ACC swoons over Miami

[Diehard Pony]

With all of the generally pessimistic opinions being laid out on this string where, generally speaking, the highest we should set our sights on is a regional conference of WAC and C-USA leftovers, I just wonder if that is what Phil Bennett has in mind as his pinnacle of achievement should everything go as he has planned??

Whether he is right or not, I don't think so. If you have listened to what he has to say he firmly believes he can, using "the Miami model", return SMU to prominence in football. I think we all know that is a tall order, and I think Coach Bennett knows that as well, but I can assure you he is not telling the increasingly higher profile recruits that he is pursuing that he is shooting for SMU to ultimately win a conference consisting of the teams mentioned, and that they could play a part in that glorious march to the top.

I believe he is looking at the fact that Miami is a private school program with previously zero football tradition, zero fan support, and on the brink of exiting the sport altogether and we all know where they are today. I'm not saying that he truly believes in his mind that he can make SMU the next Miami, but I feel pretty confident that his goals with respect to this program are a tad bit loftier than what has generally been laid out in this string.

[Charleston Pony]

Talk of the "Miami model" is all well and good, but they had something we don't...membership in a BCS conference. If Bennett can recruit well closer to home, our fotunes will improve...but I agree with Stallion's comment that the best SMU can hope for is a re-built CUSA.

Much will depend on whether the Big East football leftovers try to salvage a I-A football conference. I'm not sure how they could protect their BCS status and that's the key. If the Big East invites Louisville, Cincy and one or two others to keep football alive and the conference in tact, SMU may well appeal to a southern group that might stretch from Texas to Florida.

The reason I see us ultimately affiliating with UNT and some of the SunBelt schools and sticking with Tulsa, Rice and La Tech is simple economics. I don't see any of these mid-major conferences generating the kind of revenue necessary to support the long distance travel costs. In a 12 member conference that is comprised of more regional schools, air travel is kept to a minimum and that makes a huge difference. You've got to remember that in terms of travel costs, all of our "non-revenue" sports are affected, as well. Those track and tennis championships held in Boise and Hawaii are costly to participate in. Taking a football team that far without a guaranteed $3-400k payday is brutal.

[Diehard Pony]

Again, I pose the question. Do you think Bennett's vision, and what he is selling to recruits is that if you come to SMU, and we do exceptionally well that we may one day be in a conference of WAC, C-USA and Sunbelt leftovers?? Again, I agree that perhaps this is the most likely scenario, but to presume it is the highest side of realistic we can presume to reach....I just don't think that Bennett believes that or is selling that to the higher end recruits. If he was (or is) we would get exactly zero looks from any of those kids.

[Charleston Pony]

I'm sure Bennett is preaching that we CAN and WILL win again at SMU, regardless of our conference affiliation. We've got a wonderful new facility that shows the school is committed to football. The BCS talk of late is that they might add a 5th game (championship game played after the current 4 BCS games are played). The talk is that they might GUARANTEE a spot to the highest ranked mid-major program in those 4 games.

The Big East might become one of the mid-major conferences competing for that spot, along with the MAC,CUSA,WAC,MWC & SunBelt. I really think there's a good possibility we will see fewer mid-major conferences, but they will consist of 12-14 teams and have football championships as part of a revenue generating scheme (not unlike March Madness in hoops with all the conference tourneys). I think you'll see some teams drop out of I-A football. Those with problems drawing the 15k average attendance that's been talked about or those with serious budget issues and Title IX concerns will have to think about playing I-AA football or dropping the sport all together. I think all of the current mid-major conferences will be affected before all is said and done.

[Horseradish]

I'll answer Diehards question, then ask him a new one. First, No, I dont think Phil Bennett is trying to sell recruits on playing their college ball in a conference full of leftovers. As you say, that kind of pitch would get you zero looks from the better recruits. But, here is my question for you:

So what?

Is Bennetts spiel to recruits going to have any impact on the actual process of conference realignment? Six years ago Mike Dement was telling recruits they would play on national TV every week against nationally ranked programs like Utah, New Mexico and UNLV. That didnt stop those teams from leaving a year later, and taking the ESPN contract with them. So, the recruiting pitch changed to we were about to be invited to C-USA, so the recruits could play on national TV against Cincinnatti and Louisville and Depaul and Marquette. That spiel lasted right up until the day C-USA decided to invite TCU and told us to take a hike. Coaches tell recruits all kinds of things, that doesnt mean any of them true. You keep talking about Bennetts vision, as if that changes something, I'm afraid you're going to have to explain how. What difference does it make? How is that going to affect what actually happens? If there is a realistic scenario for our near future thats better than whats been discussed here, please share it with us.

So, I answered your question. Now, if you would, please tell me what difference it makes?

[Horseradish]

I wanted to make one other point. Miami made their turnaround 25 years ago, when the college football landscape was very different. Bowl invitations and TV contracts were much less rigid, and there was no BCS monopoly trying to lock other teams out. Even when they were down, Miami was able to schedule Oklahoma, Nebraska, Florida State, FLorida, and Notre Dame, to keep some revenue coming in. The situations arent as similar as some people think.

[SoCal_Pony]

PX, that was a rather pessimistic, yet candid post. Also lengthy, which tells me how important this is to you.

I totally agree with your assertion that for SMU, the progress that needed to be made needed to start at least 2 years ago, and it didn’t. Can you tell me your thoughts as to why it didn’t happen and why “The Commitment” only began 12 months ago?

I am personally angry with our administration, and if your predictions are true that we are indeed in the ‘death throes’, as much as I love football and respect Dr. Turner, I think he should be fired for committing $60M for a soccer field.

[Charleston Pony]

Dr. Turner should be fired for commiting $60 mil to a soccer field? You do realize that Ford Stadium was the product of generous giving by several alumni who care about SMU football, right? That was a huge step in the right direction if we are going to survive as a Division I football program.

Speaking of Division I football economics, there's an interesting article in the Charleston papaer today about E.Tenn. State's decision to drop football (for those who don't remember, that's where we found Mike Cavan after he lead them to a #6 ranking in I-AA). The highest revenue generated by any member of the I-AA Southern Conference (arguably the strongest I-AA football conference in the country) was $1.1 mil by Ga Southern (they have a couple of national championships to show for it). Their expenses were almost $1.8 mil. No school in that league comes close to balancing it's football budget.

By comparison, Clemson had $19.7 mil revenue against $9.6 mil expenses and South Carolina had $17.7 mil revenue against $6.3 expenses. Football, basketball and their conference affiliations help Clemson & USC actually run profitable athletic programs, with total expenses near $31 mil and revenue closer to $33 mil. Bottom line in all of this is that if you can draw 80,000 fans to 6-7 home football games, life is great. For the rest of us, it's a matter of how much we can afford to lose.

PX or anyone else in the know: what do SMU's numbers look like these days? From what I've read, I assume we have over $1 mil invested in our current football coaching staff alone, before we even get to other operating expenses and WAC travel costs

[EastStang]

I agree that since the time table has moved up from a projected 2005 to 2003, SMU won't make any cuts for BCS. So, we have to make the best deal we can. I would like to think regional, so travel and tradition can be fostered. So that the Mustang Band and Peruna can go to away games. I think the ideal conference would include, SMU, TCU, Tulane, La. Tech, Tulsa, Houston, Rice, UTEP. Add ons could include: USM, Memphis. If you wanted to have some basketball/soccer only schools you might add Creighton, ORU and St. Louis. This would give you coverage in most large SW and mid south markets (except San Antonio). USF and UCF would be better served aligning with East Carolina in some other conference in the eastern time zone. One of the benefits of my proposed conference is reduce travel costs to all programs involved. Would fans come out? Certainly these teams playing each other would draw better than teams from Fresno and San Jose since there are more alumni in these cities.
Just my two cents. Here is where Turner and Copeland will earn their money.

[Diehard Pony]

I owe Horseradish a response.

The reason I think it is different from when Dement was espousing national TV, etc., is I think Bennett took the job with a commitment from Turner and Copeland that the investment would be made in the program to assist him in making change happen.

Since then Turner publically stated support for SMU athletics at the highest level (the first such statement by anyone in administration since the DP), and backed his statement with $10 million of university funds (not Mustang Club money), and substantial changes to the admission process and policies. We all know these changes should have been more substantial, but they represented a major improvement.

All of this came together to bring about the best recruiting class we have had in years, stealing a fair number of kids from BCS programs.

My point was that the notion that we could be stuck with the leftovers is clearly a likely result, but I don't believe it is hopeless, and I don't think Bennett took the job thinking it was hopeless either. If he did, I think he would have waited for a job with the hope of significant upside.

[Nacho]

I wish I could see a scenario where SMU would fit into a BCS conference. The truth is that I think we will be lucky to get into a decent regional mid-major conference. There are worse scenarios for SMU. I am not a glas half empty kind of guy but reality is reality.

[EastStang]

There will be two opennings at best for mid-majors to move up to BCS. When you add in BE teams that might get shuffled out, those vacancies fill up real fast. The PAC 10 will enlarge by two slots. That might trigger an eastward reshuffle with a team leaving one BCS conference to join another. In my view, the only team that might move up to the BCS from mid-major will be BYU. That's it. And if ND joins the Big 10, then there will be no opennings.

[Diehard Pony]

My point was never that we were bound for the BCS (check my posts), my point was that our future could be better than merely aligning ourselves with whatever is left of the WAC, Sunbelt and C-USA.

[Nacho]

Diehard I don't know what that means. What exactly are you saying?

[SoCal_Pony]

CP,

I understand that Ford was a gift by generous alumni. My point is that PX posted a pretty gloomy outlook and I would appreciate a follow-up post by him as I value his insights.

I will say this, if indeed we are left with a $60M soccer field, I would argue that we would have been better off having these generous alumni spend their dollars towards a rebuild of Moody or the construction of a building in their name, either one of which would cost considerably less than $60M, and in the end (once again, assuming PX’s ‘death throe’ scenario comes to fruition) would have served our school and our gift-giving alumni better.