PonyFans.com

Pac-16 will be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Ok State

One reason why you say no B12.

Would we be one of the bottom feeders in the Big 12 if we joined?

gostangs wrote: students better then Texas tech students...

... better then us -

better than - t h a n - couldn't resist.

Stallionsmu wrote:Seriously, if the Big12 said come back. What would you do?

I'd leave the BE in a heart beat

Me too.

The Big 12, SEC, that's real big-time.
TCU trumped us again.

SMU 86 wrote:Would we be one of the bottom feeders in the Big 12 if we joined?

I'd take it in a heartbeat.
Look how long Baylor was a Big 12 "bottom-feeder." They're big boys now. No question.

Of course we'd go. With all due respect to David Miller and the others who genuinely care about SMU basketball, football drives everything.

Baylor is not a "big boy." They caught lightning in a bottle with Superman disguised as RGIII, but I expect them to come back to earth (i.e. middle of the pack) now that he's headed to the NFL. It's sort of like when UT had Vince Young: he couldn't throw very accurately, but was such a ridiculous athlete that he carried the Cows to a title. RGIII had the same effect in Waco. He's Superman, but with an accurate arm and a brain, too.

In a heartbeat. Travel would be easier on teams and fans.

jkflamebo wrote:No question I'd rather be in the Big 12.

I don't really care about the money or the more difficult path to a BCS game. I am fired up to play some meaningful games throughout the season. No more Wyomings, SDSUs, UNLVs, New Mex, Colo States on the home schedule - I'd rather lose a few more games than sit through more games against teams with no more than 100 visiting fans in the stands. I doubt teams in the Big East are going to be of much more interest to SMU/Dallas fans than CUSA and I doubt they will travel much better. That's why the Big 12 is a no-brainer to me.

ReedFrawg wrote:

jkflamebo wrote:No question I'd rather be in the Big 12.

I don't really care about the money or the more difficult path to a BCS game. I am fired up to play some meaningful games throughout the season. No more Wyomings, SDSUs, UNLVs, New Mex, Colo States on the home schedule - I'd rather lose a few more games than sit through more games against teams with no more than 100 visiting fans in the stands. I doubt teams in the Big East are going to be of much more interest to SMU/Dallas fans than CUSA and I doubt they will travel much better. That's why the Big 12 is a no-brainer to me.

I've got to agree with ReedFrawg. BE will help restore interest in SMU BB and you only need about 9,000 to fill up Moody, but it won't do much for the football program other than providing more cash. Having said that, I would rather be in the BE than CUSA. B12 will never ask SMU to join as long as UT is part of it...so we don't really have to worry about answering the question.

Ikus wrote:Of course we'd go. With all due respect to David Miller and the others who genuinely care about SMU basketball, football drives everything.

Baylor is not a "big boy." They caught lightning in a bottle with Superman disguised as RGIII, but I expect them to come back to earth (i.e. middle of the pack) now that he's headed to the NFL. It's sort of like when UT had Vince Young: he couldn't throw very accurately, but was such a ridiculous athlete that he carried the Cows to a title. RGIII had the same effect in Waco. He's Superman, but with an accurate arm and a brain, too.

and speed.

mr. pony wrote:

SMU 86 wrote:Would we be one of the bottom feeders in the Big 12 if we joined?

I'd take it in a heartbeat.
Look how long Baylor was a Big 12 "bottom-feeder." They're big boys now. No question.

Not for long..I bet they win 6-7 games this year. Especially with a Phil Bennett D

With their first loss at home to SMU

Had a Baylor friend tell me RGIII decided to stay....I told him so did Bennett
All Out

Absolutely yes. Not just for the obvious increase in money but for being a visible member of this region's top college conference. Bringing in teams like UT, Baylor, Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, etc will bring a TON of attention and exposure to SMU. I just don't see why we wouldn't do it, especially since I would think the whole BCS formula is about to be dramatically changed.

Realistically though, unless SMU becomes the next TCU or Boise State, I don't see why they would ever want us.

Comet wrote:Absolutely yes. Not just for the obvious increase in money but for being a visible member of this region's top college conference. Bringing in teams like UT, Baylor, Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, etc will bring a TON of attention and exposure to SMU. I just don't see why we wouldn't do it, especially since I would think the whole BCS formula is about to be dramatically changed.

Realistically though, unless SMU becomes the next TCU or Boise State, I don't see why they would ever want us.

this