PonyFans.com

The ACC did a bad thing to Syracuse and BC. A very bad thing. Big deal. Happens everday in the real world. Some win, some lose. They lost. Time to move on.

What does this mean for SMU, Nacho? Let's try to take the emotion out of it and see it in a logical way. SMU is a non-BCS school. Can we agree on that? If you can't, stop reading now.

As a non-BCS school SMU has to find a way to survive. Forget prosper. A non-BCS school cannot prosper. The system now in place doesn't allow for that. Maybe one day that will change but for now we have to assume that the currrent system will be in place for a long time.

To survive SMU must cut expenses and at the same time increase revenues. How Nacho? How is that possible?
Good question. 1) To cut expenses a school must be in a regional conference. 2) To increase revenue a school must play big-name opponents.

What is a regional conference Nacho? Another excellent question. We have a fine class this summer. A regional conference would mean--listen carefully, this will be on the mid-term: a conference that is located in a well-defined geographical area such as the southwest. This can be acccomplished by one of 2 ways: 1)form a new regional SWC or 2) add teams to the existing WAC to make it essentially a biconference with 2 regional conferences within, ie a western and an eastern WAC.

What are big-name schools Nacho? Class this question has left me with a quezzy feeling in my stomach but I will proceed. These are schools that anyone, even someone who has never seen a football game, has heard of. Examples are obvious to anyone now reading this board (I hope).

To those who are wondering about C-USA expansion I have an answer: C-USA is not regional. It is far-flung and therefore does not meet the first of our critical criteria.

Good luck this summer. I hope this has helped.

[This message has been edited by Nacho (edited 06-30-2003).]

you just flunked because our best scenario is to join Conference USA once Cinncinati and Louisville are siphoned off to the BE. Army also may leave voluntarily. Voila without the northern schools you have the Conference of the South which is much more compact than the WAC with TCU, Tulane, Houston, Memphis, Southern Miss and probably Rice and maybe Tulsa together. That is easily the BEST choice.

Don't get me wrong here...I'm not being argumentive, but the only difference between that group and some of the earlier "New" SWC groups is that you have Southern Miss and Memphis instead of UNT and LaTech. Now I won't even try to compare UNT to either of the two above and I'm ambivalent about LaTech, but Memphis and Southern Miss are not exactly known as big time programs in this part of the world either. They certainly don't have a large following or large number of alums working in this area. What makes this grouping the best? Please...leave UNT out of this, we all know the situation there. I'm really not trying to be flip here...do Southern Miss and Memphis have really good programs and I'm just not aware of it?

In defense of Stallion, So. Miss is a real FB program and respected. If you beat them, you get extra browny points (SOS). Memphis is so-so in FB but strong in BB along with Beale Street.

In order of national appeal and prominence we have for SMU the following:

1. Conference USA-West. Add SMU, Rice and Tulsa and we end up with the mini-me version of the old SWC. Nationally, this has the most impact, despite losing Louisville and maybe Cincinnati. Plus, we join TCU again.

2. WAC-East but we won't get TCU despite the logic for us.

3. SW and/or Private Schools plus Army and Navy. I personally would be attracted to this group of peers but it would need more than us, Rice, Tulsa and we would have to steal TCU (not going to happen), Houston and Tulane. Last two would want to view this choice as more than a lateral move.

4. Go Independent. Last resort until we improve and a conference, who wants us and Dallas, expands in the future.

5. Worse case: Status quo in WAC as currently arranged. Geography and risk of WAC West members leaving for MWC is too great.

[This message has been edited by Water Pony (edited 06-30-2003).]

the present WAC is much better than that mess of a conference discussed in Baltimore sans TCU and Tulane. As for Southern Miss PK you are obviously uninformed and need to do a little research.

[This message has been edited by Stallion (edited 06-30-2003).]

Memphis and Southern Miss have respectable football programs, PK. Hella more respectable than our own in its current state.

I readily admit to being uninformed...but then that sort of makes my point as I am probably pretty similar to the general/average college football fan in this neck of the woods. I agree with Water Pony though on his senarios. With a C-USA West and a total of 12 to 14 schools, that would be a pretty workable solution. The conference alluded to in Stallion's post, even with my new found knowledge of the greatness of Southern Miss, would have only eight schools and I'm not convinced that it would be that much more impressive or of interest to local fans than some of the other combinations poping up on this board.

For those that see UNT as unworthy to be associated with the likes of mighty SMU, I have one question: How many have actually been to UNT lately or ever? What about in the last 5 years?

The upcoming configurations are going to be based soley upon present need and current status--not the distant past. We deserve to be in the mix and we will be in the mix. Some are just going to have to get used to the idea.

I wish to high heavens that we were playing ya'll this year.

Note to Stallion.
What I had in mind is the following:

West:
SMU
TCU
Houston
Rice
UTEP
Tulsa

East:
Tulane
USM
La Tech
Cincy
Army
Navy

That includes all the schools you mentioned (except Memphis) plus 4 more, giving this conference 12. It can be worked to go anywhere from 8-12. Eleven is a popular number these days. Army and Navy are football only. I think we are on the same page basically. We must go regional. Take the class P/F.