Question?

by **smupony94** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:38 pm

Would be nice. Chad and staff are doing their part.

by **SoCal_Pony** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:44 pm

smupony94 wrote:Would be nice. Chad and staff are doing their part.

'Nice' seems an understatement, 'Critical' seems more accurate.

Here's hoping they have a plan in place next year. Planets are now aligning properly. Team has an exciting offense and Chad brings much needed energy.

by **Phxfan** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:48 pm

sbsmith wrote:
Phxfan wrote:My thinking prior to this BB thing, was that SMU, could, maybe get into the PAC. Far more liberal than Utah, maybe ASU, WSU socially speaking. Stanford has the " Hoover Inst". But this latest NCAA stuff makes SMU pretty much untouchable IMO. So what do you think the next step is? Do you hope/think the AAC can get a new contract = or near to the P5? When can they get a re-do. Does the P5 just take teams like UH, Memphis, UCF etc. ? Do they just go after coaches? Thus, the AAC is doomed to CUSA? What is SMU's next move? Do you have a move? Just curious on your thoughts. If SMU has no chance to go to the next level, what is the point of continuing. I'm pretty sure CM is thinking the same thing.

We were never getting into the PAC-12, they have no interest in this state unless they can get UT.

Being from the west coast, I do think the PAC would rather have a mild SMU/UH rather than, " I want my way UT", I do not think UT is in that mix again. They would like Texas but without U. T. I am sure USC would just love to deal with that non-sense for years. A constant headache. UH and SMU might have worked, maybe still could? I doubt that, due to this last mess. So when does the AAC get a new contract? CAN someone tell me? I have no idea. The ACC is a very long shot, no reason for them to look at SMU. The PAC, mainly USC/ASU might forgive the SMU NCAA thing. I think we are stuck. So, when does the AAC get a new contract

So, does anyone know when the AAC can get a new contract? When can they get a better deal?

by **smupony94** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:48 pm

Just remember how empty Larry's first year was

by **Phxfan** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:12 pm

smupony94 wrote:Just remember how empty Larry's first year was

So when does the AAC get a new contract? I am just so tired of this stuff, the SMU/NCAA stuff. You know the feeling. Just tired. The PAC is the most logical, if there is any logic. Several, or more importantly, they have been in the same spot as SMU. USC is not happy with the NCAA. They hate the NCAA. ASU does not care, has no beliefs, nor any kind of moral outlook. They just cheat, kill kid's, and are loved in AZ. It is what it is. As far as killing kids, google Frank Kush/boy's ranch. So, USC, ASU might go for SMU. I don't live in Dallas, however, if SMU played USC/ASU/Stanford they would get a full house.

by **fifty** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:18 pm

2020 i think ends the current 7 year tv contract. About the same time as ipf breaking ground

by **smupony94** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:24 pm

Hope the PAC 12 will pull a Rutgers-Maryland to get into Texas

by **sbsmith** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:26 pm

Phxfan wrote:Being from the west coast, I do think the PAC would rather have a mild SMU/UH rather than, " I want my way UT", I do not think UT is in that mix again. They would like Texas but without U. T. I am sure USC would just love to deal with that non-sense for years. A constant headache. UH and SMU might have worked, maybe still could? I doubt that, due to this last mess.

I don't think you understand, for the PAC-12 there is no Texas without UT. They simply cannot gain any traction in this state unless they have a 1st tier brand like UT. SMU and UH don't have enough fans to make the PAC-12 matter in this state, neither of those schools drew well even when they were in the Texas-centric SWC.

by **smupony94** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:28 pm

sbsmith wrote:
Phxfan wrote:Being from the west coast, I do think the PAC would rather have a mild SMU/UH rather than, " I want my way UT", I do not think UT is in that mix again. They would like Texas but without U. T. I am sure USC would just love to deal with that non-sense for years. A constant headache. UH and SMU might have worked, maybe still could? I doubt that, due to this last mess.

I don't think you understand, for the PAC-12 there is no Texas without UT. They simply cannot gain any traction in this state unless they have a 1st tier brand like UT. SMU and UH don't have enough fans to make the PAC-12 matter in this state, neither of those schools drew well even when they were in the Texas-centric SWC.

Big 10 is getting $0.25/household in Maryland and Rutgers territory. Do the math

by **sbsmith** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:30 pm

smupony94 wrote:Big 10 is getting $0.25/household in Maryland and Rutgers territory. Do the math

Is the Pac-12 going to get that here?

by **smupony94** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:34 pm

They hope so and we are long shots but not out of the running. Texas is the key prize

by **smupony94** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:35 pm

sbsmith wrote:
smupony94 wrote:Big 10 is getting $0.25/household in Maryland and Rutgers territory. Do the math

Is the Pac-12 going to get that here?

No and AT&T is paying $0.10 for the big 10 in Texas. That's gravy to them

by **sbsmith** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:42 pm

smupony94 wrote:They hope so and we are long shots but not out of the running. Texas is the key prize

In all seriousness though it's nice to hear that SMU2PAC12 isn't as big of a joke as I've always thought it was.

by **smupony94** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:51 pm

Chad said it best if he doesn't succeed then football at SMU is over

by **MustangStealth** » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:56 pm

PAC(X) âˆŒ SMU for values of X <30

Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Re: Question?

Who is online