PonyFans.com

Monday February 09, 2004

OPTIMISM STILL REIGNS IN C-USA

Departures, arrivals have league in flux

By Ted Lewis
Staff writer

Depending on who's talking, Conference USA's glass is half full or half empty.

But one thing's for sure -- the league lineup in 2005 will be radically different than 2004.

The defection of Texas Christian to the Mountain West Conference brings to eight the number of C-USA schools moving to other conferences at the end of the next school year -- nine counting football-only member Army, which is opting to become an independent.

That leaves six holdovers, including Tulane.

And while five new members are on board for 2005, there is no consensus on what the league should do about adding more.

"We had a good plan from the time all of this started, and until this past week it has been executed to a T," said Tulane athletic director Rick Dickson. "So, TCU's leaving is somewhat disappointing because otherwise we're 11/12ths of the way there.

"Now we've got to step back and make sure we're not burying our heads so deep we can't see the possibilities. To me there are a lot of scenarios out there."

The plan was for C-USA to be a 12-school league with all members playing football, a change from the mixed-bag lineup of schools, some playing football, some not, since C-USA's debut in 1996.

The all-football scenario still is preferred, but it's not a certainty. And at the least, no decision is expected for 45-60 days.

TIMES PICAYUNE: Optimism still reigns in Conference USA

Did the article mention that a new whipping boy was coming to the conference--SMU? We were whipped in the SWC and we were whipped in the WAC. If history holds, we will getted whipped in C-USA. Why? It is not lack of effort by the players. The players (mens football and basketball) actually play hard. It is SMU'S athletic model that does not allow the coaches to recruit on a level playing field. It is these same policies that create empty stadiums on Saturdays unless we schedule a Big 12 team. It is these same policies that are taking us a step closer every year to being forced out of Division 1-A athletics. Will SMU change? Who knows, but if they don't then our new association with C-USA will be short lived like the last few conferences we were associated with. I also would like to thank the fan friendly people in the athletic department for scheduling the recruiting party at a time when people that work cannot attend. Thanks for everything SMU!!!!

Just think, JR, if you put that post in your sig, you would never have to type anything on this board ever again. You could name the file: theonlythingIsay.txt

On the other hand, then we would miss all the wonderful variations of the same canned responses you give us.

Just playin'.

Johnny doesn't really pay attention. He just comes on to flame. For instance, what are the last few conferences we were in? If my feeble memory serves me right, there have been only 3 in our history. I know that is right for the last 60 years. I believe we once competed quite well in the best of the 3 conferences but Johnny is wet behind the ears and doesn't know SMU's football history I guess. I always assume that JR is a Frog anyway.

We did competeve very well in the SWC - especially when we would write checks to our players.

Come on PonySnob, we didn't write checks to our players...we paid them in cash just like all the other SWC schools did. Get your facts straight.

Every school in the SWC except maybe Rice was writing those checks. Ark., A&M, UT, TCU all ran afoul of the NCAA in those big bad 80's. I had Baylor grads tell me there was some awful nice cars parked near football practice. We just paid the most money and the other schools just got jealous that's all.

During my time at SMU (68-72) it was understood that Rice had more depth in sugar daddies than any other SWC school. Their payments went 3 deep. The size of individual payments were usually not as high as others.