San Antonio Express Article - SWC II

[SMUstang]

<A HREF="http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=200&xlc=1027986" TARGET=_blank>http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=200&xlc=1027986</A>

Not a bad article. I think I would like this 10 team lineup.

[LA_Mustang]

Yeah, that would be a great lineup only if you added Texas State and UTSA. Nothing would make a inner city Dallas kid more revered in their hood than sticking a Texas State Bobcat, getting up and saying "I'm from Dallas Carter, fool." He would be a legend in sunny South Dallas for making plays against competition like that. You could even add Tarleton St and Texas A&M – Commerce and become a 14 school power conference.

[TCU_backer1]

That would be the slow death of our football programs (SMU and TCU) if that league ever came about.

[Corso]

I think I tend to agree with you

[SMUstang]

LA Mustang and TCU Backer. Why do you say this would be such a bad conference? Is it because it contains NTSU and NMSU?

Or is it because it contains Tulane and Houston? What is it that portends to slow death? Maybe we should throw in Florida A&M and UAB and USF to make it better. That way we would have some Div. 1AA teams in there that are moving on up.

[SMUstang]

Seriously, I see advantages in having a bunch of natural rivals in the same conference.

You have SMU-TCU, Houston-Rice, UTEP-NMSU, Tulane-La Tech, and potentially Tulsa-UNT.

That should insure that attendance will be much improved versus the current WAC and CUSA conferences.

JMHO

[Charleston Pony]

The SWC II could work if the Cotton Bowl immediately warmed to the idea and had it's champion host a Big XII school and the NCAA waived it's current rule re: qualifying for the bball tourney...and most important...the schools being mentioned looked well into the future to see the potential of this league rather than getting hung up in today's chase for the almighty BCS label (but forget today's I-AA programs that are mentioned in this article).

Appropriate members include UTEP, NMSU, Tulsa, SMU, TCU, UNT, Houston, Rice, La Tech, Tulane and Ark St & La-Laf, if the latter two remain I-A qualified. If not, you have to look east of the Mississippi to USM and Memphis. The conference then becomes the Southeast/west conference!

This BCS thing is robbing people of their common sense.

[EastStang]

When you think conferences think, who would draw a big crowd at SMU games, who has long term history with us, who do you think will in the long term give us better TV and Bowl opportunities, and what is their basketball program like. Under those criteria La-La and Ark. State fail. If UTEP will accept NMSU (and they never have before) they would be okay. UNT fails under criterias three and four. I would prefer USM and Memphis (for basketball). For basketball we should have at least two NCAA/NIT calibre teams year in and year out.

[OldPony]

The day we join a conference with Ark St and LaLa, our football program is doomed and we might as well give up. Ark St is a commuter school with no tradition in any sport and can't draw flies. They are an academic 4 year JC.

[LA_Mustang]

SMUstang, the bottom line is that if we end up in a conference with the likes of UNT, NMSU, and Arkansas St, we will not survive. Do you honestly think that if we start our conference season going 4-0 against UNT, NMSU, Arkansas St, and La Laf, ANYONE at SMU or in Dallas would give a rat’s [deleted]? Do think we could sell top recruits on that schedule? My guess is that none of these games would have Ford Stadium half full. I would rather continue playing Fresno, Boise, and SJSU. At least the current WAC schools have some skins on the wall. As for C-USA, I would love to be in conference with Tulane, Houston, Rice, TCU, Tulsa, So Miss, UCF. That is the best case scenario IMO, and I think the most likely.

BTW, read the commitment we were given by the administration. If you think that means we should move to a conference like your describing, we see things a lot different.
<A HREF="http://www.smumustangs.com/mustangclub/commitment/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.smumustangs.com/mustangclub/commitment/</A>

[SMUstang]

LA Mustang - I mearly posted the article from the San Antonio Express with the comment that their lineup of teams would be satisfactory. I didn't say it was the best possible. It DID NOT include LaLa or Ark St. which I certainly wouldn't have endorsed. You should read these posts more carefully before you rip someone up.

[Southland]

Any conference we enter should include only 4 Texas schools (SMU, TCU, Rice, Houston) and DFW should be the western-most DMA.

[EastStang]

UTEP actually would not be bad in my opinion. Not my first choice, but preferable to UNT.

[SMUstang]

At least UTEP has some "skins" hanging on their wall thanks to Don Haskins.

[Southland]

Here’s what I want…

(1) NCAA approves 10-school conference championship games

(2) CSU San Jose and Wyoming fall victim to the D1A status rules

(3) Big East expands with 4 CUSA schools, leaving CUSA with 6 members. Not all have been members for the required 5 years to continue as a conference; CUSA folds.

(4) MWC expands with 3 western WAC schools, leaving WAC with 6 members. Not all have been members for the required 5 years to continue as a conference; WAC folds.

(5) SMU-TCU, Rice-Houston, Tulane-So Miss, Tulsa-LA Tech form a new conference with two of the following (pending Big East expansion): Memphis, UAB, USF, UCF

We take a one-year NCAA Tournament revenue hit (considering what led to this, and the MWC ruling in 1999, I doubt the NCAA would dock us two years), but we get a conference that promises stability without the travel overheads of a conference with national membership.