PonyFans.com

If Colorado or any other Big 12 team wants to leave for the Pac-10, they will need to leave this summer due to the 2-year notice requirement.

Bohn said because the Big 12 requires a two-year notice to leave and the Pac-10 is about to begin negotiations for a new television contract that would begin in two years for the 2012 football season, he believes any movement on expansion or conference realignments will come this summer.

http://www.buffzone.com/ci_14415579

This could be a very interesting summer for conference realignments, and makes our performance/attendance in 2010 very crucial. A lot of people on these boards seem to think we have some ultra power players working behind the scenes for us when the realignment floodgates open, but I don't see it happening. It goes without saying that Orsini and Turner will have to be extremely proactive and aggressive about this, like TCU did when they made the jump to the MWC.

East Coast Mustang wrote: A lot of people on these boards seem to think we have some ultra power players working behind the scenes for us when the realignment floodgates open,

It goes without saying that Orsini and Turner will have to be extremely proactive and aggressive about this,

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. SMU can be an attractive option, but conferences will want to see that we've made the committment necessary before they will take us. Jones, last season, etc. is a great sign. But we need to WIN GAMES.

couch 'em wrote:Those things aren't mutually exclusive. SMU can be an attractive option, but conferences will want to see that we've made the committment necessary before they will take us. Jones, last season, etc. is a great sign. But we need to WIN GAMES.

How attractive? Good academics, football program is back from the dead, but we don't have a huge alumni base or any TV market to speak of. And it's not like we have the Baylor/Ann Richards trump card in our back pocket or anything

East Coast Mustang wrote:How attractive? Good academics, football program is back from the dead, but we don't have a huge alumni base or any TV market to speak of.

In truth, Dallas-Fort Worth is America's fifth largest television market. True, SMU does in no way dominate this market, but its existence is of tremendous value. Additionally, the recruits in Texas also make SMU more desirable.

SMU has currently demonstrated a willingness to spend large amounts in order to better its athletics. This demonstrates a level of financial commitment that many schools either choose not to make or simply cannot match. Such financial commitments are an indication that SMU does not desire to be dead weight in a conference, but that it strives for success and has the ability to attain it.

I think anyone who seriously thinks we are an attractive option to any major conference is fooling themselves. We will need to have a decade long run of success like TCU to even sniff major conference consideration. I just don't see any major conference saying "Hey lets grab SMU."

StallionsModelT wrote: just don't see any major conference saying "Hey lets grab SMU."

Unfortunately, conference realignment is not so simple an issue.

Nope. Pretty darn complicated and anyone who thinks they know what's going on is possibly insane.

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:That's fine, you can think that, but you would be wrong. Commitment to future success trumps past accomplishments. Fort Worth is not Dallas, even if it is in the metroplex. SMU is a superior academic school with more of a national profile. These facts are key. Remember them.

TCU is far ahead of SMU in the realignment pecking order right now.

You can believe whatever you would like, but unless the MWC is given a seat at the BCS table then no, they are not.

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:You can believe whatever you would like, but unless the MWC is given a seat at the BCS table then no, they are not.

That's ridiculous. Bigger stadium, better attendance, larger following, and they command more of the DFW market than SMU does right now. SMU may be better academically, but not by much and it's certainly not enough of a discrepancy to offset the previous factors I mentioned. If June has us in a BCS bowl in two years and we're expanding Ford to 45,000 and scheduling games at Jerryworld then we can reconsider this, but at the present time we're still way behind the Frogs.

Past success does not dictate future direction in every case. It has a great deal to do with commitment to future success which SMU has made, and will continue to expand upon. Simply because of the fact that a school like TCU has a stadium with a larger capacity and higher attendance and a larger "share" of the DFW media pie does not mean they are in a better position to make a jump. I'm not saying they won't, and I'm not saying they will. There's the chance that neither of the schools are picked up if conferences re-align. There's also the chance that both schools get picked up, even if it isn't an expanded MWC conference. Selection for a more prestigious conference involves many more factors than the ones you listed there, and many of them are ones that you really won't ever hear a whole lot about.

SMU is perfectly situated in an incredibly attractive commodity (Dallas) to certain parties that don't currently have a stranglehold on the DFW media market. This school, for a multitude of reasons, is primed to make a significant jump IF there is conference re-alignment. To suggest otherwise because of the fact that TCU crams more bodies into an aging stadium and played in the Fiesta Bowl last year is, incorrect. They have built an extraordinarily impressive program in Fort Worth, one I want to see SMU mimic save for winning our BCS game, but the two things are un-related to an extent.

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:Past success does not dictate future direction in every case. It has a great deal to do with commitment to future success which SMU has made, and will continue to expand upon. Simply because of the fact that a school like TCU has a stadium with a larger capacity and higher attendance and a larger "share" of the DFW media pie does not mean they are in a better position to make a jump. I'm not saying they won't, and I'm not saying they will. There's the chance that neither of the schools are picked up if conferences re-align. There's also the chance that both schools get picked up, even if it isn't an expanded MWC conference. Selection for a more prestigious conference involves many more factors than the ones you listed there, and many of them are ones that you really won't ever hear a whole lot about.

SMU is perfectly situated in an incredibly attractive commodity (Dallas) to certain parties that don't currently have a stranglehold on the DFW media market. This school, for a multitude of reasons, is primed to make a significant jump IF there is conference re-alignment. To suggest otherwise because of the fact that TCU crams more bodies into an aging stadium and played in the Fiesta Bowl last year is, incorrect. They have built an extraordinarily impressive program in Fort Worth, one I want to see SMU mimic save for winning our BCS game, but the two things are un-related to an extent.

Ok, but if you had to guess right now which program is going to win more games over the next four years, would you take SMU or TCU? As much as it hurts, I'd still have to say TCU. Commitment to winning and $$$ doesn't always equal wins and a successful program that puts butts in seats and increases TV revenue. We build Ford in 2000, and see our record from 2000-2008. As excited as we are about our 8-5 season last year, we still almost lost to an FCS school. One year does not a program make. And it's not as if TCU hasn't made a commitment to winning in their own right. They've poured millions into expanding and renovating their stadium and pay Patterson a hefty sum to stay in Ft. Worth. Fact is, if I was a BCS conference right now and needed a 12th team and my only two options were TCU or SMU, I'm taking TCU. Let's not be homers about this. I'm just as excited about the future of SMU football under JJ as anybody, but we have to be realistic.

I'm not being a homer about it, I am being realistic about it. I'm also not just conjuring up these things in my head for the fun of it. I'm going off of what I've been told, and talked about with, by people who spend their whole lives around college football, and know much, much more about it than I do, and have objective, respected opinions. It's tempting to look at what happens on the field of play when these things happen. Really, it's what goes on off of the field that matters an enormous amount. True, it would damage SMU's prospects of jumping up if the football program went in the tank over the next few years, but you have to shift your focus a little bit to recognize how attractive SMU is as a candidate for a power conference.

Geez -its really hard to argue with a cheerleader even when they attempt to make ridiculous claims based on what they heard from other cheerleaders. TCU is far ahead of SMU in any conceivable expansion at this time-and it isn't even close.