(12-06-2017 04:29 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  SMU was paying Chad Morris $2,095,793

Seth Littrell, $991,416
Frank Wilson $1,137,500

I know Lttrell is due for a raise next season, but That raise won't elevate him pay to the level of Morris. If he can prove he is able to build a respectable defense to go with our offense, then we are going to have to really think hard about giving him a significant raise. It is not in the long term interest of North Texas or C-USA to have other G5 programs poaching our coaches. I doubt Littrell will seriously consider SMU. If the Ponies appear to really be taking an interest, I'm sure North Texas will renegotiate his contract. No way UNT will allow SMU to snatch our coach. It would be a PR and recruiting nightmare. I have no idea what UTSA would or could do.

(12-06-2017 06:41 PM)Franko Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:50 PM)RougeDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

SMU is basically a Big XII school stuck in a small conference because of that death penalty. They have money, academics, and were always strong in the Southwest Conference. On the other hand, Rice and Houston have always sucked.

.
What am I missing when you say "have always sucked"? I know Rice has had some really good teams but it has been a while and Houston has also had some terrific teams, even recently. Not a Texas native so you are suggesting from a money and academics point? Which I know Rice is a fine academics university. What are you saying then?

Basically, he's full of, um, beans.

UofH, 2006-2016, total wins. 10, 8, 8, 10, 5, 13, 5, 8, 8, 13, 9. 97 total.

LaTech, 06-16, total wins. 3, 5, 8, 4, 5, 8, 9, 4, 9, 9, 9. 73 total.


Rice hasn't had much in football in many years - but a very large percentage of C-USA players either couldn't get admitted or would flunk out pretty quick. Demanding academics and no mistake.

(12-06-2017 04:50 PM)RougeDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

SMU is basically a Big XII school stuck in a small conference because of that death penalty. They have money, academics, and were always strong in the Southwest Conference. On the other hand, Rice and Houston have always sucked.

Gotta disagree with you on Houston. Houston entered the SWC in 1976, and it was in 1987 that SMU got the death penalty. In those 11 seasons, SMU was a cumulative 79-44-2, while Houston was a cumulative 71-54-2. So SMU had just a 9-game advantage over Houston in that 11-year span. And of course they cheated to do it, which is why they got the death penalty in the first place. I'll take the Cougars over that mess any day. And after the death penalty, SMU was shoveling everyone's ****, including Houston's.

And SMU is such a **** storm of a school that they didn't even learn their lesson from football, and have been found guilty in at least 10 major NCAA infractions cases, ranging from football, to basketball, to golf. In fact, SMU has been caught committing some sort of NCAA violation at least once per decade since the 1950's. They come across to me as little more than a bunch of yuppie snobs who think they can cut to the front of the line by virtue of their money and their religious affiliation, thinking people will look the other way.

Only Texas, Texas A&M, and Arkansas have more football Southwest Conference Championships than SMU. TCU, Rice, Baylor, and Texas Tech were definitely below them in the pecking order. Rice is a fine university and I would be proud if my kids went there, but c'mon...football? Houston was an overgrown junior college for most of the Southwest era. The biggest downside to SMU's football program was they were not as good at hiding the cheating as ALL the other large schools during that time. Regardless, the point is they have the resources and pedigree that most of the other G5 schools don't.

(12-06-2017 04:50 PM)RougeDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

SMU is basically a Big XII school stuck in a small conference because of that death penalty. They have money, academics, and were always strong in the Southwest Conference WHEN THEY WERE PAYING RECRUITS. On the other hand, Rice and Houston have always sucked.

fify

(12-06-2017 06:41 PM)Franko Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:50 PM)RougeDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

SMU is basically a Big XII school stuck in a small conference because of that death penalty. They have money, academics, and were always strong in the Southwest Conference. On the other hand, Rice and Houston have always sucked.

.
What am I missing when you say "have always sucked"? I know Rice has had some really good teams but it has been a while and Houston has also had some terrific teams, even recently. Not a Texas native so you are suggesting from a money and academics point? Which I know Rice is a fine academics university. What are you saying then?

I think he just means their general perception. When I was in middle school, like around 2005, my perception of CFB teams in Texas went like this. UT and A&M were top dogs, Tech was solid, and everyone else kinda sucked and it seemed like they always had, especially Rice. Mind you, this was all compared to UT and A&M.

Outside of Houston, Baylor and TCU and their obvious success I'd say the casual fan has the same ignorant opinion/perception of Texas schools that aren't UT and A&M as middle school me did. Thankfully Baylor is starting to return to their old selves.

SMU has no fan support. They have a ceiling. Look at their attendance. UTSA and UNT have FAR more potential in my book.

Rice > Tulane, BY FAR.

TCU was able to hold onto Patterson somehow. HE got them to the Big 12. Amazing considering how Cincy and Houston got left at the dance without their panties.

(12-06-2017 09:37 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Rice hasn't had much in football in many years - but a very large percentage of C-USA players either couldn't get admitted or would flunk out pretty quick. Demanding academics and no mistake.

Is everyone forgetting that Rice won the conference in 2013?

So now Sonny Dykes of La Tech Bowl fiasco fame is now a hot name floating around for the SMU job. That would certainly make the Frisco Bowl a lot more interesting.

(12-07-2017 11:44 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  So now Sonny Dykes of La Tech Bowl fiasco fame is now a hot name floating around for the SMU job. That would certainly make the Frisco Bowl a lot more interesting.

He’s not even going to be interviewed

(12-07-2017 12:21 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:44 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  So now Sonny Dykes of La Tech Bowl fiasco fame is now a hot name floating around for the SMU job. That would certainly make the Frisco Bowl a lot more interesting.

He’s not even going to be interviewed

I was just going by FootballScoop's retweet of Pat Forde. I don't know why they wouldn't talk to him. He would be a good fit there.

(12-07-2017 01:56 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 12:21 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:44 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  So now Sonny Dykes of La Tech Bowl fiasco fame is now a hot name floating around for the SMU job. That would certainly make the Frisco Bowl a lot more interesting.

He’s not even going to be interviewed

I was just going by FootballScoop's retweet of Pat Forde. I don't know why they wouldn't talk to him. He would be a good fit there.

Surprising if they aren't interested. I'd think either Sonny currently in Fort Worth would be a good get (and a good fit).

The local Denton paper is reporting that Seth Littrell has no interest in the SMU job.

(12-08-2017 07:00 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The local Denton paper is reporting that Seth Littrell has no interest in the SMU job.

Good to hear. Would not be a smart move on his part. He needs to wait for a P5 job.

(12-08-2017 07:09 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 07:00 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The local Denton paper is reporting that Seth Littrell has no interest in the SMU job.

Good to hear. Would not be a smart move on his part. He needs to wait for a P5 job.

It might have to be one of the better P5 jobs. Littrell might be getting a significant raise in the coming weeks.

(12-06-2017 09:37 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 06:41 PM)Franko Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:50 PM)RougeDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:40 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SMU is still a pretty good paying gig in a more stable Conference with the same recruits.

SMU is basically a Big XII school stuck in a small conference because of that death penalty. They have money, academics, and were always strong in the Southwest Conference. On the other hand, Rice and Houston have always sucked.

.
What am I missing when you say "have always sucked"? I know Rice has had some really good teams but it has been a while and Houston has also had some terrific teams, even recently. Not a Texas native so you are suggesting from a money and academics point? Which I know Rice is a fine academics university. What are you saying then?

Basically, he's full of, um, beans.

UofH, 2006-2016, total wins. 10, 8, 8, 10, 5, 13, 5, 8, 8, 13, 9. 97 total.

LaTech, 06-16, total wins. 3, 5, 8, 4, 5, 8, 9, 4, 9, 9, 9. 73 total.


Rice hasn't had much in football in many years - but a very large percentage of C-USA players either couldn't get admitted or would flunk out pretty quick. Demanding academics and no mistake.

First off, glad to see reports of Littrell staying in Denton.

As an aside, figured I’d chime in and note that Rice also has two 10-Win seasons over that 06-16 time span.
And also congratulate LATech for being the very best team in the country to have never won 10 games

Pure speculation, but one reason that Frank Wilson might consider the SMU job is that it'll allow him to increase the salary of his assistant coaches. Our DC, Pete Golding, is likely getting interest from other programs who can offer him more money. FW might was to keep him on his staff.

SMU has a pretty low ceiling (rarely a top team in CUSA and same goes for the AAC) - they haven't won more than 8 games in a season since the death penalty almost 30 years ago. Generally going to be a mid-tier team in the AAC and not much hope for them to win the conference, if you're looking to get notice as a coach. It's fine if you're Morris and you inherit a 1-11 team that you turn into a 7 win team three years later, but the next guy is probably not going to be able to make them a 10/11 team.

(12-06-2017 03:36 PM)MGNation92 Wrote:  https://247sports.com/college/texas/Arti...-111830399

Doubt Littrell leaves, but would be very intriguing to see Wilson there. Especially if they kept Traylor. Those two on the recruiting trail would be able to pull in some very solid players.

I don't think Wilson has won enough. He finished 6-5 this year (and could have been 6-6 if the Houston game had not been cancelled) and 6-7 in 2016. With respect to our UTSA fans, I think a strong argument could be made that Frank Wilson's program receded this year. No doubt it was a disappointment for UTSA fans this year.

Honestly, the most successful AAC teams thus far have been those that select successful P5 coordinators as head coaches. The only G5 coach an AAC stole was Fritz, who has certainly improved the fortunes of Tulane—but not to the level of schools like UCF or Memphis.

FWIW—The latest from Twitter is Dykes—possibly as soon as Monday.