What Autonomy Really Means for SMU

by **CalallenStang** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:05 pm

Since there is so much talk on these boards about the Autonomy 5 taking over college football, let's actually take a look at what autonomy means for college football.

The Autonomy 5 (A5) can vote on new/changed rules in certain areas. While the other conferences (such as the AAC) have no vote in that process, they are all free to adopt the new regulations as their own. The Autonomy 5 cannot do anything that the other conferences can't match.

Of course, matching means that $$$ has to be spent, and some schools will be unable to do so.

Over time, the non-A5 schools will realign into conferences based on how many of the A5 regulations each conference is willing to adopt. SMU is one of the non-A5 schools with the most resources and willingness to spend and as such, should end up in the non-A5 conference that implements the most A5 regulations.

Rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated.

by **Stallion** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:26 pm

I think that's largely true-although there will be a definite stigma of second tier that will hurt attempts to make the climb schools like TCU, Louisville, Utah and UCF have made through recruiting. I don't doubt we have some wealthy boosters that will cut the slack-I have doubts that the SMU community will respond to the degree needed to avoid our fate.

by **jpe747** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:39 pm

Hopefully the administration will quickly meet and come up with a strategy. If SMU can survive, as others give up, that might be enough to move into the "haves" section. On the other hand, I think there will be a number of schools that say to heck with it and begin cheating.

by **Topper** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:27 pm

Stallion wrote:I think that's largely true-although there will be a definite stigma of second tier that will hurt attempts to make the climb schools like TCU, Louisville, Utah and UCF have made through recruiting. I don't doubt we have some wealthy boosters that will cut the slack-I have doubts that the SMU community will respond to the degree needed to avoid our fate.

I'm afraid that you are right. Let's be honest. The football program has stayed afloat because a relatively small number of well heeled folks are willing to open up their pocketbooks when asked. We are relevant, to the extent that we are relevant, because of them, and certainly not because of fan interest in Dallas or attractiveness to the broadcast networks.

We can fill up Ford when we play old SWC rivals that have moved on to big conferences and that is about it. Likewise, our television ratings are based on opposing fanbases watching our games. June's idea of playing in the spring is not going to happen of course, but I can see why he is tossing out desperate ideas in response to a fairly desperate situation.

by **Topper** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:29 pm

jpe747 wrote:Hopefully the administration will quickly meet and come up with a strategy. If SMU can survive, as others give up, that might be enough to move into the "haves" section. On the other hand, I think there will be a number of schools that say to heck with it and begin cheating.

Our payroll in the early 80s was probably more than whatever will become allowable per the court ruling.

by **CalallenStang** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:42 pm

Stallion wrote:I think that's largely true-although there will be a definite stigma of second tier that will hurt attempts to make the climb schools like TCU, Louisville, Utah and UCF have made through recruiting. I don't doubt we have some wealthy boosters that will cut the slack-I have doubts that the SMU community will respond to the degree needed to avoid our fate.

Those schools all had second-tier stigma as well (except for Louisville which was in an AQ conference from 2005 on). Maybe not to the same degree, but it definitely existed

by **CalallenStang** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:47 pm

Topper wrote:
jpe747 wrote:Hopefully the administration will quickly meet and come up with a strategy. If SMU can survive, as others give up, that might be enough to move into the "haves" section. On the other hand, I think there will be a number of schools that say to heck with it and begin cheating.

Our payroll in the early 80s was probably more than whatever will become allowable per the court ruling.

The court ruling and Autonomy are two separate issues. The court ruling holds more risks - as well as more opportunities - for SMU if it stands after what will surely be many rounds of appeal

by **mattc1775** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 8:24 pm

College football teams are companies. Those companies that invested in their product over the last 50 years benefit from the capitalism that is now college football. If a fan base and administration tolerated loosing or barley getting by such as a company does they get left behind and eventually left out of the market.

The big brands coke, ford, Nike, GE etc. own the market due to the best administration and spent big and won and now own the market which the big 5 do. Its American capitalism, should have invested better in the product. The fan based tolerated mediocrity and the administration does not care about football and neither does the fan base.

by **Mexmustang** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 11:40 pm

I want to believe you, but we have not wanted to play the game for 30 years. Now that all the cards are stacked against us why will suddenly start playing?

We can't even get a comment from our AD or President. Certainly not an objection or any other form of resistance. I happen to believe that the non-P-5's have a great deal of power to negotiate more seats at the table, but no one wants to rock the boat and thus our opportunity will come and go.

Think any non P-5 AD really wants to rock the boat? He'll no! it might jeopardize their next P-5 opportunity. If we should ever grow some balls, and agree to opt out playing these boys again, how would these same AD's raise the money when the easy paychecks playing Michigan or Alabama provide them no longer exist. Don't fool yourselves they work for their next employer, not us.

by **CalallenStang** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 7:27 am

mattc1775 wrote:College football teams are companies. Those companies that invested in their product over the last 50 years benefit from the capitalism that is now college football. If a fan base and administration tolerated loosing or barley getting by such as a company does they get left behind and eventually left out of the market.

The big brands coke, ford, Nike, GE etc. own the market due to the best administration and spent big and won and now own the market which the big 5 do. Its American capitalism, should have invested better in the product. The fan based tolerated mediocrity and the administration does not care about football and neither does the fan base.

I don't disagree with this, but the fact is that none of that matters now. We are where we are and where we are is in a strong position relative to other non-A5 schools

by **couch 'em** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:37 am

Even if we tried to make an effort would any alumni jump on board early enough to get it off the ground? I think not many. We have all been lied to so many times why believe next time will be different?

by **Pony_Law** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:28 am

Stallion wrote:I think that's largely true-although there will be a definite stigma of second tier that will hurt attempts to make the climb schools like TCU, Louisville, Utah and UCF have made through recruiting. I don't doubt we have some wealthy boosters that will cut the slack-I have doubts that the SMU community will respond to the degree needed to avoid our fate.

Honestly I actually don't think the autonomy schools will make a huge difference in preventing other schools from rising. All it takes to rise is a good coach that is committed to being at the school for the long haul, it very rarely depends on recruiting. If You notice TCU Boise, and UCF never have great recruiting classes. What yet all have USA. A Great coach in a prospect rich area (Boise recruites primarily out of California) that is committed and not leaving is what it takes and nothing more. Utah rose under urban myer (a great coach) and sunk right back to mediocrity when he left. Peterson has been at Boise for basically their whole rise and he has turned down offers to leave. Patton while a jerk is a great coach and again he never left even though I'm sure he had chances. O'leary was going to coach ND but is now committed to UCF because they forgave him for his resume padding. Utah got lucky in that they were the only real candidate based on size, location and athletics to be a realistic member of the PAC 12 to join with Colorado.

If SMU wants to be good we need to get a good coach thqt is committed to being here for the long haul. June is a pretty good coach but he definetly got used to having a little serfdom in Hawaii and through up his hands when people in Dallas wouldn't kiss his ring for slightly above mediocre.

by **sbsmith** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:44 am

Pony_Law wrote:
Peterson has been at Boise for basically their whole rise and he has turned down offers to leave.

All except one

by **ideal** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:57 am

It's all about marketing, so the AAC is on the right path. A simple word like power is a marketing strategy, bec. people like to associate with it. You need to project an identity, that the avg. person will assume for himself, that makes him feel connected, or just happy.
Actual winning is helpful, but the commitment to winning is absolutely necessary.
Hopefully, Americans still believe competition is a good thing.

by **Stallion** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:49 am

Ah its the old coach 'em up theory coming back into vogue. Total [deleted]. We got the 2 Million Dollar coach with NFL experience and a Coaching Staff with NFL experience-remember. He doesn't have the recruits to get the job done. Most telling is that he can not field a squad that can stay on the field with a motivated BCS program. All those programs I listed above recruited at the very top of the non-BCS schools which is largely responsible for them making the P5 jump. Each fielded teams which routinely beat quality BCS programs. We hopefully will match any and all P5 benefits. I just don't see any school that fails to match P5 benefits out-recruiting any school that does offer these benefits for more than a couple of recruits each year.