PonyFans.com

I remember when SMU had baseball. We were not very competitive in the SWC. Switching to soccer where we had Texas to ourselves was a good move. Neither sport attracted many fans.

It had one scholarship player, the rest were walk-ons. You couldn't compete in the SWC without at least a starting line-up on scholarship and a couple of pitchers. My senior year they were 2-32. They played where the soccer field is now. The field had holes in the backstop (and KSMU announcer wore a cup), no fence in right field, and were not built to play in that league. The only time people attended games was if TCU, UT or A&M was in town.

While I agree that the ACC would be great based upon travel, game times, and basketball, if we do not get out of the CUSA 2.0 before playing that schedule that was released yesterday, we will not be able to get the stank off the program which will ensue.

My hope all along has been that if there is a real threat that the PAC 12 wants us to get into the Texas market for recruits, the Big 12 might take us in to fend off the west coast schools from setting up a recruiting shop in Texas.

EastStang wrote:It had one scholarship player, the rest were walk-ons. You couldn't compete in the SWC without at least a starting line-up on scholarship and a couple of pitchers. My senior year they were 2-32. They played where the soccer field is now. The field had holes in the backstop (and KSMU announcer wore a cup), no fence in right field, and were not built to play in that league. The only time people attended games was if TCU, UT or A&M was in town.

I remember watching Burt Hooton pitch for UT against us my FR year and yes, I don't remember SMU baseball being very competitive. We had football and basketball players fill some positions and they were scholarship guys in their other sports. Rusty Bourquein was a year behind me and was at SMU on a hoops 'ship but played 1st base and was one of the few HR hitters we had in his years. I remember right hand crushers who could occasionally land balls on Airline and have them roll up to the front doors of Moody. I would sit and watch games with just a handful of people in those years

SMUstang wrote:I still would rather see SMU in the ACC than the Pac ?. Seems like a better fit, more privates with comparable sizes, more national attention, less travel, and more stability. Maybe if we improve basketball they won't be able to ignore us.

lol, and I’d still rather see us in the B10

a) the only way SMU turns down a P5 offer is if there are 2 offers on the table, I don’t see that happening

b) as i seriously doubt you will drive to an opposing school, i don’t think the distances are that far off…AZ, AZ St & CO vs Fl St, GA Tech & Louisville….aren’t those the 6 closest schools, all around 900 miles away???

c) ACC won’t look so stable once Clemson, Fl St, UNC & Miami get poached

Caballo wrote:While I agree that the ACC would be great based upon travel, game times, and basketball, if we do not get out of the CUSA 2.0 before playing that schedule that was released yesterday, we will not be able to get the stank off the program which will ensue.

My hope all along has been that if there is a real threat that the PAC 12 wants us to get into the Texas market for recruits, the Big 12 might take us in to fend off the west coast schools from setting up a recruiting shop in Texas.

Is the PAC 12 worth 10-20M per year more if the Big 12 does come and offer?

JasonB wrote:

Caballo wrote:While I agree that the ACC would be great based upon travel, game times, and basketball, if we do not get out of the CUSA 2.0 before playing that schedule that was released yesterday, we will not be able to get the stank off the program which will ensue.

My hope all along has been that if there is a real threat that the PAC 12 wants us to get into the Texas market for recruits, the Big 12 might take us in to fend off the west coast schools from setting up a recruiting shop in Texas.

Is the PAC 12 worth 10-20M per year more if the Big 12 does come and offer?

Big 12 will never offer. We would have a higher percentage shot of the ACC offering before them.

Too many teams in the B12 don’t want SMU to be successful, they’re afraid of our potential if we compete on equal terms. Hopefully we go to the PAC 12. I’ve said it before, I think the PAC 12 sans USC & UCLA is better than the B12 sans UT and OU.

SMUstang wrote:What if SMU receives an invitation to join the Pac 12 and because the Big 12 is either earning more or has better exposure the 4 corners leave the Pac 12. Where does that leave SMU? Better off or worse off?

The 4 Corner Schools are not leaving the Pac12. This has been thoroughly reported by Canzano and Wilner who cover the Pac12 extensively. It sounds like the media deal will move quickly after the UC Reagents meet next week to determine UCLA's fate. After that, expansion considerations with SMU being fairly well positioned. Regardless, SMU would always be better off moving to the Pac versus staying in the new AAC. And, 100% of the schools in the Pac12 are more desirable. And, the TV contract is better. And, and, and...

The real question if we get bypassed is whether or not SMU, Memphis, Tulsa, Navy, etc. would have any interest in partnering with the likes of Boise State, Colorado State, UNLV, Nevada, and Fresno State (excluding SDSU as I assume they are definitely heading to Pac12) to become the best of the rest.

Or is the question would we accept an invite to the MWC to replace SDST if we don't get a PAC invite?

stlpony wrote:

SMUstang wrote:What if SMU receives an invitation to join the Pac 12 and because the Big 12 is either earning more or has better exposure the 4 corners leave the Pac 12. Where does that leave SMU? Better off or worse off?

The real question if we get bypassed is whether or not SMU, Memphis, Tulsa, Navy, etc. would have any interest in partnering with the likes of Boise State, Colorado State, UNLV, Nevada, and Fresno State (excluding SDSU as I assume they are definitely heading to Pac12) to become the best of the rest.

Given the uncertainty of future realignment, which may occur anytime within the next 5 years PLUS the exit fees involved, I suspect schools like SMU, Navy & Memphis will stay put for now.

3rd Gen, that goes for SMU replacing SD St as well.

SMUstang wrote:What if SMU receives an invitation to join the Pac 12 and because the Big 12 is either earning more or has better exposure the 4 corners leave the Pac 12. Where does that leave SMU? Better off or worse off?

Will admit I'm not nearly as gung ho on the PAC as so many others seem to be. Smacks of our move to the Big East where as soon as SMU accepts a bid Oregon, Washington, Cal & Stanford move to join USC & UCLA and form the "western division" of the Big 10. That could leave SMU in "no mans land" once again if/when Utah, Colorado and the AZ schools then bolt for the Big XII. Really have to hope in that scenario that the legislatures in Oregon and Washington get involved and prohibit Oregon and Washington from abandoning OSU and WSU. Hopefully the expanded playoffs will motivate the PAC schools to all stay together even if SDSU and SMU become replacements for UCLA and USC.

My worst case scenario is that SMU pulls another Big East fiasco and moves west only to find itself scrambling to find a home once again.

For SMU to survive, we must gratefully accept any P5 offer that comes our way and then more importantly immediately show that we belong.

If we are a middle-of-the-pack PAC team, we will go the way of WA St.

If we are competing for Championships (maybe even win one) we can become a Top 50 program in terms of desirability….clearly as good or better than anything in Texas outside of UT & A&M.

I don’t say this because of SMU, but because of Dallas.

This is a small window, so we have to execute well, which is not a trait our school is good at. Our alumni on the other hand, I have much more confidence in.

First step is to get our invite, which i feel somewhat good about.