PonyFans.com

This is copied from a post by the poster Rodrod5 over on the Around the Hilltop forum which I thought should be noted on this forum (note, it was authored back in Feb of 2014):

"6. if SMU thinks that spending money will guarantee them a major conference invite that is probably a poor decision since as of now I believe that conference expansion is probably not happening again for a while specifically with the 5 majors and the only real concern SMU needs to look at is winning in football, transitioning to a different coach in basketball sometime in the future and the possibility (though slim) that only 64-65 teams break away from the rest of D1-A.....I think it would be a min of 80 teams that do so for a number of reasons.....mainly because 65 teams is hard to work around especially since there is no chance of ND still being allowed to float around doing whatever they want (even more so since they suck most years) and there is no chance that any program is going to get kicked out of their current conference and I see little chance that any of the current conferences blow up in favor of all 16 team conferences or 20 team conferences.......those numbers are just stupid and limit your ability to schedule teams you want to schedule while tying you to too much crap

what in the hell would UT want to dump Baylor, ISU, KSU and others for in order to get tied in with WSU, Oregon State and Utah....UT can schedule games with the desirable teams in the PAC 12 any season they wish without tying themselves to the multitude of undesirable programs in the PAC that are 2 time zones and thousands of miles away from where UT fans are located and where UT is located and where UT recruits

and again even if the Big 12 folded who is the ACC or whoever going to add to get to 16.....are they really going to look past the former members of the Big 12 to add teams from the other conferences like the AAC, Sunbelt, CUSA, MAC and MWC......hey guys we did not add KSU and ISU or Baylor because north Texas state is a "sleeping giant"in a "huge potential market".......Boise only has "upside" those former Big 12 teams are "down and out now" (no disrespect to what Boise has actually done on the field of play, but academics matter too and while Boise is working on those as well......well do more work and call back please)

is the Big 10 and SEC just going to add scraps or are they going to try and get an ACC team or two as well......and really it all falls on the Maryland lawsuit (and not even necessarily then) because that is still la lawsuit about an exit clause penalty contract not the newer GOR contracts that the ACC and Big 12 have now so even if Maryland was to totally beat that contract it is not a GOR contract like others would have to beat now

and with 64-65 teams really who is going to be the whipping boy every year.....remember in a 16-20 team conference that means without a doubt you will have 8-10 teams that probably suck because for every in conference game that is a win it is automatically a LOSS for your conference as well.......you will NEVER get past a ratio of 50% wins and 50% losses for your conference with in conference games the only way you can bring real strength to a conference year in and year out is to play OOC games and win them because an OOC game offers the 50/50 chance of a win OR a loss to your conference not the guarantee of both....and if you win you hurt the conference win loss ratio of another conference you don't just a corresponding loss to some other team in your own conference

80 teams or even 96 teams just makes it so much less messy as well.......and look at the PAC 12 who are they going to grab to go to 16-20 teams.....if the Big 12 really folds UT is going to the Big 10 or even the ACC before the PAC 12 that is just how it will happen and they would even go to the SEC before the PAC 12 and same with OU......they looked at the PAC 12, they saw the reality, they moved on that is why they are not in the PAC 12 now

so if SMU wanted to spend money wisely they would make sure they are in the upper 50% of things and either win on the field and court in the conference they are in now and if things shake up make sure they are in the position to be one of the 80 or 96.....I stand by the idea that academics are going to matter more and more anyway specifically because of the pay for play that morons are pushing and because schools are tired of having to coddle mush mouths that can't read and the only way to get away from that is to make sure that some other academically bankrupt school can't access that player either if you pass on them and the way to do that is to make rigorous academic requirements and standards for the PRIVILEGE of NCAA participation and all those that are concerned about "getting paid" while ignoring that programs even in the CUSA spend an average of $90,000 damn dollars per NCAA athlete and 100% of the CUSA programs LOSE MONEY and require university support can "get paid" elsewhere (probably at the drive thru or in prison for many of them once university athletic programs are no longer dumping grounds for them) .......the "get paid' types have always been too stupid to understand the difference between revenues and profits and what is spent on something VS what is in their stupid greedy ignorant pocket which is why 90% of them will be broke a few years after they stop "getting paid" if they are one of the very small % that actually goes pro in a sport."

The price of hiring a top-flight football coach has gone up dramatically since the CofC ponied up for JJ.

not really. we were ahead of our time on that one. We can get a very solid replacement at the same number we are paying JJ.

Kingsbury is about $2 million. He seems quite capable but not quite the splash that was made with the JJ hire, especially since he's not a Pony.

Ohhh, boy. Alright, stay with me.

smusportspage wrote:"6. if SMU thinks that spending money will guarantee them a major conference invite that is probably a poor decision since as of now I believe that conference expansion is probably not happening again for a while."

Investing in athletics in order to gain an invite is an unmitigated gamble, that's true, and it was for TCU, Louisville, Utah, and Boise as well. But they gambled, gambled hard, and when the shake-ups came they were at the front of the lines to move up to better conferences with no real competition. The only thing we know for sure, and we can take a look at Rice, Tulane, and I'd argue Memphis in order to prove this, is that if we don't invest we will absolutely fall behind. The fact that conference expansion isn't going to come around for a few years offers us an opportunity to re-shuffle the deck and be prepared when it does come.

what in the hell would UT want to dump Baylor, ISU, KSU and others for in order to get tied in with WSU, Oregon State and Utah....UT can schedule games with the desirable teams in the PAC 12 any season they wish without tying themselves to the multitude of undesirable programs in the PAC that are 2 time zones and thousands of miles away from where UT fans are located and where UT is located and where UT recruits

Texas came to the realization a long time ago that it had tapped the State of Texas of it's full resources and if it wanted to continue to grow as an institution - academically, athletically, culturally - it was going to have to expand it's influence. The old SWC wasn't going to help them grow, and now Baylor and Tech don't help them in that way. It comes down to more than just competition; its about exposure and identity.
Look at it this way: Everybody likes to say that college athletics is a business. Fine. If you are a business owner - or an artist, or writer, or educator - and you are trying to grow your sales, do you want your product advertised for free in the market you already dominate or in new territory? Furthermore, do you want free daily advertising in Kansas or in California? Do you want exposure in parts of Iowa, or all of the states of Washington and Oregon. Morgantown, WV or Denver, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix? This is what the University of Texas wants - they want access to LA, San Fran and Seattle on a daily basis. So they are planning on doing just the opposite of what you are advocating, along the lines of what A&M is doing with their non-con schedule: Go a thousand miles away to play Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina in major conference games and schedule local teams for recruits and fans. Baylor, Tech, Rice, Houston, UTEP, SMU and TCU will always allow UT to play local schools.

and again even if the Big 12 folded who is the ACC or whoever going to add to get to 16

If the Big XII somehow fell apart - i.e. UT and OU found a way out - then you can bet West Virginia grabs UConn and they go to their old Big East Buddies in the ACC and start begging their way in - to make 16 - Iowa State fans and alumni are doing everything they can to pull a VaTech and try to pressure their in-state sister school for a spot in the Big 10, Kansas and KSU are speed dialing Delany as well, and the AAC is standing there with a smile, either because their schools are now moving up or because they are gaining the leftovers. Frankly, however, I think it's completely plausible that it's the ACC that has an exodus instead - FSU and Clemson begged for Mizzou's spot in the SEC and aren't happy in a basketball conference. If they grabbed a couple more schools they then have an East coast Big XII wing. Maybe that makes UT happy, to be on the East coast and not the west. Doubt it.

is the Big 10 and SEC just going to add scraps or are they going to try and get an ACC team or two as well

The SEC has been open about wanting into North Carolina and Virginia. If the ACC saw an exodus, Slive picks up the phone and is calling the schools in those states to see who's interested. GaTech has also been mentioned as a possible candidate - founding member of the SEC and the presidents want them back. But the SEC tries to grow eastward, either way.
The Big 10 has a tougher decision I think. Depending on which conference falls apart, they are going to have an identity crisis. Kansas, KSU, and Iowa State fit well into Big 10's traditional identity as a Midwestern conference, but add nothing in terms of TV markets. Pitt - who Paterno tried to get in - West Virginia, BC, and others add to the TV markets and help add to the Big 10's eastward move but make another odd fit, only making since to an MBA. The Big 10 is interested in pushing down south, as their talks with Duke and Virginia indicate, but I don't know if this is realistic. Lastly, if the ACC somehow disintegrates, the Big 10 may make one last push for Notre Dame. Notre Dame wants down south, and if schools like FSU, Clemson, and others leave they are back to where they were before they 'joined' the ACC: nowhere.

I stand by the idea that academics are going to matter more and more

I disagree. It has shown time and time and time again only athletics and money drive athletic conferences. That will continue to be the case. Possibly stricter academic standards will actually only reinforce this notion. What I think is more plausible is that they will redefine the idea of a "student athlete," even possibly one day turning the sport into a major, similar to fine arts. And part of me thinks why not? If a kid can major in "Percussion", why not basketball?

In the end, if we want to be here, we have to continue the arms race. Only way to stay in major college sports.

The price of hiring a top-flight football coach has gone up dramatically since the CofC ponied up for JJ.

Honestly, I think WE were the ones who sent the prices of coaches skyrocketing; when a bottom feeder of a mid-major conference started paying a coach an NFL level salary that set the stage for everyone, and I mean everyone, in college football to pay up.

Good Analysis

another point-SMU isn't going to be spending much of its own money to build this program
Its going to be how much money SMU alumni want to spend in the arms race
Quite frankly with 9,000 season ticket holders and a long shot with an apathetic fan base that's the way it should be

SMU has and will have the type of program we deserve-good or bad

basketball turned around very, very quickly.
the perfect storm of a great facility, great coach and good team hit simultaneously. it did'nt hurt that we played some good name-brand schoos in conference. we even beat the eventual nc twice.
lightening in a bottle.

we have a nice little fball stadium, play against some no-name conference opponents and a coach who thinks we are have-nots. then we get killed by overmatched ooc opponents. we will be 0-4 before conference play even starts and no one will show up for the ooc teams. until we get a coach in here who cares about recruiting this thing is going nowhere. even if we get a great coach we are probably looking at least at a 4 year rebuiling project.

Stallion wrote:Good Analysis

another point-SMU isn't going to be spending much of its own money to build this program
Its going to be how much money SMU alumni want to spend in the arms race
Quite frankly with 9,000 season ticket holders and a long shot with an apathetic fan base that's the way it should be

SMU has and will have the type of program we deserve-good or bad

11,000 season ticket holders as of today according to SMU.....football season ticket sales record.

well good for them. I'd bet those weren't full season ticket sales though excluding the mini-packs. When we play A&M and TCU at home-the numbers jump and those mini-packs will likely be used for TCU/A&M games and perhaps another.

Mini-plans shouldn't count in the figure but they might. Would student tickets allocations count?

Schools are already spending tons of cash to stay in the game. Isn't SMU funding athletics by $18 million or so per year? Who has spent a lot of money and not benefitted (i.e., moved up)? How about hoops schools like Marquette? Boise State? They were paying Petersen over $3MM. SDSU? Steve Fisher has done well for them but football hasn't carried them. Akron built a new stadium and hired Bowden but hasn't done anything. Kansas football has been terrible. Will they get into the Big 10 someday? But then there's TCU, Tech, Utah... Need a quirky head coach, like Leach or Patterson, who doesn't get you in trouble.

With its hiring of JJ, SMU should've been like Utah but it's surrounded by P5 schools. It was a bit too far behind TCU, who had a big 2-3 year run, and JJ either didn't prove out or had too far to go to put SMU back on the map. Is the Clemson OC the next guy?

1) Most coaches salaries are donated nowadays. JJ and I'm guessing LB are par for the course - it's why it's a little bit misleading to talk about how they are the highest paid employees in a state are coaches - they're donated and not coming directly out of state coffers.

2) The amount schools lose is difficult to get a handle on. It includes things like the cost of scholarships, which not only vary from school to school, but also is subject to how much it actually costs the school. How much does actually cost to put an additional, say, 4 football players into a class that already has 150 kids in it?

I'm not sure that most coaches salaries are donated in a CofC type of way. For example, Houston's revenue sport coaches aren't endowed or funded by a few wealthy donors. I don't think Charlie Strong's salary is funded by a few wealthy Horns but instead comes out of the largesse of Foundation donations and other revenue sources.

There are examples of funded coaches. The Columbia football coach is officially the Patricia and Shepard Alexander Head Coach of Football. The AD at Harvard is the Nichols Family Director of Athletics.

The athletics deficit funding is certainly fuzzy. I believe I read in the Daily Campus that SMU was funding athletics about $18-20 million per year. It would be good to know how much of that includes tuition which is considerably higher (at full rate) than the average AAC school.

This guy could probably help or with coach salary

Got to this website and look up SMU data.
Sorry if the link is not properly in, but you can cut and past.
The data for SMU show $52 million in expenses and $37 million in revenues, but putting in the unallocated revenues which should be what the school kicks in.
Lots of great data on this site. I have used it for years for different things.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Why did we just waste a ton of money on a new tennis facility?