SMU can be competitive, if it wants to be

Here's a little constructive musing. There is little below that many of you would not be in agreement with, but I believe this argument is worth repeating. Hope you'll enjoy the thoughts and details below.
I've heard all sorts of reasons why SMU could be nationally competitive once again in football, and some reasons from some people why they believe it can't be. I have to assert that SMU can be very competitive nationally, if it wants to be.
Things going for SMU from a football program perspective:
-Very good school
-Beautiful campus and facilities
-Located in an interesting environment: good feel to University Park, next to major city
-Located in the state of Texas, a hotbed of high school football talent.
Things that MIGHT be challenging for SMU:
-Conference USA affiliation (versus a BCS conference)
-Funding (versus deeper pockets at larger and/or state schools)
-Academic standards
-Competing local entertainment products in Dallas (e.g., Cowboys, Mavs, etc.)
The above might not be a collectively exhaustive list, but you get the idea. I believe, as I know many of you do as well, that SMU absolutely has much more to offer prospective student athletes than do many schools currently with far stronger programs. Allow me to take a shot at addressing why the challenges listed above should not preclude SMU from being very competitive:
-Conference USA affiliation: Sure Conference USA ultimately caps the success at SMU, while still affiliated with the conference. But, should SMU run the table within the conference and play well out-of-conference, it could get into BCS bowls as has been accomplished by Boise State and Utah. The conference gets pretty good publicity for a non-BCS confernce.
-Funding: Funding is really only an issue when you're building a program up. Very successful programs are net positive in terms of cash flow. Furthermore, Baylor, Wake Forest, and Boston College, all are private, religiously affiliated schools, with student enrollments comparable in size to SMU's student enrollment, and they've managed far more success than SMU (Baylor from an affiliation with BCS, certainly limited on-field success).
-Academic standards: see Wake Forest, Boston College, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc., etc. etc. It would seem that SMU has adjusted its student athlete standards to be competitive from an admissions standpoint.
-Competing local entertainment products: Easy argument here. Let's compare SMU and Dallas with Boston College and Boston. In Dallas, SMU can draw from a city population of roughly 1.2 million, and competes with the Cowboys, Rangers, Mavericks, and Stars. In Boston, Boston College can draw from a city population of roughly 600K, and competes with the Patriots (hmm, their good, right?), Red Sox (I wonder if people in Boston follow them?), Celtics (does starting the season 11-1 garner interest?), and the Bruins.
SMU can be competitive. It involves a choice, commitment, and then, of course, winning.
I've heard all sorts of reasons why SMU could be nationally competitive once again in football, and some reasons from some people why they believe it can't be. I have to assert that SMU can be very competitive nationally, if it wants to be.
Things going for SMU from a football program perspective:
-Very good school
-Beautiful campus and facilities
-Located in an interesting environment: good feel to University Park, next to major city
-Located in the state of Texas, a hotbed of high school football talent.
Things that MIGHT be challenging for SMU:
-Conference USA affiliation (versus a BCS conference)
-Funding (versus deeper pockets at larger and/or state schools)
-Academic standards
-Competing local entertainment products in Dallas (e.g., Cowboys, Mavs, etc.)
The above might not be a collectively exhaustive list, but you get the idea. I believe, as I know many of you do as well, that SMU absolutely has much more to offer prospective student athletes than do many schools currently with far stronger programs. Allow me to take a shot at addressing why the challenges listed above should not preclude SMU from being very competitive:
-Conference USA affiliation: Sure Conference USA ultimately caps the success at SMU, while still affiliated with the conference. But, should SMU run the table within the conference and play well out-of-conference, it could get into BCS bowls as has been accomplished by Boise State and Utah. The conference gets pretty good publicity for a non-BCS confernce.
-Funding: Funding is really only an issue when you're building a program up. Very successful programs are net positive in terms of cash flow. Furthermore, Baylor, Wake Forest, and Boston College, all are private, religiously affiliated schools, with student enrollments comparable in size to SMU's student enrollment, and they've managed far more success than SMU (Baylor from an affiliation with BCS, certainly limited on-field success).
-Academic standards: see Wake Forest, Boston College, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc., etc. etc. It would seem that SMU has adjusted its student athlete standards to be competitive from an admissions standpoint.
-Competing local entertainment products: Easy argument here. Let's compare SMU and Dallas with Boston College and Boston. In Dallas, SMU can draw from a city population of roughly 1.2 million, and competes with the Cowboys, Rangers, Mavericks, and Stars. In Boston, Boston College can draw from a city population of roughly 600K, and competes with the Patriots (hmm, their good, right?), Red Sox (I wonder if people in Boston follow them?), Celtics (does starting the season 11-1 garner interest?), and the Bruins.
SMU can be competitive. It involves a choice, commitment, and then, of course, winning.