need for a regional conference

[untgrad88]

I have been on your board reading everyone's comments about the pending conference reshuffling. I think that we all could agree that the WAC and the Sunbelt are conferences that are most in jeapordy--that primarily because of our far-flungness and lack of regional rivalries.

I have serious doubts that the Sunbelt is going to last more than 3 more years--there are at least 2 schools that I don't think will make the attendance cut--maybe 4.

We desperately need to form some kind of regional solution for our mutual benefit and survival in this BCS world. An expanded WAC with east/west divisions (with of course UNT included) is a great idea. However, if things really fall apart and the WAC gets seriously raided by the MWC, then I would hope that SMU would give serious consideration to helping form a regional alterntative--a revived SWC as it has been called.

Someone tell me why a conference of SMU, Rice, Utep, New Mexico State, UNT, Tulsa, Ark State, and La Tech would not work. We would certainly have a better shot at success, rivalries and IA stability than what we BOTH currently have with playing these far western schools that none of our fans care about. Travel costs would be substantially reduced AND fans could make most away games as well--thus helping everyone in the attendance department. If a conference game of SMU-UNT would not be a sell out at both places, I'll kiss your mother-in-law! Who is your mother-in-law?

[EastStang]

UNT has never sold out a game at SMU, ever. Of the teams you named none of them have solid basketball teams to brag about except Tulsa. Houston has had such a program in the past and may in the future. Our natural historical rival TCU is not in such a regional conference. This is the cleaned up SunBelt Conference. SMU would probably opt to go Independent in football or form a six team conference with Rice, UTEP, SMU, Tulsa, La. Tech, and like Tulane, or Houston so that the Oct/Nov dates were covered, and join the Missouri Valley Conference for other sports.

[PK]

EastStang, just a thought for your consideration. I believe the last time we played what is now UNT was at least ten years ago. Their enrollment has increased quite a bit since then and they now have a sizeable alumni base in the area. I don't know if that would change the attendance at a game between them and SMU, but theoretically it should. I'm just throwing this out as food for thought.

[untgrad88]

I think you are forgetting something--a conference now requires 8 schools. Who would the other two schools be. Folks like you can look down on UNT if you had like, but what I am talking about is a mutually beneficial relationship. We need each other, whether you choose to believe it or not. Do you know what the largest UNT-SMU game was in attendance? 50,000--in Texas stadium, in the 70s. Bet you didn't know that did you? You need to read your SMU history books at the games UNT and SMU have enjoyed in the past.

[EastStang]

It still wasn't a sellout was it? Sure UNT would generate a crowd at an SMU game that is larger than the crowd for SJS or Hawaii. But at what price? I misspoke, its six for basketball, eight for football. And by the way, the conference you designed would have no automatic bid to the NCAA tournament in basketball because you need six teams that have been in a conference together for what two years. It gets complicated. At this point the Washington Post puts the chances of Miami leaving the BE at 50/50. If they do I am sure that the phone will be ringing at Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette and DePaul to leave Conference USA. Then the fun starts.

[MeanGreenGem]

Beggin' your pardon, EastStang, but if that SMU/UNT crowd of 50,000 plus had been played at Ford or Fouts, there would have been 20,000 pissed off fans standing around in the parking lot outside the stadium wondering why the hell they couldn't get in to watch their favorite school play a college football game. Some would be hacked off cause they couldn't see their favorite marching band AND a bunch of them with binoculars would be furious that they couldn't focus in on all the Texas bred co-eds wiggling their derriers' for all to see!

This is just college football, folks, this is not war and death here. SMU and UNT have totally different constituencies to go with their totally different educational missions here in the Metroplex. Neither takes away from the other but both could sure add BIS for each other one game a year.

Also, with 5.2 million citizens in the Metroplex, I'd say there are enough fans for both of us to market to get in our 30,000 plus capacity stadiums. So far, we are both failing in that department.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EastStang:
[B]It still wasn't a sellout was it? Sure UNT would generate a crowd at an SMU game that is larger than the crowd for SJS or Hawaii. But at what price?

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

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

[EastStang]

Right and back then SMU was in the SWC. Apples and oranges. There were no Mavericks, no Stars to compete with. The Rangers always stunk. SMU was the Dallas team in the SWC. It's a different environment. UNT would not draw 50,000 at Ford today and would not sell out Ford.

[Stallion]

that crowd was a complete abnormality-it has everything to do with Russ Potts promoting Mustang Mania and nothing to do with NTSU. Sorry but Rice fans could also claim that 60,000 attended an SMU-Rice game in the same time period.

[untgrad88]

Sorry Stallion, but I have been told by UNT alums that UNT took 10-15K many times to those UNT-SMU games in Texas Stadium. You can't tell me that SMU-UNT games wouldn't do better than ANY OTHER CURRENT WAC OPPONENT!

Heck with UNT's momentum and growing enrollment, we would probably outdraw SMU-TCU!

[untgrad88]

"....nothing to do with NTSU...."

Stallion, since you seemed to be trapped in the past, how 'bout I just refer to ya'll as FORMER Soutwest Conference SMU Mustangs?

[Stallion]

These are the facts-I worked in the athletic program at the time-and was well acquainted with each promotion of Mustang Mania. Before Russ Potts came to SMU the game drew 25,539 in 1977 which was 4,400 below our season average and in 1977 drew 26,097 which was within hundreds of our season average. The 50,000 + game as I said was in the first year of Mustang Mania in 1979 and drew 57,923. Two weeks before SMU drew 60,217 for Rice and 2 weeks later they drew 65,101 for Baylor. As any longtime fan knows that attendance was an abnormality based on the genius of Russ Potts and Mustang Mania and didn't have a thing to do with NTSU.

[Charleston Pony]

Stallion is right on the money. The big crowds SMU drew against NTSU, Rice (from 6 to 60, remember?), TCU & Baylor in those years was the product of Russ Potts marketing genius and the Mustang Mania campaign. After Potts left, we returned to form and routinely drew the usual 25,000 for games against everyone but UT,A$M, Ark, etc...and that was for a solid top 20 program.

The new watered down SWC where SMU joins with WAC-East and SBC I-A survivors would be a last ditch effort by a group of schools fighting for I-A survival and it's membership better hope they could all schedule some home games with Big XII/SEC opponents to help meet the 15k average attendance requirements. I would think 15k would be a good crowd to watch those conference match-ups. SMU would draw 15k or better for UNT but the rest of that bunch would be hard pressed to average 10k for conference games (as most do now). The whole conference would be vulnerable and dependent on bigger schools' willingness to give us home games. SMU's home games with Kansas, TTech and this year with Okla St will pretty much guarantee we will meet the 15k average, but there's no way an association with UNT, La-Laf & Ark St helps us with the attendance issue as opposed to Boise, San Jose & UTEP. All it would do is help offset travel costs for a program fighting to survive, and that's why I mention it as an option of last resort for SMU.

[MeanGreenGem]

A little question, CP, once you upset some of those people, ie, UNT beating TTech 2 out of the last 5 games which should have really been 3 "W"'s. But once the SMU football program is back up and competitive and these folks suddenly cannot find a spot for the 'Stangs on your home schedule, who you going to replace them with? Please don't tell me Cal-Northrige?
........................................

SMU's home games with Kansas, TTech and this year with Okla St will pretty much guarantee we will meet the 15k average,

[Sports Law]

Well, I've been laying back and briefly looking at some (but not nearly all) of the "excited utterances" about what the future landscape holds. I will admit that I haven't been terribly focused on the topic (mainly because there will likely be little to no impact on UT - my undergrad alma mater) and I've done virtually NO research on it. That said, with a focus primarily on football and with no offense intended, if anyone cares, here goes:

Any re-alignment that ultimately takes place will take years to fully shake out because of existing agreements (between teams for games, with sponsors, not to mention the all-powerful TV contracts). In addition, buyouts of existing and future commitments will have to be worked out, revenue sharing formulae re-shuffled (for example, basketball revenues in many conferences [including the Big 12] are based on a rolling, multi-year formula - won't that be fun to figure out!) and general chaos going on behind the scenes until the latest version of the "brave new world" takes effect. By that time, Top 25 lists will shift only slightly (heck, Alabama [and Jim Harrick, for that matter] might even be "back" by then), coaches will be hired and fired (for both real and perceived offenses - a possible subject for a future column?), Notre Dame will continue to have its own TV network, Texas-OU will still be the biggest drawing college game in the Metroplex (hopefully still playing at the Cotton Bowl) and (most importantly for the purposes of this board) the bottom-tiered Division 1-A teams will remain virtually unchanged and continue to struggle for D1-A survival.

The idea of a regional conference is appealing; but only with the realistic approach that it is likely just the next step towards ultimate non-1A status for those teams. Look at history: the teams that were dominant in the former Big 8/SWC/Big 10/etc. pretty much still are and the ones that were struggling still are, too (where would Texas Tech be in all of this without Bobby Knight? And, if not for Texas legislative pressures, Baylor would have been outta there long ago). Only a handful of teams have moved up dramatically in recent years (most notably, in my opinion, Virginia Tech) and the smaller schools are having an even more difficult time "keeping up with the big boys" who don't want them to be part of the party anyway. With budget constraints, an uncertain economy and competing priorities (there's that Title IX thing again), the proposed shift will only make it more difficult for SMU, UNT, UH (my law school alma mater) and the like to maintain D-1A status. The most realistic comment that I've seen here (as mentioned, I have NOT read all of them) came from MeanGreenGem: "We are all going to have to adust (sic) to ... regionalizing leagues to cut back on travel costs ....[and]...Selling more tickets to opposing school's fans who are geographically close ...".

Many of the proposed alignments on this board make alot of sense, if kept in perspective that: i) BCS participation will be a rarity; ii) making any bowl game should be viewed as a reward for the "job well done" by the participating team; and, iii) the objective is to make the college athletic experience a financially break-even, but "spiritually" rewarding, one for the student-athletes, the student body and the alums. Its supposed to be about enriching the college experience, not the money, right? In any case, while this makes for wonderful message board fodder and speculation, all this gets re-shuffled again when the BCS contract goes up for renewal anyway.....and, by the way, regardless of what happens, I'm for ditching the BCS in favor of an 8-team (not 10, not 12, not 16) playoff.

Let the debate continue!!




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

[Charleston Pony]

You're right, MGG. If SMU was to become a force again and beat everyone who was willing to come into Ford, the reality remains that those schools could simply refuse to come and that puts us right back in the same predicament...although if we were that good, we'd draw the 15k no matter who we played.

The truth is that one of the reasons SMU is in the position it's in is because for a while there in the early 80's, we beat the big boys at their own game...and they couldn't handle it. My Aggie buddies used to joke that they had to "turn us in" because we were paying the 2nd teamers too much. Everyone who had any connection to any of the top programs knew how dirty things were...not that it's "clean" now.

There's no question many of us are in denial, but what SportsLaw says is correct. With few exceptions, the lines are clearly drawn and SMU along with the WAC east and SBC schools are clearly lumped together in the "have nots" category. That new SWC just might materialize at some point and I personally won't be one to whine about it. I will support my school no matter who we compete against and I really don't have a problem if that means UNT rather than UT and A$M.