PonyFans.com

It aggravates me so that the four Texas schools are so selfish that they won't allow SMU and Houston in their club. Looking at the map in the DMN today, the obvious choices for expansion should be SMU, UH, Cincinnati and Memphis. It certainly doesn't hurt the league in Bball and look at the success of TCU, Baylor in football with the right coach and their attendance at games. I know, I know it will "never" happen but it is a shame!

If Texas could turn back the clock they'd have gone with BYU and WVU instead of TCU/WVU. They do not want another Texas school to compete with but underestimated TCU's ability to compete right away.

To be fair, we've done nothing to warrant a Big 12 invite over the past quarter century.

If Chad Morris can have us competing for AAC titles in 2-3 years, we draw good crowds to Ford (25K+) consistently and the basketball program continues its upward trajectory and makes some tourney runs that may change. Fortunately for us it looks like the Big 12 is standing pat right now

There's a difference between being greedy and smart. If SMU had made any attempt to compete in any major athletics after the DP we might have been in a different place. It's been our own fault.

AusTxPony wrote:It certainly doesn't hurt the league in Bball and look at the success of TCU, Baylor in football with the right coach and their attendance at games. I know, I know it will "never" happen but it is a shame!

TCU and Baylor's success is why Texas will never let SMU in. They are tired of getting their [deleted] kicked by private schools they feel should never beat them. In the eyes of a Texas fan, losing to Baylor is like us losing to UNT.

we need to stop thinking about the big 12 and set our sights on a better conference.

As a UT buddy says, "they need to get in line and know their place".

Nacho wrote:we need to stop thinking about the big 12 and set our sights on a better conference.

And work towards it. Get everyone you know to buy season tickets and invite friends to come with you

leopold wrote:There's a difference between being greedy and smart. If SMU had made any attempt to compete in any major athletics after the DP we might have been in a different place. It's been our own fault.

SMU is 20 years behind TCU and that coincides with RGT's first year at SMU. Saw somewhere that his salary was about $2.8 million in 2008. I think JJ learned from RGT.

StallionsModelT wrote:If Texas could turn back the clock they'd have gone with BYU and WVU instead of TCU/WVU. They do not want another Texas school to compete with but underestimated TCU's ability to compete right away.

So I have some connections with some substantial UT people and trust me they are not worried about TCU in the long term or short term. What they tell me is TCU had enough success that their includsion wasn't going to be received by poll voters as weakening the conference so it wouldn't hurt thier chances for winning BCS bowl spots or now playoff spots but that they are not concerned about TCU at all actually challenging them over time. ITO TCU is benefiting from a good coach and UT being down because of some lazyness on Mack's part the last few years. They are 100% certain that either a) Texas will get the act together and reassert itself and/or at some point Patterson will leave and TCU will fall back down. They basically think TCU is the same as Texas Tech under Leach. They will have some success but ultimately they cannot compete against them over time. In their mind the conference will always be Texas and OU fighting for top dog with a few other decent teams that help promote that Texas and OU should be considered at the top of college football when they win the big 12.

Pony_Law wrote:

StallionsModelT wrote:If Texas could turn back the clock they'd have gone with BYU and WVU instead of TCU/WVU. They do not want another Texas school to compete with but underestimated TCU's ability to compete right away.

So I have some connections with some substantial UT people and trust me they are not worried about TCU in the long term or short term. What they tell me is TCU had enough success that their includsion wasn't going to be received by poll voters as weakening the conference so it wouldn't hurt thier chances for winning BCS bowl spots or now playoff spots but that they are not concerned about TCU at all actually challenging them over time. ITO TCU is benefiting from a good coach and UT being down because of some lazyness on Mack's part the last few years. They are 100% certain that either a) Texas will get the act together and reassert itself and/or at some point Patterson will leave and TCU will fall back down. They basically think TCU is the same as Texas Tech under Leach. They will have some success but ultimately they cannot compete against them over time. In their mind the conference will always be Texas and OU fighting for top dog with a few other decent teams that help promote that Texas and OU should be considered at the top of college football when they win the big 12.

This is exactly what the Texas Exes that I run around with tell me and some of them are relatively big cigars with ties to the athletic department. And I suspect that they are right. TCU and WVU are not going to compete with UT in the long run unless the Horns become worse at developing talent than they already are. Give Patterson UT's roster and he goes 11-1 or 12-0.

Pony_Law wrote:So I have some connections with some substantial UT people

Admitting it is the first step.

My connections with UT power brokers is minimal, but the same attitude exists among the lower-ranking boosters.

Topper wrote:Give Patterson UT's roster and he goes 11-1 or 12-0.

uhhh, he did that w/ TCU's roster this year. and undefeated in 2010 (w/ rose bowl win)

SMU has done absolutely nothing to deserve admittance into the Big 12, even if Texas would never allow us in to begin with.

SMU still mentioned but there's no chance......

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/colleg ... ansion.ece