FoxRaider wrote: One more question though, if there were a split, would your fanbase be excited at all to compete for a national championship against 60 other schools that would be on (relatively) equal footing with you?
Are you kidding? Our fanbase doesn't show up as it is (unless we're playing A&M, Tech or TCU) and they definitely won't show if we're playing in some pseudo FCS abomination.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
jpe747 wrote:Hopefully SMU's administration will come up with a strategyegy. But my first reaction is we need a law suit. If that fails. Find out if alums want to buy players.
General Ford needs to emerge as our T. Boone.
Bring back the Naughty Nine
BOP - Providing insensitivity training for a politically correct world since 1989.
I was born and raised in Dallas, and being in my early 30s, am too young to really recall the Pony Express.
I know your program has been down for a very long time, and I know there are scant few fanbases at any level who will show up to see losing football. I simply wonder if SMU were competing on a lower tier, but doing so with great success, if that would ignite your fanbase, or are you simply hopeless? I like to believe that winning cures all ills.
A lot of you are exaggerating the changes made yesterday. The P5 schools do not have complete autonomy.
There will be an agreed upon stipend-not an all out bidding war between schools for whatever Big Cat Alum wants to pay Billy Bob Stud. All teams will have the same limit. Plus the P5 schools did not get autonomous relief from NCAA academic admission standards or other academic standards. They still have to meet NCAA eligibility standards both before and during admission.
Q: What kinds of things do not fall under autonomy?
The Power 5 had sought but were denied the ability to institute more flexible policies regarding transfer eligibility. There was concern that the smaller leagues might become like a farm system for athletes to move up to the bigger ones. Nor will the Power 5 be able to enact their own scholarship limits (i.e., going from 85 to 95 in football). Furthermore, autonomy will not encompass "bigger-picture" issues like academic standards, enforcement and D-1 membership requirements. And the group will not address on-field playing rules.
"With a quarter of a tank of gas, we can get everything we need right here in DFW." -SMU Head Coach Chad Morris
When momentum starts rolling downhill in recruiting-WATCH OUT.
If you think this agreed upon stipend level will do anything to curtail cheating you are crazier than a sh*thouse rat.
What these new measures do will kill off 40-50 D1A programs within the next 10 years. SMU, IMO, cannot operate under such a model without some "creative" accounting.
To answer LA Mustang's original question. Yes. We are finished. I actually renewed my football season tickets yesterday afternoon after swearing I'd never step foot in Ford until June Jones was fired bc I want to at least make a few more memories the next few years. I highly recommend that you all do the same. SMU football is playing out its dying days.
Stallion wrote:A lot of you are exaggerating the changes made yesterday. The P5 schools do not have complete autonomy.
There will be an agreed upon stipend-not an all out bidding war between schools for whatever Big Cat Alum wants to pay Billy Bob Stud. All teams will have the same limit. Plus the P5 schools did not get autonomous relief from NCAA academic admission standards or other academic standards. They still have to meet NCAA eligibility standards both before and during admission.
Q: What kinds of things do not fall under autonomy?
The Power 5 had sought but were denied the ability to institute more flexible policies regarding transfer eligibility. There was concern that the smaller leagues might become like a farm system for athletes to move up to the bigger ones. Nor will the Power 5 be able to enact their own scholarship limits (i.e., going from 85 to 95 in football). Furthermore, autonomy will not encompass "bigger-picture" issues like academic standards, enforcement and D-1 membership requirements. And the group will not address on-field playing rules.
You're probably right about exaggerating the changes but the way I look at it is the big boys are happy with the current club membership and this is their first move to break away. When the power 4/5 conference talk first started (5-6 years ago?) the one consistent I heard/read was that they wanted to get to 64. They are there regardless of how they handle the ND and BYU situation. Barring something unforeseen, the club members are set. If SMU had someone on the inside fighting for us I'd say we still have a puncher's chance, but I don't think we do. I think the SMU admin knows it, JJ knows it and that is part of the reason for his "have nots" comment.
The group of 64 will eventually strong arm the NCAA into play by all their rules or the group will form its own association. I just see this as the first step.
SMU-12 NCAA appearances, 1 Final Four 2014-15 & 2016-17 AAC Men's Basketball Champs
Hoop Fan wrote:i would like to see SMU put out a press release. Something saying that we are more committed than ever to competing at the highest level of D-1. An amendment to the NCAA bylaws may lead to some conferences establishing new precedents regarding student-athlete support. SMU will monitor and consider such precedents and respond accordingly and decisively. We hope our fellow academic institutions will act responsibly and for the common good that these institutions purport to aspire. Something of a veiled threat along with commitment to compete.
It seems that basketball gives the non-P5 conferences a little leverage. Match Madness generates a lot of revenue for the NCAA, and I don't see it as having the same appeal if 64 tournament teams are selected from a universe of 66 schools.
The P5 needs other teams if they want their members to be successful in football. Last year, in league play, six SEC teams had winning records, 2 were at .500, and six had losing conference records. Toss in all games, and nine SEC teams had winning records and one more went bowling at 6-6. That pattern holds across all P5 conferences. Without the ability to rack up non-conference wins against lesser competition, the MS States, KYs, Iowa States, Wake Forests, and Oregon States of the world may be condemned to having a shot at a bowl game once every 10 or 20 years. Will they be able to maintain a fan base with perpetual futility?
Then there is the legal angle. Of the nine sitting judges on the Supreme Court, only two went to P5 schools, both were Stanford undergrads.
Would it be so bad to dominate the non P5 teams? Outside of a few years, it's not like SMU has ever dominated its conference in the last 50 years playing against the "big boys".
PonySnob wrote:Would it be so bad to dominate the non P5 teams? Outside of a few years, it's not like SMU has ever dominated its conference in the last 50 years playing against the "big boys".
Personally not a fan of being king of the midgets
BOP - Providing insensitivity training for a politically correct world since 1989.
