PonyFans.com

http://www.nola.com/tulane/index.ssf/20 ... nment.html

This article was referenced in another thread, but I think it is important enough that it deserves its own thread.

Very disturbing quote from Tulane Athletic Director Rick Dickson:

We're pretty linked at the hip with some of the other I-A privates in our league, " Dickson said referring to Rice, SMU, and Tulsa. "You can extend that to be a TCU potentially and others that are all kind of the same ilk and in the same footprint that I think you'll always see some connection with us as a core linked together, and I think the only changes that would be made around us will come as a result of how extensive the change happens - how big of a surge that wave is.

Ugghhhh! I hope this is not proof of the "handshake" deal so many people around here have alluded to. We need to distance from these other schools if it doesn't improve our conference affiliation.

Another telling quote, that may show just how uncommitted (or clueless) Tulane is to major college atheletics, is from the President Scott Cowen:

In other words, Tulane isn't petitioning for membership in another conference.

As Tulane President Scott Cowen put it, conference realignment "is like changing seats on the Titantic." Cowen maintained that Tulane will "be just fine" no matter the hub-bub around the nation.

Just go ahead and bury your head in the sand Cowen.

i dont have a problem with us being linked to any of them, tulane is a little out of the way but Luisianna has some great recruits, or our presence there is a good thing. and i would much rather be linked at the hip with all of teams mentioned then utep... like i said in an earlier post, i think it is in our interest to be aligned with UH, Tulsa, Rice, TCU, and possibly Tulane.

Isn't TCU's position still that is wants absolutely nothing to do with us?

I hope SMU's goal at this point is to get back in with some big boys, not form a private, intramural league and play for beers.

lets not forget ....we have one good year and jones is telling everyone that we should not expect the same results this year...that we are still a year away...and that pres. turner is probably a reluctant supporter....i would rather play tulane,enjoy new orleans than play utep or marshall...of course,my wife tells me to forget living long enough to see smu play ut(austin branch),so i trust in orsini...and i think he really and truly wants smu to move up....but today we are still a small school with no tv market appeal..with a new well respected coach....

This is exactly the type of thinking that will have us playing games that don't matter into perpetuity against the likes of Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, etc.

I hope you all enjoy your biennial trips to the French Quarter to watch meaningless football in front of 3,000 people. I think many of you fail to grasp the seriousness of this realignment as it pertains to the "have-nots" as we move forward. If you aren't in an AQ, you don't matter.

I'm not against playing the aforementioned, but I hate this idea that we should form a band of four and move together. If we do that, we will be able to write our own ticket...directly to the Sun Belt and out of major college athletics. Band together for as long as it makes sense to us personally, but work the back channels and forget allegiances when we can better OUR institution. And if you think a future league with these "great" private institutions we want to associate ourselves won't include the likes of UTEP, UNT, UH, and other "inferior" schools, you are kidding yourself.

I hate to use them as an example, but take a page out of TCU's playbook and look out for number one. Don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

Hooking up with the likes of Tulane, Rice, and Tulsa for sports is similar to booking passage on the Titanic. The ending won't be pretty.

This is every man (school) for himself. If SMU has the chance to better itself, it will. It may not come of anything, but this time around the school isn't going to sit in a cave on Mars with its eyes closed and fingers in its ears. TCU, Tulsa, SMU, they will all throw one another under the bus if it means securing a spot at the table, and they'd be right to do so.

RE Tycoon wrote:This is exactly the type of thinking that will have us playing games that don't matter into perpetuity against the likes of Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, etc.

I hope you all enjoy your biennial trips to the French Quarter to watch meaningless football in front of 3,000 people. I think many of you fail to grasp the seriousness of this realignment as it pertains to the "have-nots" as we move forward. If you aren't in an AQ, you don't matter.

I'm not against playing the aforementioned, but I hate this idea that we should form a band of four and move together. If we do that, we will be able to write our own ticket...directly to the Sun Belt and out of major college athletics. Band together for as long as it makes sense to us personally, but work the back channels and forget allegiances when we can better OUR institution. And if you think a future league with these "great" private institutions we want to associate ourselves won't include the likes of UTEP, UNT, UH, and other "inferior" schools, you are kidding yourself.

I hate to use them as an example, but take a page out of TCU's playbook and look out for numberone. Don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

I think our approach is more aligned with the more important quote in the article......

With Banowsky's blessing, some schools in the league are actively courting bigger, higher-profile conferences.

The rest is Tulanes approach.

mr. pony wrote:Isn't TCU's position still that is wants absolutely nothing to do with us?

Fine — let's get in the best possible conference, and if it is one that makes Frog High say "we don't want them — it's us or them — let's see if a conference blinks. If a conference thinks SMU will be an asset, it might not take kindly to a newcomer like Frog High trying to strong-arm future membership.

If TCU can see beyond a SMU issue, it should want regional conference mates, such as Houston, SMU and, perhaps, Baylor in a larger and more competitive (AQ) conference. Add Great Plains schools, KU and KSU in the event the Big XII folds (perhaps ISU too) and MWC is worthy of AQ status, when they invite Boise. It is sounding as if the PAC10 will not take Utah, which helps preserve the current MWC, while helping in KC, Dallas and Houston with the Jayhawks, Wildcats, Cougars and Mustangs.

We are not really tight with tulane. This is just their AD trying to hang on to uh, SMU, etc. tulane has less appeal than Rice for any future conference realighment.

"We're pretty linked at the hip with some of the other I-A privates in our league, " Dickson said referring to Rice, SMU, and Tulsa. "You can extend that to be a TCU potentially and others that are all kind of the same ilk and in the same footprint that I think you'll always see some connection with us as a core linked together, and I think the only changes that would be made around us will come as a result of how extensive the change happens - how big of a surge that wave is."

I don't know what they are smoking in New Orleans, but there is no extended "same kind of ilk footprint" brotherhood between Tulane, Tulsa & TCU. In fact, TCU's closest, "warmest" (sarcasm) relationship with any school is SMU. So Tulane can try to become TCU's butt-buddy (I'm not even sure how useful that would be), but it ain't going to work. It remains to be seen if TCU's total independence from marriage to other universities will be its strength, or its weekness.

Hypotheticall, if TCU joined with the forgotten four of the Big 12 to form a new conference or to sustain the "Big 12", they would try to cherry pick the best schools from the MWC, and C-USA. I think that Tulane would be low down on the list as would be Tulsa. For SMU to be joined at the hip to these schools is akin to trying to swim while being tied to a boat anchor.

There are not many options other than some of the private C-USA schools to continue to stay aligned. Tulane has not been wise with conference re-alignments in the past (choosing to leave the SEC), and then doing nothing as the Big East purged C-USA. With any luck, all the Big 12 remnants will join C-USA and we will all be better off than we are currently. I don't see anyone getting a major upgrade in conference at this point (UH was only consideration and it hasn't panned out for them).

BTW, before you look down on Tulane, consider our all time record against the Ponies (12-6)
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/rec ... +Methodist

sounds to me that Tulane is just more realistic than many on this board; perhaps they realize the SEC is never going to come around and extend them an invitation..but they realize there are several small private schools in the region and enough 2nd tier state schools to make up a very competitive group. I think they just understand they will not be playing for a national championship in football...at least not at the highest level.