PonyFans.comBoard IndexAround the HilltopFootballRecruitingBasketballOther Sports

Not Good for SMU

This is the forum for talk about SMU Football

Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower

Not Good for SMU

Postby lwjr » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:09 pm

Treadway21 wrote:The Big12 will lobby for 6 or 8 teams rather than expanding. Mark my words.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean drop to 6-8 teams? Why? I would think they lose money by dropping teams. Or am I looking at it wrong
GO MUSTANGS!
lwjr
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:37 pm
Location: Midland, Texas

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby dr. rick » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:12 pm

B12 Response: Big 12 pointing fingers, mulling change after being left out of College Football Playoff

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-12-lef ... ncaaf.html
dr. rick
Junior Varsity
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:46 pm

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby Treadway21 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:13 pm

No - they will lobby to add 2 more teams to the "playoffs" so they will be guaranteed a spot rather than giving away money away by adding teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An atheist is a guy who watches a Notre Dame-SMU football game and
doesn't care who wins.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
Treadway21
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 6586
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby lwjr » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:25 pm

Treadway21 wrote:No - they will lobby to add 2 more teams to the "playoffs" so they will be guaranteed a spot rather than giving away money away by adding teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks
GO MUSTANGS!
lwjr
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:37 pm
Location: Midland, Texas

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby lwjr » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:27 pm

dr. rick wrote:B12 Response: Big 12 pointing fingers, mulling change after being left out of College Football Playoff

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-12-lef ... ncaaf.html

So much for, All for one, one for all". lol
GO MUSTANGS!
lwjr
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 8160
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:37 pm
Location: Midland, Texas

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby SoCal_Pony » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:46 pm

Treadway21 wrote:No - they will lobby to add 2 more teams to the "playoffs" so they will be guaranteed a spot rather than giving away money away by adding teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sounds good TW, from the B12 perspective that is.

SEC, with 14 teams and therefore a more difficult path to championship, may not agree.

What you are saying in effect is that the Texas / OU winner gets a playoff bid 80%+ of the time.
Last edited by SoCal_Pony on Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SoCal_Pony
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 5901
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 4:01 am

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby Pony81 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:48 pm

But then amongst the P5, I'm sure when the Big 12 shows up and lobbies for a waiver to the 12 team playoff requirement it will go over like a lead ballon.

There is a reason for the 12 team requirement - that's to prevent smaller leagues equal access.
Pony 81
Pony81
Heisman
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:09 pm

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby SoCal_Pony » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:50 pm

Oh, and 1 last thing.

With the loss of A&M, I think the odds of Coog High getting B12 membership are 10x greater than ours.

Cincy & Coog High to B10 is our nightmare scenario.
Last edited by SoCal_Pony on Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SoCal_Pony
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 5901
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 4:01 am

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby StallionsModelT » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:51 pm

I know it won't happen but the Big 12 could logistically add four schools

SMU
Houston
Cincinnati
BYU

Do away with the silly North/South thing and do like the Big 10 does with their divisions.

Again, I know it won't happen but it would certainly be cool :)
Back off Warchild seriously.
StallionsModelT
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 7800
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Not Good for SMU

Postby Treadway21 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:52 pm

SoCal,

It's not what I want. I just think UT and OU want to keep the money and still guarantee themselves a spot in the playoffs.

They could care less that Baylor and TCU missed out of the playoffs this year. The only thing bad for them is it is a blow to the conferences reputation. But that just reaffirms in their minds that they run the conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by Treadway21 on Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
An atheist is a guy who watches a Notre Dame-SMU football game and
doesn't care who wins.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
Treadway21
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 6586
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby StallionsModelT » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:53 pm

SoCal_Pony wrote:Oh, and 1 last thing.

With the loss of A&M, I think the odds of Coog High getting B10 membership are 10x greater than ours.

Cincy & Coog High to B10 is our nightmare scenario.



If that were indeed to go down then yes....ultimate nightmare scenario.
Back off Warchild seriously.
StallionsModelT
PonyFans.com Super Legend
 
Posts: 7800
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby Puckhead48E » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:58 pm

Pony81 wrote:But then amongst the P5, I'm sure when the Big 12 shows up and lobbies for a waiver to the 12 team playoff requirement it will go over like a lead ballon.

There is a reason for the 12 team requirement - that's to prevent smaller leagues equal access.


Everything they have done in the past 50 years is to prevent equal access. Nothing new to see here, except they ended up hurting one of their own. Only, it doesn't really matter because it is the little brothers in a "special" conference so they won't mind too much. Only reason the rest of the Big 12 cares is the loss of money. Almost sounds like greedy hopes of getting 2 teams and 2 paydays led to getting none.
Puckhead48E
Heisman
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:39 pm

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby dr. rick » Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:59 pm

Treadway21 wrote:SoCal,

It's not what I want. I just think UT and OU want to keep the money and still guarantee themselves a spot in the playoffs.

They could care less that Baylor and TCU missed out of the playoffs this year. The only thing bad for them is it is a blow to the conferences reputation. But that just reaffirms in their minds that they run the conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


+1 Exactly what happened yesterday (co-champions) and today!
dr. rick
Junior Varsity
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:46 pm

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby CoxMustangFan » Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:03 pm

StallionsModelT wrote:
SoCal_Pony wrote:Oh, and 1 last thing.

With the loss of A&M, I think the odds of Coog High getting B10 membership are 10x greater than ours.

Cincy & Coog High to B10 is our nightmare scenario.



If that were indeed to go down then yes....ultimate nightmare scenario.


Why is it even being discussed? Neither school is -- or will be within the next 50+ years -- an AAU member. I have a better chance of becoming the starting center for the Mavs.
Pony up!
User avatar
CoxMustangFan
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 2432
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:02 pm
Location: Frisco, TX

Re: Not Good for SMU

Postby Pony81 » Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:04 pm

I think Briles is spot on. One true champion........ No wait..... One true co- champion.

That is just BS. Baylor is the Big 12 champion. Now if UT was in a similar spot as Baylor you an believe their would be one true champion.
Pony 81
Pony81
Heisman
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests