and historical rivals. And then people wondered why we couldn't win the crappy conference where we were currently stuck.
In the meantime, long time rivals like TCU, a team that I never saw SMU lose to growing up, 15 straight years until after my graduation and the DP, were now out recruiting SMU, and winning. They switched conferences to further separate themselves from SMUs mediocrity - who could blame them? The trend switched, and they were now winning the Iron Skillet much more frequently.
 |
| Apparently, Arthritis Is Contagious At TCU. |
#3 Power Conferences - The genesis of this was mentioned above. Suddenly, a select handful of universities were anointed as Power schools for absolutely no reason at all. For every Alabama - that probably deserves special recognition, there was a Vanderbilt, who had NO business being in a Power conference. Teams like Iowa State, who haven't accomplished anything since before the First World War, were arbitrarily determined to be better than all non-Power schools. As BAD as SMU has been for these few decades, they still have substantially more accomplishments than ISU and many so-called Power schools. And then there are schools just happy to be along for the ride - like Texas Tech, our favorite school in dusty Lubbock, Texas. They have averaged 3.9 conference wins over the last 27 years. Is that Power worthy? Who knows?
If you were a top athlete choosing between any Power school and even the very best "G5" school, which one will you pick? Nine times out of ten, that player is going to pick a Power school. This was something that became obvious observing recruiting for the last few decades. And it was one of the primary drivers for getting SMU back to playing Big Boy football. And since we were effectively blocked by our "friends" in the Big 12, who also assisted in destroying the PAC12 - another possible pathway for SMU, the ACC became our best option. And we will start playing in the fall of 2024.
I must admit there was a time I did not trust recruiting rankings. I believed that the system was rigged, players were rated higher based on picking certain schools. There may be a little of that still happening, but competition between the services has forced them to get better. Plus, in the digital age, its far easier to confirm offers and find out which schools are recruiting certain players. There was a time when player ratings were quite arbitrary. There are areas - small town and private school players that may fly under the radar. But that is quite rare. If you are a decent player with a chance at the next level, you will get evaluated. And if not, players can easily promote themselves and get noticed. And as you go up in quality, from an unknown to a can't miss player, they will be accurate more times than not. There will always be injuries, players not making grades, transfers etc. And there will always be that kid that gets discovered playing 6-man football who comes to town and is All Conference as a walk on. It happens. But those are exceptions.
The services now have composite rankings of rosters, which make it quite easy to compare teams, and as I have played with it, noted that its rather accurate. Take the first few bowls and consider the chart below.
Each bowl game is two lines, winner on top, loser on bottom. I've included a few rankings for reference - although some of those may be post-game. The focus should be on the number of 5-4-3* players, average per player, and total points as well. Comparing those is quite interesting. Take the New Mexico Bowl. I had folks on social media continually tell me how tough CUSA was this year, especially NMSU, who I've heard upset Auburn. But I have watched football for more than a year, and understand there is a definite tiered system of talent. One "exception" does not change the rules. NMSU did have a few highly talented players, but Fresno is loaded and has much more QUALITY depth. The Total Points is a key indicator, but the difference in rated players 3* or better 64 > 27 is HUGE. That means at almost every position, including special teams, Fresno likely had a player that was a little bigger, faster, smarter, or just plain better than NMSU. And the score reflected that.
 |
| And Now, We Dance! |
As the talent gap narrows, as in the first two bowls listed above, then individual performances, game conditions, preparation, coaching, player transfers or opt outs come into the equation. Georgia Southern had a slight talent advantage, but Ohio won easily. There was an even bigger gap between JSU and Louisiana, yet JSU managed to win in OT. And then take a look at UCLA and Boise - a Power team against one of the better "G" teams. Look at the ranked players - 23 4* to Boise with 1. Boise does have a ton of 3*, but not enough to overcome the talent gap. And of course the score reflects this.
So what does this mean looking forward? Here are a few upcoming games. These are mostly "G5" contests, and other games that caught my eye. It is NOT a comprehensive list.
Again, I just want to point out a few and see if they turn out as expected. I will start with SMU, who has done quite well building their team through recruiting, portal, and NIL. We do not yet have a true Power roster - which explains the losses to OU and TCU this year, which both had more or better rated talent, but we are competitive with the ACC. For our game with Boston College, look at the numbers. SMU should have a very slight edge in talent. The one hiccup is the very best player, QB Preston Stone, is out with a broken leg. But there still should be enough talent to win this game. At the very least, we should be competitive. It is a home game for BC, and that far North, weather could play a factor.
Another interesting game to consider is UTSA and Marshall. The latter has a history of giant killing, although it comes and goes. Looking at the numbers, I am inclined to believe UTSA will win big. They have a multi year starter in SR QB Frank Harris - assuming he plays. And if HC Traylor does not get hired away, I think this game goes to UTSA. Talent and depth should overwhelm Marshall, and playing in Frisco - while not a home game, should favor the team from San Antonio.
And now we come to the most perplexing bowl placement of the season. FSU was booted out of the top 4 even though they were unbeaten because of SOS. Liberty was kept in the NYD bowls because they were unbeaten, screw SOS. The consistently inconsistent NCAA strikes again. In some ways, it feels like just another SMU screw job - we've had our share. But the more I think about it there may have been a diabolical reason for their inclusion. It helps the committee justify the absolutely horrible exclusion of FSU. AND, when Liberty gets beaten senseless, it will give college experts another chance to say - "See, G teams do not belong!" I've always believed Hawaii was set up this way in 2007. They were unbeaten, but played a ridiculously easy schedule, not as bad as Liberty - but close. They had no business playing Georgia, and there was little chance the game would be competitive. Hawaii had a GOOD team, but not anywhere close to the talent level of Georgia. Something similar happened last year with TCU. They managed to make it to the championship - I suspect Sonny D made a pact with the father of lies. And in one of the saddest games ever broadcast, TCU was quite thoroughly humiliated in front of the whole world. Georgia was just far more talented than the Lizards that day.
The Flames had a great season. I read that every day on social media. I will never disagree. But when your SOS is 133, you need to, at least mentally, place a little asterisk next to that season. If Liberty played in District 11-6A in Texas, one of the toughest high school districts in the country, including the state champions for both division 1 and 2 this year, they would be undefeated. And that's great. But who did they play? And then all sorts of ridiculous arguments are thrown out, we beat this team, who beat this team. CUSA is at the bottom of the food chain. Its like beating high school teams, just ever so slightly better. Whether you beat SHSU by 4 or 40, its still a team wearing FBS diapers. Its like 1989 when SMU restarted our program - everyone beat the crap out of us. It was shocking when we won! Yet we managed two wins that year - UCONN and North Texas.
There was a time I used to believe that if SMU just had the right coach, he could take whatever roster we had and win the national championship. That only works in Hollywood. The reality is it takes GOOD players, a lot of them. It takes senior leadership, playmakers, depth, solid coaching and good game plans, and then, the players have to execute. More times than not, the team with the better athletes, those more highly recruited and prized, will win. Good players make coaches look much better. Is Nick Saban an awesome coach, or is it because he is 3-4 deep in 4 and 5 star athletes at every position? I guess its sort of a chicken or egg type question. Alabama is going to get top players no matter who wears the whistle. And for reference, this year's Alabama has 74 4 or 5* players on their roster. Their starting teams could almost be ALL 5* players. That amount of talent can make any coach look legendary. And someone who really knows what they are doing will get the most out of them. But if it were easy, everyone would be Alabama or Georgia.
Now consider Liberty's Fiesta opponent - Oregon. By every objective measure, Liberty has no business in this game. They are like Hawaii in the 2008 Sugar Bowl. If they manage to make it a competitive game, I will be happy for them. If they win, I will be thrilled. But the odds are not in their favor.
Assuming most starters play and don't opt out, Oregon will trot out a team with 5 5* and 48 4* players. Meaning that the 2-deep will likely be filled with 4* or better players at every position. Oh, and they have 32 3* players as well. What will Liberty counter with for the game? 2 4* and 19 3* players will get their Flame on at the Fiesta Bowl. Will that be enough? Maybe they will get lucky, a turnover or two? Maybe a key Duck will miss the game? Maybe the Duck's charter flight is late? Anything can happen, right? All they need is a really rousing pep talk, that fires up the players and leads them to certain victory.
