PonyFans.com

By all accounts, this PAC-12 thing continues to gain momentum. It’s not a done deal by any means, but looks increasingly probable.

I predict that if it comes to be that SMU regains its rightful place in the highest echelon of college athletics, you are going to see a celebration erupt that will equal none other this school has ever seen. So many years of frustration and disappointment will die that day.

I’m ready for it.

I agree. I am tired of all of these Big 12 podcast hosts taunting the PAC. Media drives this thing. I don't know how the PAC 12, with or without SMU, is less attractive than the Big 12. PAC has 6 flagship state universities. The Big 12 has two from very small states. PAC has 3 primary state cow colleges, Big 12 has 3. The Big 12 has 3 church schools, 3 urban campuses and one JC (Tech). The hopefully new PAC will have two urban campus schools (including SMU) and Stanford which is among the top of the top tier elite schools in the country. I'd take the PAC over the Big 12 any day.

And in the next round of consolidation of Conferences, how many Big XII schools will move up? It very easily could be none, if football is the only criteria. If you add hoops maybe Kansas, Houston and Baylor. In the PAC-12, Maybe OR and WA, perhaps CO if Neon does a good job. Stanford if you add hoops and other sports. In the ACC, Clemson, FSU and maybe VT and GT. UNC if you add hoops and other sports. In the B1G, Rutgers, MD, and Northwestern could get walking papers if there is a consolidation. If not, then they stay and the SEC stays static. The next round will be bloody.

Topper wrote:I agree. I am tired of all of these Big 12 podcast hosts taunting the PAC. Media drives this thing. I don't know how the PAC 12, with or without SMU, is less attractive than the Big 12. PAC has 6 flagship state universities. The Big 12 has two from very small states. PAC has 3 primary state cow colleges, Big 12 has 3. The Big 12 has 3 church schools, 3 urban campuses and one JC (Tech). The hopefully new PAC will have two urban campus schools (including SMU) and Stanford which is among the top of the top tier elite schools in the country. I'd take the PAC over the Big 12 any day.

Not sure of the definition for "urban" campuses, but Cal (Berkeley/Oakland), Utah (Salt Lake City) and UW (Seattle) are definitely in urban environments. ASU, SDSU and SMU are close enough to major cities you can see their downtown core while standing on campus. Tucson is a midsized city while Stanford is in its own universe.

CA Mustang wrote:

Topper wrote:I agree. I am tired of all of these Big 12 podcast hosts taunting the PAC. Media drives this thing. I don't know how the PAC 12, with or without SMU, is less attractive than the Big 12. PAC has 6 flagship state universities. The Big 12 has two from very small states. PAC has 3 primary state cow colleges, Big 12 has 3. The Big 12 has 3 church schools, 3 urban campuses and one JC (Tech). The hopefully new PAC will have two urban campus schools (including SMU) and Stanford which is among the top of the top tier elite schools in the country. I'd take the PAC over the Big 12 any day.

Not sure of the definition for "urban" campuses, but Cal (Berkeley/Oakland), Utah (Salt Lake City) and UW (Seattle) are definitely in urban environments. ASU, SDSU and SMU are close enough to major cities you can see their downtown core while standing on campus. Tucson is a midsized city while Stanford is in its own universe.

Of course many flagship colleges are in urban areas. When I refer to "urban" schools I mean those non-flagship schools that were established primarily to serve the heavily populated area where they were founded in deference to students who preferred staying home. Louisville, Houston and Cincinnati are prime examples.

If this comes to play I know I will definitely have a much higher level of engagement that I haven't had in like 10 years. Life gets in the way, and then you get somewhat jaded by the college sports landscape. This would be massive and I'd be flying out to games and definitely bringing my kids to a lot more local games. I know a lot has to happen and there's a risk of some PAC schools leaving, but it would be so fun to have them see schools like Stanford, Cal, Washington, Oregon, UofA come to town.

Me on this thread: Wow, imagine going to see Oregon at a full Ford stadium during homecoming

Me IRL with Battered Pony Syndrome: PAC12 won't materialize, imagine playing Florida Atlantic on ESPN+ and reading the box score 2 days later

Blvd_Stang wrote:Me on this thread: Wow, imagine going to see Oregon at a full Ford stadium during homecoming

Me IRL with Battered Pony Syndrome: PAC12 won't materialize, imagine playing Florida Atlantic on ESPN+ and reading the box score 2 days later

This is me 100%. And when people say they don't like the PAC12 and they wish we would go to the BIG12 because they "like" those schools, I tell them it's all the more reason to love going to the PAC12 because it's more fun to root against some of these teams!

SMU deserves a chance after the the NCAA's disproportionate (yes, we deserved major punishment, but not what the death penalty wrought) and the constant blackballing by our former conference mates, that for some reason, some of you want to be associated with. I would prefer the PAC 12 to the Big 12<10.

Give me Oregon and Washington as opposed to OK ST. and TCU. Give me Utah and AZ St as opposed to...what Baylor and TX Tech? Give me Stanford, Cal and Arizona as opposed to West Va., Kansas State and Iowa State. Destinations, academic prestige, etc. It is not close.

SMU may fall flat in a P5 conference like some project. I believe SMU will flourish. Current attendance against AAC teams is not an apples to apples comparison to attendance against P5 conference foes. Nor is recruiting, media attention, market capture, etc. Across all sports. If a team is winning in Dallas, they will get the city's attention. Look at the Larry Brown days in Moody. I may be wrong, but I want SMU to have a chance, and if the PAC-12 gives SMU that chance, even if it implodes in 7 or so years, I will take it. It will be on the school, and us as fans and supporters, to put up or shut up at that point, but I have been waiting for years to see how that story ends.

Great post 3rd. My point exactly. The Big XII is a toaster leavings conference. No real stars there (except Kansas and Baylor in hoops). Yeah, we have history with the Frogs, Bears, Red Raiders and Cougars. But this is the conference that Texas, OU, CO, NE, Mizzou, all left. While the PAC is a long plane flight from Virginia, I'd welcome joining the PAC-12 if they'll have us.

3rdGenPony wrote:SMU deserves a chance after the the NCAA's disproportionate (yes, we deserved major punishment, but not what the death penalty wrought) and the constant blackballing by our former conference mates, that for some reason, some of you want to be associated with. I would prefer the PAC 12 to the Big 12<10.

Give me Oregon and Washington as opposed to OK ST. and TCU. Give me Utah and AZ St as opposed to...what Baylor and TX Tech? Give me Stanford, Cal and Arizona as opposed to West Va., Kansas State and Iowa State. Destinations, academic prestige, etc. It is not close.

SMU may fall flat in a P5 conference like some project. I believe SMU will flourish. Current attendance against AAC teams is not an apples to apples comparison to attendance against P5 conference foes. Nor is recruiting, media attention, market capture, etc. Across all sports. If a team is winning in Dallas, they will get the city's attention. Look at the Larry Brown days in Moody. I may be wrong, but I want SMU to have a chance, and if the PAC-12 gives SMU that chance, even if it implodes in 7 or so years, I will take it. It will be on the school, and us as fans and supporters, to put up or shut up at that point, but I have been waiting for years to see how that story ends.

Spot on.

I have long felt that either PAC-12 or ACC were better homes for SMU than the BigXII, despite our history with many members. Yes, a regional conference has appeal with the greater likelihood of increased attendance in Ford Stadium by these visitors. However, the quality and brand of the PAC-12 members (even without USC and UCLA) places us at one of the five big boy tables and we will attract new fans in DFW and our alums will return in larger numbers.

Could the PAC-12 be at risk long term? Yes. And, so could the BigXII and ACC if the B1G10 and the SEC decide to create a collegiate NFL. In that scenario, we will scramble with the remaining members of the three P5 conferences being poached.

I totally agree we will be competitive and flourish in the PAC-12, benefiting our new conference partners and us. A Central Time Zone in Dallas makes a great deal of sense to the PAC-12.

Fingers crossed.

And not only in football and basketball. Stanford and Cal will be great upgrades competitively for our swimming program. Stanford in golf and tennis. We'll upgrade their conference in soccer both men's and women's. So, there is lots to like about adding us.

EastStang wrote:And not only in football and basketball. Stanford and Cal will be great upgrades competitively for our swimming program. Stanford in golf and tennis. We'll upgrade their conference in soccer both men's and women's. So, there is lots to like about adding us.

Swimming & Diving, along with all our non-revenue Men's and Women's teams will benefit and attract recruits, who value the greater competition and the P5 brand. The PAC-12 will enjoy their visits to Dallas, as well, with our improved facilities across the board and access to DFW football talent. I don't think that will make the BigXII schools happy.

EastStang wrote:Great post 3rd. My point exactly. The Big XII is a toaster leavings conference. No real stars there (except Kansas and Baylor in hoops). Yeah, we have history with the Frogs, Bears, Red Raiders and Cougars. But this is the conference that Texas, OU, CO, NE, Mizzou, all left. While the PAC is a long plane flight from Virginia, I'd welcome joining the PAC-12 if they'll have us.

A&M deserves all the scorn they're getting for the Jimbo Fisher contract, but there is no denying their athletic department is far healthier today for moving to the SEC and re-establishing their identity away from the other TX schools. SMU has that same opportunity.

By all accounts, DBM looks like the uncompromising, visionary leader SMU has been missing for a generation. While he'll likely deflect much of the credit to Hart and Turner, it sure seems like he deserves the lion's share for taking the reigns and positioning SMU to capitalize on the Pac12's difficulties in the media market.

As with Nick Saban ending up in Tuscaloosa, rather than one masterstroke it usually takes a series of loosely connected dominoes to fall over time for any school to reach the mountaintop. Unless something goes bump in the night, it looks like one very big domino is about to fall.