PonyFans.com

Stallion wrote: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/

Sorry Stallion but the timing of these deals has to come into play and the Big East is still operating under their old TV contract from 5 years ago. Renegotiating comes up at the end of this year and it's quite certain that the Big East will get a raise - the question is how much. I don't think it's going to be equal to what the B12 schools are getting but we will have to wait and see. That comparison will mean much more than the comparison you just tried to make.

This is like two guys, both earning $50K a year, each suddenly hitting two different lotteries, one paying $1M the other paying $1.5M annually. Yeah there's a difference but considering where they came from, don't they feel the same?

I've talked to a number of sources and the division per school is not what is shown on that chart. Texas and OU get the lions share of the money and the others get a sliding scale. TCU has to buy in and then gets a smaller share. The BE contract will be probably double because they are trading the Pittsburgh market domination (which is really all Pitt and WVU bring to the table) for San Diego (SDSU) DC (Navy), Dallas and Houston (SMU, UH) and upstate New York for Orlando (UCF) and Memphis. Add in their hoops brand gets a stronger ping in Philly and still keeps some viewership in Pittsburgh since Temple is a state school (and that small market will be splintered now that Pitt, WVU, PSU, and Temple are in different conferences) as well as Memphis, Dallas, and Houston. Yeah, SMU and Houston do not deliver their markets, but they give the conference and its TV partners some access to those markets. Alternate the BE tourney in hoops between MSG and AA Center and you'll make in-roads in local markets. Also don't be surprised if the BE makes a play for the Cotton Bowl this time around.

In other news, Texas is trying to make Thanksgiving a permanent home game for them, with conference opponents rotating through...B12 sounds like fun!

Stallion wrote: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.

OK, we are not going to be a member of the B12 just because we would like to be. We already tried to get into the B12 and were told no. So given the existing situation, would you rather be in the BE or CUSA. That is the reality. BE may not help the football program all that much, but ultimately it ought to do wonders for the BB program.

But we want to argue for six pages about something that isn't even a possibility, thereby also highlighting the problem with having too many lawyers on this board (and in the world).

Best post of the whole thread 'gostangs'!!!!

I'm sure the current state of our basketball program didn't make us as attractive to the Big 12.

This is the same debate that TCU had when they were in the Big East and the Big 12 started making overtures. The Big 12 is the logical geographic, historical & cultural home for SMU and any notion that SMU would turn down the Big 12 is nonsense. The Pro-Big East football arguement seems to be that the conference champions road to the BCS is easier. Perhaps so, but for how long? And does SMU really want to "earn" its BCS games by surviving the B'East only to be crowned the tallest midget?

To those that say that they don't want to be in a conference with the Longhorns - I agree. I hope they go independent soon and park their non-revenue sports in the Big 12. I don't want TCU to be in a conference with them either. They want the benefits of being in a conference without any of the attachments. The logical conclusion is that they should go indi in football. I hope this happens soon. TCU isn't going to go all "Baylor" when that happens as we'll leave the histrionics to them. When the Horns & OU leave the Big 12, the Big 12 will probably add Louisville, Cincinatti, BYU and or SMU and be fine.

West Coast Johnny wrote:This is the same debate that TCU had when they were in the Big East and the Big 12 started making overtures. The Big 12 is the logical geographic, historical & cultural home for SMU and any notion that SMU would turn down the Big 12 is nonsense.

Agreed...unfortunately they haven't offered and very likely won't as long as UT has any say about it.

if by fine, you mean having your TV contract cut in half once the schools they are actually paying for leave, then yes i guess it will be fine. Not saying that wouldn't still leave something SMU would look hard at (if invited), but if you think TX and OU leave without most of the dollars walking out the door with them, then think again. The question is whether the effect would be bigger then the current dilution they inflict on the others by pigging the revenue.

West Coast Johnny wrote:really want to "earn" its BCS games by surviving the B'East only to be crowned the tallest midget?

I've got to laugh at questions like this coming from Horned Frogs. Of course! Backing into a conference championship nets the same result as TCU's very best seasons: BCS opponent, BCS game, BCS money. You guys think you'll continue at an 11 to 12 win clip and that the move to the B12 finially legitimizes you...good luck with that!

SMUer wrote:

West Coast Johnny wrote:really want to "earn" its BCS games by surviving the B'East only to be crowned the tallest midget?

I've got to laugh at questions like this coming from Horned Frogs. Of course! Backing into a conference championship nets the same result as TCU's very best seasons: BCS opponent, BCS game, BCS money. You guys think you'll continue at an 11 to 12 win clip and that the move to the B12 finially legitimizes you...good luck with that!

When you have an 8-5 U-Conn team in the Fiesta bowl - yes the Tallest Midget comment is totally appropriate for the Big East in many years - especially after realignment. I've read many times on this board about how unfair the BCS system is. Now that SMU is a BCS wellfare recipient, the tune has changed.

West Coast Johnny wrote:When you have an 8-5 U-Conn team in the Fiesta bowl - yes the Tallest Midget comment is totally appropriate for the Big East in many years - especially after realignment.

You could say that for a lot of the conferences. Clemson had no place in a game against this year's Big East champ, and yet no one seems to have an issue with the ACC.

CalallenStang wrote:

West Coast Johnny wrote:When you have an 8-5 U-Conn team in the Fiesta bowl - yes the Tallest Midget comment is totally appropriate for the Big East in many years - especially after realignment.

You could say that for a lot of the conferences. Clemson had no place in a game against this year's Big East champ, and yet no one seems to have an issue with the ACC.

True. The AQ designation changes everything. Would SMU have gone to the Big East is it wasn't for the AQ designation? Perhaps yes, but only for money? Perhaps no as C-USA is more regional and better for non-revenue sports? TCU would not have jumped to the Big East had it not been for the AQ designation.