UH, AirForce presenting to Big12 today. SMU, UConn this week

[Comet]

It wont be stable and would be a poor long-term home. We need to start consistently winning and hope the ACC/PAC12 get Texas-hungry. Only hope.

[Dukie]

Boren now says expansion not a given, and that the Big XII needs to think about "long term" relationships with the networks, not just grabbing the easy cash for the remaining current contract years where adding one school automatically increases the conference's TV revenue pro rata, even if the school is Mary Hardin-Baylor.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... sure-thing

I interpret this as implying strongly that expansion isn't going to happen, and it's because the networks privately read them the riot act.

[deucetz]

It wont be stable and would be a poor long-term home. We need to start consistently winning and hope the ACC/PAC12 get Texas-hungry. Only hope.

I definitely agree with that.

Texas is an attractive destination for both the PAC-12 and ACC. I would say focus on PAC-12. PAC-12 has only 12 teams, while ACC has 15. I feel Big 12 is a pipe dream--we water down the recruiting for OU and Texas, not to mention the rest of the conference. By the PAC-12 having a presence in Texas, it opens them up to more Texas recruits.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Again. . . any P-5 is better than no P-5. But every time someone brings up the PAC around here, I feel compelled to point out two things:

1. The PAC has ZERO interest in SMU. Zero, zip, nada, niente. As a university, SMU does not fit the profile of the PAC major research institution at all. The PAC will never mess with Texas unless UT-Austin is on the table. That is where it begins and ends for the PAC. And remember, the last time the Big-12 was about to implode and UT was courting the PAC, the PAC Presidents couldn't even come to a consensus about whether to invite UT, et. al. I just don't see them ever having any interest in little ole SMU.

2. Even if I'm dead wrong on the first point. . .which I'm not. . . membership in the PAC for a school in Dallas, Texas presents a logistical nightmare of 9 PM CST games and travel from DFW to places like Pullman, WA and Corvallis, OR. The cost, imposition on the student-athletes, and unfavorable TV time slots makes me question whether PAC membership would even be tenable long-term for SMU.

[Charleston Pony]

Again. . . any P-5 is better than no P-5. But every time someone brings up the PAC around here, I feel compelled to point out two things:

1. The PAC has ZERO interest in SMU. Zero, zip, nada, niente. As a university, SMU does not fit the profile of the PAC major research institution at all. The PAC will never mess with Texas unless UT-Austin is on the table. That is where it begins and ends for the PAC. And remember, the last time the Big-12 was about to implode and UT was courting the PAC, the PAC Presidents couldn't even come to a consensus about whether to invite UT, et. al. I just don't see them ever having any interest in little ole SMU.

2. Even if I'm dead wrong on the first point. . .which I'm not. . . membership in the PAC for a school in Dallas, Texas presents a logistical nightmare of 9 PM CST games and travel from DFW to places like Pullman, WA and Corvallis, OR. The cost, imposition on the student-athletes, and unfavorable TV time slots makes me question whether PAC membership would even be tenable long-term for SMU.

agree...talk of PAC or ACC is a pipedream, as is most likely the Big XII...but the latter is the only conference that makes sense for SMU if we ever become deserving

[Pony81]

CB1983 is correct. The PAC 12 only wants UT. Not a chance they mess around with anybody else.

I'm told by a member of the SMU BOD that the ACC does not want to come to Texas. Happy to stay put. Which is too bad because the ACC would be a great fit for SMU.

So, our landing spot will be the remnants of the BIG 12 when OU and Texas leave. I think OU and Texas leaving is almost a foregone conclusion. UT will go to the PAC 12 and OU will join the SEC or Big 10.

[Pony Boss]

AAC can expand by 4 teams and become a nice home for the best of the rest. AF, CSU, Boise and BYU are welcome.

[Charleston Pony]

AAC can expand by 4 teams and become a nice home for the best of the rest. AF, CSU, Boise and BYU are welcome.

we might need replacements if Houston and Cincy get Big XII invitations. Then again, maybe we play with 10 football and 9 all sports schools and scrap the championship game if it doesn't generate revenue for the remaining members. Hey, the Big XII may well decide to do nothing. Let's see if they get someone into the final 4 again this year or continue to feel pressure to hold a championship game. More than anything, I think that's what this is all about (participating in the final 4). If Houston runs the table and gets in at the expense of the Big XII, I would predict the Cougs immediately get invited to Big XII as that bunch would be peeved to see those big bucks going to the AAC coffers

[Pony Boss]

So much speculation in this board

[Phxfan]

Again. . . any P-5 is better than no P-5. But every time someone brings up the PAC around here, I feel compelled to point out two things:

1. The PAC has ZERO interest in SMU. Zero, zip, nada, niente. As a university, SMU does not fit the profile of the PAC major research institution at all. The PAC will never mess with Texas unless UT-Austin is on the table. That is where it begins and ends for the PAC. And remember, the last time the Big-12 was about to implode and UT was courting the PAC, the PAC Presidents couldn't even come to a consensus about whether to invite UT, et. al. I just don't see them ever having any interest in little ole SMU.

2. Even if I'm dead wrong on the first point. . .which I'm not. . . membership in the PAC for a school in Dallas, Texas presents a logistical nightmare of 9 PM CST games and travel from DFW to places like Pullman, WA and Corvallis, OR. The cost, imposition on the student-athletes, and unfavorable TV time slots makes me question whether PAC membership would even be tenable long-term for SMU.

Well, you are right. You but are dead wrong on the first point. The PAC has a time problem. I don't know how many on the East coast that want to stay up till 2AM to watch a game.

The PAC needs to expand. They will. So where do they go. Living in Tucson, I get a lot of PAC. The B12 will not take BYU (maybe/or not). CO ST is also gone, Boise, NOPE. So how do they fix this? Not UT. Been there, done that. It will not happen again.

The PAC is, kind of a group of schools, that are really, in their heads the best at everything. Smarter, stronger, etc. It is truly the best conf. It really is. They are smarter, liberal. So when they expand, and they will. They will want a better time zone. SMU fits the bill. A liberal school, even compared to the PAC, (Think Utah, ASU, UA, WSU). UH will go to the B12. So, the PAC takes SMU, UNM, the PAC gets to sell the PAC network, in Dallas, recruit in Texas. That is $. Would SMU sell all the seats for Stanford, UCLA, USC, yes.


I am quite sure that they are watching this B12 thing. UT will not allow SMU in. It is what it is. The PAC will not take UT nor OU.

[Stallion]

I don't think that SMU is high on their list but there is a STRONG argument that the PAC12 must expand into the Central Time Zone. They are simply ignored by half the Country. And UT will never go to the PAC by themselves-they want to be the kingpin in TEXAS for a Texas presence in recruiting Texans and would insist on a quadrant of teams to join them. I really don't think UT wants to go anywhere. Notice they are never the one to leave or the first to threaten to leave. But they may need to in the future. Right now there really is not reason they have to-they are raking in the cash

[Phxfan]

So where does the PAC go? It is not just about $. A big part yes. They go east. What is left? UNLV, sounds good. So what is left? UNM, you get a State, UNM should start praying now. Think Utah. SMU, you get history, huge city, huge state, P12 gets $. Then they get an education star, a gold star. They will never give UT a chance again. NO conference will deal with that, not the PAC. So where does the PAC 12 go? So I think you are wrong. You think of this from a B12 way. Think if you are the PAC

[Pony81]

Phxfan you make good points. PAC12 does have a time zone problem. But I think if UT wants in then the PAC12 will overlook hurt feelings and let them in. No more LHN mind you and UT is an equal member ( unlike B12 where they and OU rule the roost).
UT is just too big and rich plus all the Cali transplants in Austin for the PAC12 to pass on. But if UT went to the Big 10 then I could see SMU..... simply because our academic standing and location would appeal to them

[Phxfan]

The PAC does not need UT's $. They will not go through that again. When was the last time SMU played UT ? $ does not control everything. Do you think, for half a second, USC/Stanford want to deal with the drama queen ? Bullied by UT. Just My Opinion.

[Comet]

Any time I mention the ACC and PAC as a home that is under the caveat that this school provides consistent top-25 performances each year in both football and basketball. A trend that would need to continue for five years with increased attendance and publicity. That would get other conferences' eyes on us. Right now we are beyond a pipe dream but we have fundamentals in place to build a true candidate for expansion once we meet that potential. Potential means the work hasn't been done yet.