WHERE FROM HERE?

[Dark Horse]

The Big 12 needs at least two schools in their conference. If we were winners (10 games a year or more) they would be begging us to join their conference.

I think there is zero chance we ever end up in the same league as TCU. They would never allow it.

So? That's just one member institution, right? I'm not saying you're wrong at all, and I assume you're right that they wouldn't want it, but do they have the clout to prevent it by themselves?

[PonySnob]

The Big 12 needs at least two schools in their conference. If we were winners (10 games a year or more) they would be begging us to join their conference.

Because?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Big12Mustang]

The Big 12 needs at least two schools in their conference. If we were winners (10 games a year or more) they would be begging us to join their conference.

I think there is zero chance we ever end up in the same league as TCU. They would never allow it.

So? That's just one member institution, right? I'm not saying you're wrong at all, and I assume you're right that they wouldn't want it, but do they have the clout to prevent it by themselves?

TCU fans thought the same thing, they thought UT, Tech and Baylor would not allow them in, but they voted them in.

[PoconoPony]

The Big 12 needs at least two schools in their conference. If we were winners (10 games a year or more) they would be begging us to join their conference.

Maybe they could still be begging us as everyone is looking for a win on the schedule every year.

[JasonB]

TCU got in because A&M and Mizzou left and the Big 12 was desperate to add numbers. The only reason they would expand again is if there is a mandate that the power conferences must have a championship game. And if that happens, we will probably see the P5 become the P4 and either the big 12 or the ACC gets ripped apart. Even if they have to expand and it is still 5 conferences, they would most likely go east to get regional rivals for WV.

Our biggest hope is that the members of our conference continue to pledge their support for providing stipends to student athletes and are able to threaten the NCAA with legal action if the NCAA keeps them out of major college football.

My expectation is that because of the gigantic TV contracts, the gulf between the haves and have-nots will continue to expand.

Until we get a major contract, we need to be realistic and realize that most P5 schools are spending about 20M more on football every year than we are. If we want to continue playing TCU, that is fine, but we should be playing one P5 school non-conference every year, and that is it. The rest of our non-conference should be against other non-P5 schools. Invest as much as we can in a coaching staff and a properly run program. Pull in a few 10 win seasons, get more corporate donations from greater Dallas, increased attendance and increased funds for the MC. Then worry about scheduling more games against the big boys once we can come closer to competing with them on budget. That is what the TCU model was.

The people who say we shouldn't be afraid and should be scheduling 3 games against P5 opponents every year DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. The rules of the game have changed. It is that simple. Our athletic budget is significantly smaller now than TCU, Baylor, and especially A&M. We are not playing in the same conference as them, and we don't have access to their revenues. AND MONEY DOES MATTER. Every once in a blue moon, someone hits a big shot, which is what Ole Miss has this year. But even they spend more than us on football, especially when you take into account us counting the cost of a scholarship into our numbers.

[ReedFrawg]

The Big 12 needs at least two schools in their conference. If we were winners (10 games a year or more) they would be begging us to join their conference.

I think there is zero chance we ever end up in the same league as TCU. They would never allow it.

As if we control anything this conference does...

[jpe747]

To answer the above...we are in a weak conference. We have to win win win to be noticed. Big 12 needs at least 2 teams. ESPN has discussed this - to be relevant to the new system a Conference playoff game brings relevance. Where would the B12 go for additional teams...ACC teams? Perhaps, but SMU is a more natural choice, that is, if we were a "year in and year out" kick as(tronaut) team we would be a logical choice. UT is down, OU is down. This is a time for adding quality.

The next question is would we want to be a member of the Big 10/12?
So, lets say TCU is not interested and keeps us out. How long do you think it would be before other conferences called us. And, in the mean time, we could bring relevance to the AAC. Perhaps we don't move. Perhaps we dominate the AAC and win our non-conference games...We would become another Notre Dame, only in a conference.

If you will resource my past statements, I have stated all along my test for "he who will not be named" and SMU was winning 10 games a year. Now that might be high for the vast majority of you but with us playing a weaker conference schedule I feel 8 wins minimum and 10 wins average is the place we need to be with whomever coaches at SMU. I think that's what it will take to be big time in a weak conference.

[JasonB]

If the Big 12 has to expand, they will go after different markets. They might take us seriously if we were being courted by someone else in order to bring the Dallas market. Otherwise, they will expand east or west, most likely east to partner with WV.

My understanding is that in discussions about college realignment the past 3 years, we aren't even a name brought to the table. UCF, Cincy, ND, BYU are the schools mentioned.

I agree with everything else that you said. Play one P5 school non-conference, and expect 10 win seasons, minimum of 8.

[well travelled pony]

Harbaugh.

Which one?

The former Michigan QB, Jim.

Out here in CA, the Harbaugh to michigan has been going around a lot. Even though he loves the Bay Area, he take the job in Ann Arbor.

Go Ponies!

[jpe747]

If the Big 12 has to expand, they will go after different markets. They might take us seriously if we were being courted by someone else in order to bring the Dallas market. Otherwise, they will expand east or west, most likely east to partner with WV.

My understanding is that in discussions about college realignment the past 3 years, we aren't even a name brought to the table. UCF, Cincy, ND, BYU are the schools mentioned.

I agree with everything else that you said. Play one P5 school non-conference, and expect 10 win seasons, minimum of 8.

JasonB, I agree...we are not going ANYWHERE (BIG12 or SEC, etc.) until we become a force. We must win and win often, year in and year out. Only then you will see the 'stock of SMU football go up. JasonB, that is why this time...this decision...this choice of a coach is so important. The future of SMU football rests on decisions made over the next few months. That goes back to the first post of this topic. We may find out how much those who lead us are interested in and savvy about sports, and football in particular, at SMU.

[JasonB]

But if you bring in a big time head coach but can't afford assistants, how far does it get you?

If you bring in a name coach and great assistants, but have a small recruiting budget and limited investment into training table and the strength and conditioning program how far does that get you? Or if you don't have an IPC. Or....

SMU, with the right administrative support and the right budget should absolutely 100% become a force in the AAC in football.

If we start getting turned down by the bigger names out there, we IMMEDIATELY have to start questioning whether there is an "administrative support" issue or the "lack of a budget to get the right assistant coaching staff" (2.5M).

If we land the right staff, but still can't significantly improve within two seasons, it probably isn't the staff, there is something else preventing us from being successful. And we need to figure out what that is.

[PoconoPony]

But if you bring in a big time head coach but can't afford assistants, how far does it get you?

If you bring in a name coach and great assistants, but have a small recruiting budget and limited investment into training table and the strength and conditioning program how far does that get you? Or if you don't have an IPC. Or....

SMU, with the right administrative support and the right budget should absolutely 100% become a force in the AAC in football.

If we start getting turned down by the bigger names out there, we IMMEDIATELY have to start questioning whether there is an "administrative support" issue or the "lack of a budget to get the right assistant coaching staff" (2.5M).

If we land the right staff, but still can't significantly improve within two seasons, it probably isn't the staff, there is something else preventing us from being successful. And we need to figure out what that is.

Any new coach is facing an extremely up hill battle. For starters, in 2016 the NCAA clearing house academic standards are raised significantly. The new standards will be a 2.25 high school GPA up from the current 2.00 standard. The SAT is also raised from 900 to 950 and yes there are some off sets for these standard. If these new standards were in place for the 2014 class of scholarship football and basketball players; 42 % of all football and 39% of all basketball players would be ineligible. Some high schoosl are going to falsify records to change grades....etc, but kids are still facing the SAT standards as a balance to the formula. If these current statistics hold for the 2016 class then coaches are facing a reduction of 40% of the talent pool of kids who will be scholarship eligible. Simply speaking, recruiting will get more fierce with the reduced talent pool. Kids will be getting more offers, the recruiting pressures increase dramatically and the top talent level kids will want to stay with P5 schools leaving the rest of the FBS schools scrambling for scraps and limited talent kids. The question then arises as to how a new coach coming into a second tier conference and school decimated of talent can ever stand a chance of building a program with the forthcoming fierce completion for kids.


In my humble opinion, the train has already left the station and it will be all but impossible to build the SMU program into a national power. Our last hope was for JJ to have built the program into a national power and have positioned SMU for a select and limited number of P5 slots that might arise in the future. In lieu of that positioning already in place, it will be unrealistic and virtually impossible for any future coach to meet higher expectations under the current and developing conditions/situation.

[Stallion]

Pocono you are right there are significant changes in 2016 but you are kind of butchering the data. Some of those higher standards relate to whether a signee will be able to PLAY as a freshman. Otherwise, signee will be subject to mandatory freshman academic redshirt but he can still receive a scholarship. See link

Officaial NCAA Link:

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/file ... _Sheet.pdf

Easier to Understand Link;

http://www.clearinghousecalculator.org/ ... rseGPA.pdf

[PoconoPony]

Pocono you are right there are significant changes in 2016 but you are kind of butchering the data. Some of those higher standards relate to whether a signee will be able to PLAY as a freshman. Otherwise, signee will be subject to mandatory freshman academic redshirt but he can still receive a scholarship. See link

Officaial NCAA Link:

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/file ... _Sheet.pdf

Easier to Understand Link;

http://www.clearinghousecalculator.org/ ... rseGPA.pdf

As usual Stallion tells the rest of the story. I omitted that part because the limited stats that I have seen show very marginal and low percentage results for poor academic kids admitted under conditional conditions. The dilemma is then having a roster of kids on scholarship that have a very high chance of failing versus recruiting kids who are academically eligible, immediately qualified to play with substantially higher chances of staying in school. I do not think any coaching staff is going to tie up too many scholarships on kids who have a very high chance of never seeing the playing field. I would not play that game. I think that the burden shifts to the JUCO scene and colleges will allow kids get sorted out at that level before tying up scholarships in high probability failure kids.

[jpe747]

I'm wondering how this will change academics in college football. For example, I recall a time when certain "star" players took all of their tests in the coach's office. I am sure certain classes were designed for college athletes, particularly in Physical Education. I remember when athletic scholarships were given with the understanding that athletes would make PE their major and the assistant coaches gave the class tests. I wonder how the watered down version of the NCAA will be able to monitor and govern Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. Perhaps SMU will have to "modernize" its procedures.