Why'd They Do It

[GoRedGoBlue]

sometimes I assume everybody thinks this out into the future. What happens if Memphis and Marshall or ECU for example go to the Big East. That would leave schools like East Carolina and or Marshall and even Central Florida out on island and ECU and Marshall in particular would find it very hard to compete in a Texas/ Gulf Conference. If this is reduced to a Texas Magnolia conference(hopefully Southern Miss and UAB would stay) will that conference be able to command a decent National TV Contract and quality bowl games? Be Honest.-Rice, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, UH and UTEP have questionable TV market power-remember we're being honest. Guess we would turn to Louisiana Tech and NTSU-who also have a very low national profile. That conference may not attract the TV/Bowl Contracts of even the MAC-a little more than the Sunbelt. The MWC numbers would be much much larger. This is scenario TCU is concerned about and one I've been wary of for over a decade. Still all and all SMU really has no other alternative in the forseeable future. TCU did have that option. Further clouding the issue-what if the MWC goes to 10 or 12 and realizes its best bet to increase market share is to solidify its presence in Texas like the Big 8 did. What is left if UH and/or UTEP go to the MWC. Very troubling prospect to say the least.

Likewise, Pac10 could grab UTah/BYU and leave TCU cold out west.

[Stallion]

Cheesecake-yep! I've been posting on this board my concern about Ken Pye's Magnolia Conference for at least 5 years on this board. It is a doomsday scenario that one could easily forsee for many years. Of course, our AD was shocked by the implosion of the SWC, WAC 16 and the move of TCU to the MWC. The fact that he was surprised by these developments really concerns me. This is a dog eat dog environment in college football. It is the survival of the fitest. Can't understand why this reality has escaped SMU and its supporters for years. I have warned about tieing our future to schools like Rice et al for years. A conference of Rice, Tulsa, SMU, Tulane and whatever directional schools we can add to make a conference will eventually kill SMU athletics. I believe the reason TCU went to the MWC was because it felt that this is exactly what is likely to happen. If it does, TCU's decision will be golden. The Magnolia Conference concept will lead to no reputable bowl games and zero national TV contracts. Bank on it-you heard it here first.

[MrMustang1965]

Bank on it-you heard it here first.

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/chickenlittle/

[Cheesesteak]

Stallion – get out of the dark barn for a while - you are standing in your own manure.

SMU is going to CUSA and SMU must quickly become an asset.

You suggest that a possible future regional (Texas/Magnolia) conference might be problematic. When the (regional) SWC collapsed (8 Texas teams plus Arkansas) SMU joined the geographically far-flung WAC 16 which subsequently suffered defections. Across the NCAA, the contemporary norm is for (D-1A football) schools that have been joining/switching conferences (usually to upgrade) is to prefer regional alliances whenever geographically possible/financially sensible. If the money/prestige is significantly better elsewhere a school (BC to ACC) might join a conference outside its region despite added travel hardships/costs particularly for its Olympic sports. Even in large conferences packed with state universities divisions are structured by geography (Big 12 North / South; SEC East / West; MAC East / West) to control costs and build/enhance rivalries.

TCU (without getting significantly more guaranteed money or prestige now while increasing expenses) decided to go in the opposite direction. Will the MWC expand? Would CUSA teams defect to the MWC? Was TCU right or wrong? The answers are in the future. Starting in fall 2005, TCU’s nearest conference rival is in Albuquerque.

Only schools presently in the BCS conferences are secure. With inferior income streams and other pressures, non-BCS schools need to become/remain competitive and adaptable.

This is common knowledge.

For more than a decade there probably have been thousands of threads on various Internet message boards and a hundred or more periodical articles plus confidential university or conference studies/reports evaluating realignment scenarios – “thinking this out into the future”.

Just as a department in any established enterprise likely has a future business plan and forecast I surmise that SMU’s athletic department has been and is continually scanning the horizon because professionally they should and because the umbrella organization (Perkins Hall) expects them to.

The athletics powers (TA&M, UT, LSU, OU, etc.) in SMU’s region presently don’t want SMU so SMU has to do its best with similar institutions in the same situation.

For you to present yourself as seeing potential outcomes that others are too lazy or ignorant to foresee is hubris and manure.

[couch 'em]

While Stallion has a tendancy to overblow and overstate things, I really don't see how you guys can disagree with him. Maybe you are all stuck in the stone age when you were in college and somebody other than a few thousand gray-hairs cared about SMU, Rice etc football. In the modern world, nobody does. I grew up in Dallas. I've never met an SMU fan outside of SMU or the immediate Highland Park area. Come to think of it I see more Highland Park HS bumperstickers and shirts around Dallas than I do SMU. Hell, I bet if you went through Moody garage one day you'd find more bumper stickers for schools other than SMU than for SMU.

We must get into a conference with the most successful and known schools we can. We are not going to make money off playing Rice and Tulsa every year. Students will still watch the UT game in their dorm room, and people around the country will still NOT tune into the game if it is on TV until we make ourselves matter by having several conference-mates winning consistantly against "real" teams, as in BCS teams that people care about. Welcome to 2005.

[AusTxPony]

Do you really believe fans in Texas care about Vandy or Northwestern, Duke or Wake? They are in BCS. Only State schools have any chance of becoming popular outside their area. That having been said, Miami and Notre Dame have certainly been successful in getting on the band wagon with winning years. We can never be as sucessful as the State schools as long as the BCS excludes us. We will have to be happy with being Dallas' team, not that bad, if we can win. I think it would be enough for me. Better be. And I'm glad we're not in the MWC. It will be fun to beat Rice, Houston, Tulane, UTEP and Tech, Baylor, TCU etc. Local bragging rights.

[Cheesesteak]

couch 'em -

I fully realize SMU’s situation regarding fan appeal and support. I wish that SMU participated in the Big 12 or SEC - but we don’t. Without the DP, perhaps SMU had a long-shot at the Big 12 when it was formed but our program was tainted and as the story goes Texas’ governor preferred a team in Waco. SMU allegedly had a shot at getting into CUSA years earlier – an upgrade over our present-day (WAC - San Jose to Ruston) situation - but we were tainted again (Malin) plus our revenue sports teams were abysmal.

So, here we are in 2005 about to compete in the best (CUSA) regional conference/division that is presently available to SMU. Hopefully, SMU’s football and men’s basketball teams will become winners. SMU would gain momentum and some new Metroplex fans purely attracted to a winner and good entertainment value for their money. Currently apathetic SMU students and alumni plus family/friends of SMU community members might also become involved.

If things go extremely well SMU might become one of Dallas’ favorite (college) teams as it should have been all along.

SMU’s 2005 OOC football schedule is excellent – our number 1 rival (TCU) at home - two Big 12 teams (old SWC foes) from Texas (one game at home). Tulane, Rice and UTEP have some alumni/fans in the Metroplex.

On the other hand TCU’s tentative home schedule includes Army, Colorado State, New Mexico, UNLV and Utah. If TCU attracts more fans per home game this fall it is because they are still a better football program than SMU – not because they have more attractive opponents.

[EastStang]

A lot of things can happen in the next 5 years. If any team in a mid-major conference (who is on the east coast) peaks in the next 4 years, they will be looked at by the BE if and that is a big if in my mind they split and expand. I am unconvinced that they will split. Its a big maybe right now. Further, you still have Villanova (already a member) which might move up to 1-A, and U Mass which might move up to 1-A (and replace BC). There is of course ND, Army and Navy. The MWC has a big myopic spot on it. The powers that be in the MWC took months to agree to add one team. Apparently they could not agree to expand and add any more than 1 team. They do not want to split the pie any more than necessary and whoever is added will have to substantially increase the value of their television contracts or increase their chances (if any) of being added to the BCS. If they do add teams, they would have to give assurances that AFA and BYU are in different divisions so be equitable in terms of attendance. Otherwise new teams might be looking at getting them every four years. Which means low attendance for the other teams.

[HFvictory]

This is why TCU left (From collegefootballnews.com)

1. Big East lite or MAC grande?
This is a big year for Conference USA in the transition to try to find its way in the conference pecking order. It loses stars Louisville and TCU along with solid Cincinnati and South Florida programs and welcomes in Marshall, Rice, SMU, Tulsa, UTEP and UCF. Marshall is a good name and UTEP proved to be strong last year, but these aren't the programs that'll make fans clamor for an automatic BCS bid soon. The two division conference will make for more fun and more competitiveness for the lesser programs, while the bigger name teams will be looking to impress the Big East big wigs. Don't get too comfortable with the current league lineup.


2. Then what are the likely next changes?
It's being established that Conference USA is a staging area for a Big East that will be looking for new teams for expansion. East Carolina has been talked about, but the team needs to be better first. Southern Miss and Tulane don't make much geographic sense, but neither does South Florida. Expect some more MAC programs, like Miami, Toledo, Northern Illinois and Bowling Green, to be in the mix for future Conference USA consideration if top teams make the jump. Once again, don't think the 2005 C-USA configuration will last for all that long.

3. Are these really the schedules?
Give credit to Southern Miss and its Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime attitude to scheduling going on the road to face NC State and Alabama. Marshall is facing Kansas State and at Virginia Tech. While there are a smattering of decent non-conference tests, some of the Conference USAers aren't exactly extending themselves. Granted, a Houston and Tulane could use all the wins they can get and are trying to boost themselves up, but they won't face a top 25 team that isn't a bit overinflated by an easy schedule of its own. UTEP could go 10-1 with its slate. Getting beaten down by top BCS conference teams doesn't do much to help bring respect to the league, but you can't get a hit if you don't swing. There had better be several C-USA teams that finish with winning records. However ...

4. ... there aren't any really, really good teams.
Southern Miss and Memphis are in major rebuilding modes leaving UAB and UTEP as the extremely shaky early favorites for the Conference USA title. Yeesh. Look for this to be the year of the surprise team as Tulane, Houston and East Carolina all have enough returning experience to make big splashes. Don't discount USM and Memphis as they could quickly be back in the mix without a Louisville or a 2003 TCU to deal with. The Cardinals brought weekly attention to the league that'll be missing in 2005.

[Stallion]

how dare they mock Cheesecake by having the self-righteousness bordering on hubris to peer into the future 5 years and call the CUSA-East a "staging ground for the Big East", speak about schools that don't make economic sense and conclude the CUSA won't last long. I'm not even going to mention the audacity of a Frog fan citing those reasons mentioned in the article as the reason TCU chose the MWC. I look forward to the Headlines in 2010: "SMU AD AND PRESIDENT SHOCKED BY SPLIT IN CUSA"

[Hoop Fan]

maybe this sounds arrogant but its not meant to be. I predicted on this board that TCU was going to the MWC 6 months before it occurred. I was told i was crazy by more than one person. I think a big part of the reason TCU left was because SMU tried to throw its weight around to get Rice and Tulsa in CUSA. Its was made a package deal, and I think there were plenty of indications that SMU was behind that along with Scott Cowen at Tulane. The fact is we tied ourselves to Tulsa and Rice, and it might have been better to go it alone and convince TCU to stay in a 9 team league. May or may not have worked in the end, but my perception is we didn't want to take the risk of [deleted] off Rice and Tulsa. CUSA should have at least gotten Rice to commit to new facilities in exchange for the invite. CUSA might not be settled. And I admit MWC might not be great for TCU, but heres the thing: they can always come limping back to CUSA. I guarantee they would be welcomed back. The parties are not that bitter and moreover there will be turnover in the presidents and ADs that will eventually make any hard feelings about the departure irrelevant.

[EastStang]

Right now there's no room for TCU. Now if teams leave, TCU would probably be welcome to come back. But as I said, 5 years is a long way off and who knows what will happen in the Big East, A-10, etc. From what I heard Cheney was a big part of why Temple did not accept a CUSA bid and why the BE dumped them because he didn't want to leave the A-10. My suspicion is that if there is a divide in the BE (and that is a big if) and if Temple does upgrade their facilities and commits to all sports, they would be welcomed back before the footprint of the Big East is changed even more. Right now would the Big East take the Temple football/basketball program or the ECU football/basketball program?

[Hoop Fan]

East, you are assuming that 12 is some magic number now or in the future. Why? The Big East, CUSA and others have long had odd numbers. Heck the Big 10 has 11 today. 13 wouldnt be any more of an issue. TCU would be welcomed back as a competitive measure against the MWC for tv negotiations and long term security if nothing else.

[OldPony]

I think you are all wrong. Even those who disagree with the others(:.
Seriously, SMU controls its own destiny. It starts by erasing competitve disadvantages to the extent possible and then grows by winning. If we win enough, public pressure will force games with the best college football has to offer. It takes a lot of winning though and it needs to start soon. By winning we become desirable. If we continue to lose, no one will want us- not even Sunbelt.
We are in the best place for us now to turn this around.