ACC swoons over Miami

[Stallion]

...the answer is it means nothing-conferences are looking to add value ie TV rights, national prominence for bowl games and the NCAA BB Tournament. The proof is that SMU has had nationally prominent non-revenue sports at all relevant times in the past and yet have still been passed up.

[FloridaMustang]

Stallion, there were other factors involving the C-USA decision. Sure, TCU had better revenue sports at the time, but we were also were embroiled in some internal investigation at the time.

[Stallion]

we got passed over because we had not proven we could be competitive in the revenue sports---period. Stop rationalizing our faillures. The people on this board are just about the only ones that think that SMU offers value in any expansion scenario. Harsh but very accurate.

[Diehard Pony]

Where we are currently we obviously don't bring a lot to the table since our revenue sports (and everything around them, like butts in seats) have been so poor for the last decade+.

Unfortunately, that is going to put a lot of early pressure on Bennett and the football team to exceed expectations this year and win some football games that raise some eyebrows around the country.

Also, many people remember the Dickerson / James et al era when we were Top 20 in both football and basketball...i.e., we do have some winning tradition at the big time level (no, I haven't forgotten about the DP). If we can start winning in football again, there will be references to our many successes of the '80s.

Lots of "ifs" here, but it does provide us with the basis for cautious optimism. But it has to start with the football team this season.

[Charleston Pony]

Wore mu SMU cap today at a golf tourney I played in and brought a lot of comments from folks over here. One "youngster" of about 30 some odd years told me SMU was one of his favorite teams when he was a little kid. Plenty of Alabama people in the tourney and they thanked me for SMU having endured the death penalty. They pretty much realize that that penalty will never be used again because most still believe it was that penalty that has kept us down all these years. I couldn't bring myself to enlighten them with the "rest of the story". Bottom line is that while the death penalty may have kick started our troubles, the fact that we have NEVER in our modern football history had a strong or even respectable fan base...that's what has us destined to compete as a "mid-major" for the forseeable future. I agree with Stallion on that point; those who think SMU even approaches the radar screen when it comes to talk of conferences improving their negotiating position re: TV contracts and bowl alliances are living in denial.

[SoCal_Pony]

For the record, we have not had a respectable fan base because of our enrollment, not because SMU doesn’t have loyal fans.

We have an enrollment of 6,000 students. UT has an enrollment of over 40,000 students. UT’s enrollment is nearly 7 times SMU’s. Texas A&M is 6 times greater than us while Texas Tech’s is nearly 4 times greater.

Look at the football attendance records for these four schools….surprise, surprise, UT and A&M’s attendance is about 5 times greater than ours, while Tech’s is about 3 times greater.

That is why Bennett spoke of the ‘Miami Model’.

[H-E-B Mustang]

SoCal, you are correct. Also our graduates are scattered all over the country. Not concentrated within the state of Texas or even in Dallas. I understand that about half of our students are from out of state.

[Charleston Pony]

no disagreement from me on the number of students/alumni. That's part of my point. The money in college athletics is fueled by TV and that means those who have large followings will be the most attractive to networks execs. It's as simple as that. SMU attracted interest in Dallas back in the Doak Walker and Kyle Rote eras, but times have changed dramatically. Back then, Dallasites didn't have professional sports options and college football wasn't televised all day Saturday. SMU, and a lot of other "expensive" private universities, share a common problem: the average Joe in Dallas just doesn't identify with us.

You mention the Miami model and you're right. For all their success, they still don't draw like Florida or Florida State for some of the same reasons. The difference is their true commitment to winning and their willingness to "accomodate" top athletes. They try very hard to keep the top players in Miami at home. I like the fact that we are making more of an effort to do the same. That will definitely help in building more of a fan base. If we can just get to a point where we field winning teams and pack Ford and Moody regularly, SMU will be back on the map again. The question is whether we can do so as a "mid-major". We shouldn't have to rely on games with UT or A$M to pack the house. We should be able to do so in games against TCU and Baylor.

[VarsityShop]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stallion:
[B]....most of these posts though act like SMU, Rice, Tulsa, UTEP et al will have a say in what happens. Believe me we wont.

No Stallion Dallas being one of the largest television markets in the entire country will have a big say in it.

I know from your history on these boards you enjoy concentrating on the negative side of things and I know the positive side of SMU being directly in the center of a huge media market and a huge recruiting goldmine must drive you crazy.....because that more than anything else is what will force one of these major conferences to ask SMU to join eventually.

[PX]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by VarsityShop:
<B>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stallion:
[B]....most of these posts though act like SMU, Rice, Tulsa, UTEP et al will have a say in what happens. Believe me we wont.

No Stallion Dallas being one of the largest television markets in the entire country will have a big say in it.

I know from your history on these boards you enjoy concentrating on the negative side of things and I know the positive side of SMU being directly in the center of a huge media market and a huge recruiting goldmine must drive you crazy.....because that more than anything else is what will force one of these major conferences to ask SMU to join eventually.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No,it wont.

Not when there are 2 much more attractive potential candidates in this metropolitan area, in TCU and UNT. I know that second one is going to be impossible for some people to acknowledge or accept, but they have been to 2 bowl games and they draw better than we do, and those things are the real bottom line.

The Big 12 already dominates the Dallas media and plays games in this city every year, without having a member school actually in the city. They dont need or want SMU.

Reality is that no major conference has any reason to even consider SMU. Beyond the issues of on-field and on-court performance, we arent a good geographic fit for any of the conferences that are going to be in flux. The Big-12 and SEC already have 12 teams and arent in serious danger of losing any of their members during the expansion moves. The ACC, Big East, Big 10, and possibly Pac-10 are the majors who may be making moves, and Dallas is way out of the region for all those groups. Over a thousand miles away from the closest member of any of those leagues.

If anyone is trying to call C-USA a "Major" conference, think again. C-USA is a target. The Big East will try to keep itself alive by pulling the highest profile programs out of C-USA. Louisville and Cincinnati, most likely. Another real scenario would be the non-football schools from the Big East and C-USA merging to create a very strong basketball-only conference.

SMU may wind up in a conference with the remaining teams from C-USA, but does anyone want to call that league "Major" without Cincinnati, Louisville, or Marquette? Before you answer, consider that several of those remaining schools, including some of the most successful football programs, have admitted publically that their athletic departments have severe budget issues. Even if that league somehow retains TCU, how attractive will it look to the TV networks, whose potential contracts are the real driving force behind all of this realignment? Consider a conference of SMU, TCU, Rice, La. Tech, Tulsa, Tulane, Houston, Southern Miss, UAB. Add East Carolina and USF, if you want to go all the way to the east coast. This is the kind of lineup that has been suggested several times on this board. Does a single team in that list average more than 30,000 fans per game? No. Only 2-3 legitimately average over 25,000, and more than half draw less than 20,000 a game. Is that going to attract a TV network thats willing to pay for good ratings?

The truth is, its over. All thats left for the teams left out in this next round (and thats going to include SMU,) is the death throes. SMU doesnt have until 2005, the progress that needed to be made needed to start at least 2 years ago, and it hasnt. The current TV contract ends in 2005, but new ones will be negotiated long before that, so they will be in place when the current one expires. To draw the best tv contract, the major conferences need to know what their roster will be before the negotiations are done. Contingency plans for these eventualities were begun 2 years ago, and SMU wasnt a consideration for anyone.

If you dont believe me, go back and read the articles about the ACC's intentions a little more carefully. They made their first presentation to Miami over a year ago, and they've been in contact with their other targets in the Big East for months. The ACC knows they want Miami, and 2 more out of Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Boston College and Pitt. The Big 10 wants Notre Dame, or Pitt if they cant get the Irish. Iowa State and Missouri have been mentioned by the Big 10, but those schools are longshots and have no reason to leave the Big 12. If the Big 12 did somehow lose a team to the Big 10 or Pac-10, they would look at Colorado State, TCU, BYU or Utah. To replace their losses, the Big East wants Cincinnatti, Louisville and Marshall, with Toledo, USF and East Carolina as outside possibilities if they want to expand all the way to 12. SMU isnt on anybodies list.

To be attractive as an expansion candidate, SMU needed to start making quantifiable, visible improvements in 3 areas, on-field performance, attendance, and revenue and fundraising. These things needed to be visible at least 2 years ago, and it hasnt happened. No one cares about SMU's pipedreams or the improvements they hope to make in the future, what matters is what you've already done and and can show. SMU will more than likely find itself in a new conference alignment after all this, but it wont be any better than where they already are, and will more than likely be worse. The eviction notice may not arrive tomorrow, or even next year, but its already in the mail. Its over.

The real loser out of all this may end up being TCU. They paid a great deal of money to get into a conference that may be about to disintegrate all around them, leaving them aligned with a group of weak schools that they thought they had left behind. The frogs have gotten the job done on the field, but their attendance remains unimpressive. Frankly its pretty weak, when considering how successful the team has been. There arent really any conferences looking to add the frogs, for the same geographic reasons I mentioned before. Their only hope would be for the Pac-10 to steal Colorado, opening up a spot in the Big-12, and thats a serious longshot.

[Charleston Pony]

PX: I agree it's "over" for SMU, in terms of becoming part of a major conference again, but I don't agree that the next alignment won't be an improvement. Maybe not in terms of the conferences RPI, but in terms of playing more regional teams that will allow SMU's small group of loyal fans an opportunity to actually travel with the team, I think that's a very real possibility.

Ever since I moved to this area and begin watching the Southern Conference teams compete, I've felt like this mid-major thing won't be all that bad for SMU. Just like the SoCon schools play in the shadows of the SEC & ACC schools, SMU and other similarly situated regional schools could play in a new SWC, in the shadows of the Big XII & SEC. The SoCon plays I-AA football, and although we masquerade as I-A, the truth is that the vast majority of I-A mid-majors are closer to I-AA than they are the stonger BCS schools. Attendance wise, the mid-majors are definitely closer to the SoCon than the BCS conferences.

What SMU should strive for in the next realignment is to become a part of a 12 member conference that might look like this: WEST - SMU, TCU, Rice, Houston, UNT, Tulsa EAST - Ark St, La Tech, Tulane, La-Laf, Memphis, So Miss

I agree it will be tough for most in CUSA to swallow, but they are indeed a target. I suspect Mike Slive knew that long ago, when he lost the battle to expand to 12 members and stage a football championship game when he wanted to. I agree there's a good chance the Big East, A-10 & CUSA basketball schools might come together and form one of the largest (possibly 14-16 members)basketball leagues that will attract television viewers from Chicago-Cincinnati-Cleveland-Detroit-Philly-Baltimore-D,C.-Boston-NY.

[Water Pony]

Thanks Varsity Shop for words of encouragement:

It seems the tone of the arguments are either we are condemned to perpetual mediocrity or the world will beat a path to our door because of our historic tradition of Football and the appeal of the Dallas market. I don't like wasting any time arguing past decisions after the Death Penalty. It's behind us and not an excuse now.

When SMU produces a winning program, watch Sports Illustrated anoint us a darlings. Great stories come out of the depth of despair. Anaheim Angels last year, Chicago Cubs every year (yes, I am a Cub fan), and football programs rising from no tradition at all, e.g. K-State, Oregon, Oregon State, Wash State, Iowa, Miami, etc.

Winning does fix all sins and will sling-shot us into desireability for recruits. Unfortunately with our size, we can't be a bad team and still draw. However, a strong Mid-major program is the goal and it is very achieveable. I won't worry about whether UT or A&M draw 4 or 5x our sports. It's a reality, not a barrier. Private schools can appeal to a national and metropolitan alumni base; e.g. Stanford, Miami, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, So. Calif., etc. Hard, yes; but do-able.

Recently, the Athletic Department, donors and the University has given us a much better chance to succeed. Could they do more? Maybe. But the issue in the short term, is winning and appealing to our current base. Believe me, if we do that Dallas, Conferences and the National media will love us. Go Ponies.

[Water Pony]

Thanks Varsity Shop for words of encouragement:

It seems the tone of the arguments are either we are condemned to perpetual mediocrity or the world will beat a path to our door because of our historic tradition of Football and the appeal of the Dallas market. I don't like wasting any time arguing past decisions after the Death Penalty. It's behind us and not an excuse now.

When SMU produces a winning program, watch Sports Illustrated anoint us a darlings. Great stories come out of the depth of despair. Anaheim Angels last year, Chicago Cubs every year (yes, I am a Cub fan), and football programs rising from no tradition at all, e.g. K-State, Oregon, Oregon State, Wash State, Iowa, Miami, etc.

Winning does fix all sins and will sling-shot us into desireability for recruits. Unfortunately with our size, we can't be a bad team and still draw. However, a strong Mid-major program is the goal and it is very achieveable. I won't worry about whether UT or A&M draw 4 or 5x our sports. It's a reality, not a barrier. Private schools can appeal to a national and metropolitan alumni base; e.g. Stanford, Miami, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, So. Calif., etc. Hard, yes; but do-able.

Recently, the Athletic Department, donors and the University has given us a much better chance to succeed. Could they do more? Maybe. But the issue in the short term, is winning and appealing to our current base. Believe me, if we do that Dallas, Conferences and the National media will love us. Go Ponies.

[Stallion]

I agree with most everything PX and Charleston Pony said-but it was over for SMU to join a BCS type Conference the day the SWC folded. I think as I pointed out yesterday that the new CUSA or perhaps SWC will not be the same conference because much of its financial success is tied to the BB only teams and Louisville, Cinncinnati et al. BUT I still thing Charleston Pony is correct that a more regional conference is a positive-I just don't think It would include some of the teams mentioned. More likely it would include TCU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Southern Miss, an improving South Florida program, SMU, Tulsa, East Carolina, perhaps Central Florida, Alabama-Birmingham, Louisiana Tech and Rice. Why would those schools want NTSU, Lousiana Lafayyette, or Arkansas St. There would be no need to go to 10 or 12. I think that is a more regionally interesting conference but it WILL NOT be a finacial bellcow compared to CUSA which has made some big strides. Long roadtrips yes but manageable. Plus we could all roadtrip to Memphis and crash at Memphis Mustangs house.

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 05-04-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 05-04-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 05-04-2003).]

[Blunt Pony]

I like your optimisim Water Pony, but I would like to make one comment on what you said regarding the other college programs that have made the jump to the next level. All of these programs have one thing in common. They are all members of major BCS conferences. They play good conference opponents and offer their recruits the opportunity to compete against the best in the country under a media spotlight. The WAC does not afford us this luxury. SMU will never, I repeat never, be top 20 (football) competitive playing in the conference that we are in now. We can move to that level in basketball, but we have no chance in Football.