PonyFans.com

Stallion wrote:Nonsense. Texas Tech was rejected. Oklahoma St was rejected. Texas didn't want to play in the PAC without a Southwest quandrant. You people really think that Notre Dame and Texas couldn't get a bid to every conference in America? Really? Wow!!!

I'm sorry Stallion, but you look at the world through orange colored glasses. You are 100% wrong as far as UT is concerned. ND is another story. UT actually wanted to get away from Tech and is not happy with the academic standards at the Oklahoma Schools or KSU. A few years ago they badly wanted to pair with Colorado to the PAC, but the they got greedy and the Longhorn network killed their chances. I don't think it matters that much to them at this point.

First, I would love to play UT in any sport at any time, but I would not want to be in the same conference with them right now. Their BEVO network destabilized the conference to such an extent that Nebraska, Colorado, Aggies and Missouri said bye. Their complaints that they weren't getting enough money is a matter of lengthy record. How long will it be before they pull that again? And what will TCU, Baylor, TT, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU, WVA do when they start whining again. They'll do what they did this time, bend over and say thank you sir, may I have another. Yeah, I'd love to see the old SWC back together again, but I like the BE and for me this is a dream come true. SMU playing games within a four hour drive at Temple, Navy, Rutgers, UConn, and a train ride to Louisville. I am very pumped up for this. And hoops games against Georgetown, St. Johns, Rutgers, Nova, Temple, Seton Hall, UConn, Providence. I mean, I'll need Amtrak frequent passenger miles. This will be heaven for me.

You betcha.....the Longhorn Network is pure poison to any team other than the orange bloods. Don"t give us any part of that as a conference mate. Yes, would love to play them in any sport but their pure unadulterated selfishness does not make for a good conference mate.

The longhorn network was just an excuse to leave. The real reason all those folks left was the UT was having unilateral conversations about leaving - and everyone knew that if that happened the conference value would drop hugely overnight - so if you can jump into a same or better life boat why not? Colorado, Nebraska, A&M and Mizzou all did so, in three different life rafts. I think that tells you all you need to know about the kind of "partner" UT is and how this came down.

Why would we want to go Big 12 just to lose 5-6 for sure a year? So we can host our old fart SWC buddies on the boulevard while they crush us? No thanks.

Ill take a path to a BCS game - however tough - vs no path. Ill take a group of schools that are more like us and in our future growth direction then 30k + SW area state schools, several of which are just terrible.

Maybe 5 yrs from now we can take the next step but if it came tomorrow i would say hell no.

5 yrs!?! Whatever would give you that confidence? Progress at SMU comes only after decades of strife.

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.

You're forgetting their basketball team?
Combined with football and women's hoops, they're big boys/girls alright.

A lot has happened in the last five years.....during which we started trying

I much prefer being in the BE (assuming it retains BCS status) for us academically and in athletics to being part of BevoX. The BE has better overall schools and expands our national reach much more. Accept the BE!

Stallion wrote:The incredible naivete and sports knowledge of the SMU fan is sometimes mind-boggling.

The problem Stallion, is that there is more than sports at stake here.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?3xzfwq

to address the original question in the thread-by all means 'yes'.

UT has and always will play by a different set of rules than other conference mates. It is part of the price of admission to be in 'their' conference. That said, whatever conference affiliation they are in will be stable enough to get a seat at the 'big-boy table', or whatever follows the BCS.

I believe UT could choose whatever conference affiliation they desired...the problem being that they want the same type of control that they currently enjoy in the Big 12 in the new conference.

UT's burr-in-the-saddle with A&M is that the Aggies dared to do to them (and rest of the Big-12) what Texas had pursued with the Pac 12. They did it, and did it even better that Texas had proposed. This angers the Orange-Bloods, and thus the 'we can't find an opening on our schedule' response from DeLoss and company on all major and minor sports.

SMU should/would jump at the chance to play in-state for the majority of games, if the chance offered. Once again, TCU positioned itself, through years of effort, as the most viable nearby candidate for membership, and was rewarded with an invite. We thus pay again for lack of vision and commitment during the Pye years and following.

Just like our time in CUSA, let's dance successfully with them that brung us, and win the right to step up when the next round of shuffling occurs in 2017 or so. That is a model that I think is achievable, and just might reunite us with, uhh, those folks in Austin.

I sure hope not. They are a pain in the butt and we don't need them.

Quite frankly nobody in Dallas cares about Memphis, UH, SDSU, UCF, USF, Boise or whoever is in our conference/division. Nobody. Its been proven in the stands already. Compare historical attendance with SMU/Big East teams and TCU/Big 12 opponents. You guys are in La-La land but you are going to find out just how ridiculous that delusion is in the coming years. Against most of those teams we'll be playing before the usual 20-22,000 while TCU will have sellout after sellout with 40,000 of their own fans with prime time national attention on their games. A similiar scenario with play out in recruiting giving TCU an even more pronounced advantage over SMU.

What? SMU vs USF will easily outdraw TCU vs OU!!!!! We'll get more media coverage too!

So what? TCU will look like Texas Tech Jr. In the B12 and SMU will look like Vandervilt lite in the BEast. Give me the later. Gate sales mean nothing compared to endowment dollars. TCU will get Skyline kids who'll still only achieve an 8-4 record. We'll earn the same in the BEast and be in the hint for the championship until the final weekend and still be perceived as the better school. Go BEast!

OK I've heard this crap long enough-there is no way in hell the Big East schools earn anything close to the Big 12 schools in Total Revenue per school-and there is no way in hell that SMU in particular will approach the Total Revenue of TCU in Total Revenue-I don't care what you heard Orsini say at Cheerleading Camp. I know there are positive and negative factors facing both the Big 12 and BE in 2013 and beyond but in 2011 the Big 12 earned about FIVE TIMES total TV revenue per team and that doesn't include other revenue sources such as game-day ticket sales or bowl game shares. That's a little less than 60 Million per school of over a hypothetical 5 year TV Contract. Hate to be the only one bringing a dose of reality to the discussion-but you can't analyze where you want to go living in a delusion. again the lack of rational discussion by SMU fans is mind-boggling

http://collegesportsinfo.com/2011/10/03 ... onference/