STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!

[PK]

SoCal, you won't get any argument from me that our football program was severly hindered for the last 12 years and the results are obvious. I thought Cavan should have been gone a year, if not two years, earlier than he was (of course 20/20 say he never should have been hired). As far as last year's recruiting, I think Bennett and the powers that be truely thought we had a few more years to work with before the shakeups in the football landscape would start and there was anticipation that recruiting would continue to go well enough to get us turned around in time. Had they known this was going to happen so quickly, they very well might have gone after some JUCOs. We may still not be in a position to lure any JUCOs due to the type of majors we have to offer...I really don't know if that is a problem or not. Bottom line is that we are where we are and hopefully the Prez and AD really are working to get us into some kind of positon to not let this program sink into the sunset. I don't think Bennett came here to be the coach when the program went belly up...so hopefully he is involved also in trying to positon us for a better deal.

[This message has been edited by PK (edited 05-20-2003).]

[PerunaPunch]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to go with LA_Mustang on this one.

If the WAC gets ripped apart, don't we have several years of games already inked? If the conference broke up, would those contracts be voided??

Seems like we have no trouble (UT's shyness notwithstanding) scheduling terrific non-conference opponents. But in any scenario, I can't see why we'd care what UNT does or doesn't do. I just don't see how an alliance with UNT (or any of the other regional fringe D1A programs for that matter) would bring us any benefit.

untgrad88 positions this alliance as needed for mutual survival, but I just don't see it. We've already sunk as far as we're going, and are on the way back up.

[EastStang]

I think the WAC in its current form would remain for another few years. I don't think the ACC merger with Miami, et al. will actually take place until at least 2005. I think all changes will be inked now, but will occur in actuality down the road. I think everyone thought the changes would be inked in 2004/2005 for start around 2006. The ACC moved the schedule up a year.

[The CPC]

"Once upon a time there lived a vain Emperor whose only worry in life was to dress in elegant clothes...."
Hans Christian Anderson.

You guys remember how this one ended, dont you?

[Charleston Pony]

1st of all, anyone who is shocked by the timing of this hasn't been paying close attention to what is happening in the world of I-A football. With the current BCS contracts and network deals set to expire after the 2005 season, and most conference arrangements imposing penalties for those who leave w/o adequate advance notice, did anyone really think we had more time? Does anyone wonder why the timing of SMU's "Commitment" campaign???

We certainly hope we can impress upon programs much more competitive than ours that we are sorry we have played the role of "pretender" in the post-death penalty era, but please consider us as you choose your future conference mates. We REALLY are committed to competing at the highest level...isn't that what the campaign promises? The only question is whether anyone will buy our pitch. Hopefully, our modest improvement in hoops, the construction of Ford Stadium, Bennett's hiring and talk of a little momentum in recruiting will convince the CUSA cast-offs we are going to be a player in the near future.

I'm assuming the ACC expansion deal is pretty much a "done deal". I read Tranghese's comments following the Big East meetings as his saying; "NO, we can't compete economically, so the best I can do is to try and make you feel guilty about leaving and destroying our football conference". When has Miami felt guilty about anything they've done to get them in the position they are in?

As for people "advocating" a conference with the WAC east and SBC schools in Tx,Ok,La & Ark...it's not that I'm advocating it, but I do fear it is what we've earned and I'd rather see us in that arrangement than trying to make it as an independent. My fear is that once the dominoes fall, we may once again be relegated to the last I-A option.

I forsee UConn, Rutgers, Va Tech, W.Va & Pitt (unless Pitt gets a Big 10 invite) inviting Louisville, Cincy, Memphis and probably S.Fla to join them in a new conference that might become part of a Big East Alliance, and I think those CUSA schools will jump at that offer. I then expect ECU, S. Miss, TCU, Houston, Tulane and UAB to try and form an all-sports conference and think SMU, La Tech, Tulsa and Rice will all be candidates they consider. I expect these newly formed "mid-major" conferences to number 9 teams for scheduling purposes (I'm calling the Big East Alliance group mid-major because I think they lose their BCS standing), but there are issues pending at both Tulane and UAB whether they will continue playing I-A football, so things could get really interesting for the CUSA cast-offs.

The WAC and SBC are on the endangered species list right now. The net effect of all of this will probably be one less I-A conference and several schools dropping out of I-A football or dropping football all together. If the MWC decides to expand by one (to help conference scheduling and prepare for the possibility Wyoming drops from I-A football), I expect Boise State gets the nod over Fresno because of the academics/admissions issues at Fresno and the fact that Boise delivers a bowl. Hawaii remains a travel nightmare and that will always hurt their case. Do the math from there as to who survives and who doesn't.

I love the talk of our returning to the glory days (although the dream now consists of 32,000 packing Ford rather than 70,000 in the Cotton Bowl or 65,000 in Texas Stadium). The cold reality is that our performance over the past 30 years has placed us squarely on the bubble. To suggest otherwise is simply not dealing with reality.

[Hoop Fan]

Football independence would be hard, but its the only thing to do if the WAC folds and CUSA holds. Joining Arkansas State and La Lafayette in football? What would be the point with those schools being the most unlikely to survive attendance requirements? If independence got too hard or failed, and the SBC schools prove themselves, we could always eat crow and join em later. They arent going anywhere. And its not like we would burn a bridge going independent. No snubs or broken contracts. No lost revenue really either. Wheres the downside in trying it as long as you could find a place for basketball?

[Charleston Pony]

the downside is in scheduling. Notre Dame isn't going to have any sympathy for SMU, so that leaves Navy and anyone else foolish enough to go independent available for Oct-Nov games. Right now, that's Utah St and Troy State. Are they more appealing than Ark St and La-Laf? Both of those schools also play decent ball and draw better than we do for games played on the hardwood. If you haven't noticed, there are fewer and fewer independents these days because it's a death knell for everyone but Notre Dame. There's also ABSOLUTELY ZERO chance for any post season play. I'm sure that would help recruiting.

[DigitalEagle]

Utah State is joining the SBC and will be playing football next year.

Troy State is begging for admission and wants to be a member within two years, they will probably be admitted.

Unless you are Notre Dame, being an independent can't work.

[Hoop Fan]

Independence MIGHT be the death nell of any program except Notre Dame, but joining a football league with La Lafayette and Ark State would be the CERTAIN death blow to SMU football. Not only that, everybody believes those programs will be the first to fall out of D-1 so I sure wouldnt jump into a league with them anytime soon.

[Nacho]

If C-USA only loses 2-4 schools and invites SMU would you take it?

[Charleston Pony]

heard today that a writer somewhere in the norheast who is allegedly close to Tranghese says the commish is hell bent on saving the Big East by creating two 8 school divisions for what will be called the Big East Alliance. One would be bball based with ND,SJ,Prov,Vill,SH & Geo inviting Marquette and DePaul to join them. Plan B choices for 7th and 8th members are Xavier and Dayton. The football 8 might be the remaining 5-6 (questionable whether Temple will be included along with Pitt, W.Va, Va Tech, UConn & Rutgers with invites to Louisville & Cincy making 8. S.Fla and C.Fla were mentioned as "possibles" depending on whether Temple is included or whether Louisville & Cincy accept.

Assuming Louiville, Cincy, DePaul & Marquette jump on the opportunity to be part of the Big East (even if football side loses it's BCS status), CUSA becomes a mess, but might try to survive. The question is: would SMU pay to join TCU, Houst, Tulane, S.Miss, Memphis, UAB, ECU and S.Fla in CUSA? Would the remaining 8 schools have the ability to change conference bylaws and require football/bball in order to boot Army, St Louis & UNCC? If that group stays together and wants a 9th, are we in competition with WAC brethren Tulsa and La Tech? Is Marshall in the equation? Would be an interesting decision if that option came available.

[PK]

CP, you are just a wealth of interesting information...keep it up!!

[Hoop Fan]

Yep, the Big East Alliance could very well leave us in a beauty contest with Tulsa, Rice, Marshall, UCF and La Tech for one or two spots in CUSA. At that point the new CUSA would be so weak in basketball that you could see logic in Tulsa being their choice based on Memphis influence. If the sentiment is to still chase the BCS dream, and football drives the decision, could be Marshall. SMU's only chance would be if they were looking for a balanced program with football potential. I dont like most of the scenarios right now, which is why i say independence must be explored behind the scenes if it comes to that.