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

[Phxfan]

that was Utah's record in the 3 years prior to joining the PAC based on your own link

First, I respect you. You make more sense than anyone on this board. The PAC did not choose Utah on W-L record. They were a middle MWC team. They did not choose them on attendance.They chose them because they fit. SMU fits. I did not add up everything. If one looks at SMU from 80 to 85 they win the whole thing. They were bigger than USC. So, Utah had a decent record prior to the PAC. SMU has 80 years of decent. All it takes is for USC/Stanford to give an OK. USC is a Methodist University, it just is. They (UMC) just needs to fix things for themselves. Not lie, just tell the truth, as far as we know it. Stanford: I worked for them. They will OK this. Right now you have OSU in the B12. No one else. UT is going to veto it. SMU is not a totally Texas school.

[East Coast Mustang]

Well, 1st. On the mileage stuff. I honestly did check the mileage to UCONN, So. Fla., UCF, E. Carolina, Cinn. stuff. Not much different than CO, ASU, UA, UCLA, USC mileage. $25-30 Million should fix that. SMU would be in the PAC south.
When the PAC last expanded, they took Utah & CO. CO was dying to get away from UT. As were MO, ATM, Neb. BYU would have been the best $ option. But they took Utah from the MWC or WAC. They did not want the BYU baggage. This is the same with UT. Schools left the B12 because of UT. The PAC is fine with all the members right now. So why bring this thing into the PAC. They won't. I'm sure many of the top PAC people remember the egg on their faces over the UT mess. They do not want to go through that again. So except for a minor mileage thing, SMU's people need to be talking to the PAC. They might be?

SMU needs a travel partner, they're too isolated. Houston? No way P12 would take on UH with their atrocious academics

[East Coast Mustang]

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

I made this same argument re: P12 needing to get into the CST months ago. I always thought Texas was eventually P12 bound, but now that I think about more and see everything play out, the Big Ten might make more sense, especially since all of those ACC schools signed onto the network and locked themselves in, meaning Big Ten can't poach UVa, UNC, etc

Big Ten first to 18 with KU, OU, Texas, and ND? Whoa.

[Phxfan]

Well, my friend. That is the problem. I said UNM. I don't know? UH was a great deal. It may be gone for the PAC? I don't think they will do 2 privates. So no Rice, Tulane. What is left? UNLV, UNM, CO St. ? I have know idea?

[Pony81]

B10 would love UT and ND due to their academic prestige and football brands.

Not sure if B10 would take OU and KU due to their lack of academic prestige.

But you make an interesting point. If they did get all 4 they would be pretty incredible .

[Phxfan]

What do you do about AC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2yDxc85zG0

[East Coast Mustang]

B10 would love UT and ND due to their academic prestige and football brands.

Not sure if B10 would take OU and KU due to their lack of academic prestige.

But you make an interesting point. If they did get all 4 they would be pretty incredible .

KU is an AAU member. They might have to hold their nose a bit for OU academically but they bring a lot in revenue sports

[Phxfan]

I do not know how to reply to liberty. I just do not. I did not did not do it on that thread. They are so healthy? So is BYU. In one sense they are healthy, in another, are they, or not? I am not the bill of health. But when these folks came to my door, I went with it. My Dad had to stop it, I did not know how to stop it, at 10. I live in AZ. Should tell you something. SMU should never play them again. EVER. That's all.

[Phxfan]

Let it go.

[leopold]

B10 would love UT and ND due to their academic prestige and football brands.

Not sure if B10 would take OU and KU due to their lack of academic prestige.

But you make an interesting point. If they did get all 4 they would be pretty incredible .

KU is an AAU member. They might have to hold their nose a bit for OU academically but they bring a lot in revenue sports

Kansas having horrible football and no TV market = good luck in the Big XII.

[leopold]

that was Utah's record in the 3 years prior to joining the PAC based on your own link

First, I respect you. You make more sense than anyone on this board. The PAC did not choose Utah on W-L record. They were a middle MWC team. They did not choose them on attendance.They chose them because they fit. SMU fits. I did not add up everything. If one looks at SMU from 80 to 85 they win the whole thing. They were bigger than USC. So, Utah had a decent record prior to the PAC. SMU has 80 years of decent. All it takes is for USC/Stanford to give an OK. USC is a Methodist University, it just is. They (UMC) just needs to fix things for themselves. Not lie, just tell the truth, as far as we know it. Stanford: I worked for them. They will OK this. Right now you have OSU in the B12. No one else. UT is going to veto it. SMU is not a totally Texas school.

I'm sorry but this is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... ll_seasons
In the decade before the PAC 10 expanded they won the conference three times, had a winning nine times,went undefeated twice, and went 8-1 in bowls, including winning two BCS bowls - as a member of a non-BCS conference. About the time the PAC 10 was looking to expand they went 13-0 and flat whipped a Nick Saban-coached Alabama team in the Sugar Bowl. They did this all while beating PAC 10 teams and competing with their heavyweight rival BYU every year.
They consistently put people in the seats during this time, setting their best attendance to date during the decade before PAC 12 membership:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice-Eccl ... ce_records
It's not Michigan, but it's bigger than WSU, that's for sure.
I'm willing to bet their football budget was among the biggest in their conference as well.

Point is, Utah wasn't middling when it mattered. The won on the field, did well in the stands, and invested in their program. They built a strong program and were a national contender year in and year out, playing and beating the best in front of everybody on a national basis. If they 'fit in' it was probably mostly in comparison to their in-state competition, BYU, who doesn't seem to fit in anywhere. But they stuck out like a sore thumb when it mattered and how it mattered. If SMU ever gets to that point then maybe then the PAC 12 (or somebody) will pay attention to us, too.

[Charleston Pony]

B10 would love UT and ND due to their academic prestige and football brands.

Not sure if B10 would take OU and KU due to their lack of academic prestige.

But you make an interesting point. If they did get all 4 they would be pretty incredible .

KU is an AAU member. They might have to hold their nose a bit for OU academically but they bring a lot in revenue sports

KU has the AAU thing going for them, but the Kansas Legislature isn't letting Kansas go anywhere w/o KSU and vice-versa. Pretty sure that was discussed back when Nebraska & Colorado bailed

[Digetydog]

B10 would love UT and ND due to their academic prestige and football brands.

Not sure if B10 would take OU and KU due to their lack of academic prestige.

But you make an interesting point. If they did get all 4 they would be pretty incredible .

KU is an AAU member. They might have to hold their nose a bit for OU academically but they bring a lot in revenue sports

KU has the AAU thing going for them, but the Kansas Legislature isn't letting Kansas go anywhere w/o KSU and vice-versa. Pretty sure that was discussed back when Nebraska & Colorado bailed

At some point, schools like OSU, KSU, and Tech may be left behind regardless of what the state politicians want.

Imagine the B10 offers Texss and KU only - making it clear that TT and KSU will NEVER be admitted. Texas accepts. If KU is told (if you say no, OU/TCU/SMU will get your spot), will the politicians really force both schools to take a hit?

[Phxfan]

that was Utah's record in the 3 years prior to joining the PAC based on your own link

First, I respect you. You make more sense than anyone on this board. The PAC did not choose Utah on W-L record. They were a middle MWC team. They did not choose them on attendance.They chose them because they fit. SMU fits. I did not add up everything. If one looks at SMU from 80 to 85 they win the whole thing. They were bigger than USC. So, Utah had a decent record prior to the PAC. SMU has 80 years of decent. All it takes is for USC/Stanford to give an OK. USC is a Methodist University, it just is. They (UMC) just needs to fix things for themselves. Not lie, just tell the truth, as far as we know it. Stanford: I worked for them. They will OK this. Right now you have OSU in the B12. No one else. UT is going to veto it. SMU is not a totally Texas school.

I'm sorry but this is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... ll_seasons
In the decade before the PAC 10 expanded they won the conference three times, had a winning nine times,went undefeated twice, and went 8-1 in bowls, including winning two BCS bowls - as a member of a non-BCS conference. About the time the PAC 10 was looking to expand they went 13-0 and flat whipped a Nick Saban-coached Alabama team in the Sugar Bowl. They did this all while beating PAC 10 teams and competing with their heavyweight rival BYU every year.
They consistently put people in the seats during this time, setting their best attendance to date during the decade before PAC 12 membership:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice-Eccl ... ce_records
It's not Michigan, but it's bigger than WSU, that's for sure.
I'm willing to bet their football budget was among the biggest in their conference as well.

Point is, Utah wasn't middling when it mattered. The won on the field, did well in the stands, and invested in their program. They built a strong program and were a national contender year in and year out, playing and beating the best in front of everybody on a national basis. If they 'fit in' it was probably mostly in comparison to their in-state competition, BYU, who doesn't seem to fit in anywhere. But they stuck out like a sore thumb when it mattered and how it mattered. If SMU ever gets to that point then maybe then the PAC 12 (or somebody) will pay attention to us, too.

I am truly sorry for going off the rails last night. The AC thing. I guess, in defense of myself, liberty univ. is just too much. Lived with Farwell my whole life, in my head, my tv, radio etc. So when things happen. There is a reason. A place where it started.

SMU is in the oddest place as far as expansion. You might have 3 NC awards. 1 for sure. You are # 56 in U.S. News & World Report. Re:education. You "fit" the PAC, you just do. Who will vote for you? USC, Stanford, both AZ schools, CO, UO, OSU, WA, WSU. Who votes for you in the B12. OSU.

So look west. The B12 will never take you. The PAC will never take UT.