SMU Fan Thoughts On The Pac 12 After Today?

[Charleston Pony]

Lets wait and see who’s left in the PAC after the dust settles. The leftovers may not have as good a media deal as we do now in the American. With no leadership and less exposure.

Definite possibility. The powers that be at SMU should have learned something from that move we made to the Big East. Let's start by seeing whether Arizona bails after hearing details of the PAC media deal

[peruna81]

We are witnessing the "SWC/Big East demise 3.0" before our eyes. I believe a "remnant league" of the PAC is fraught with all kinds of issues regarding a revised media contract when ASU/AU/UU vacate due to the cable/streaming package. There is no white knight ready to jump into that cauldron, especially in regards to Disney/ESPN hemorrhaging $$$. We have to bloom quickly in the ground we occupy.

While the AAC is a dumpster fire, the PAC 9 is about to be a the latest Tesla fire. I still think we land somewhere better eventually, but as has been stated before, we are not captain of this ship, and will be at the mercy and whims of the other "Big" conferences.

Embrace the suck.

[mtrout]

GK is Marinatto but more arrogant and with less experience.

Bowlsby asked GK to merge Big12 and Pac12 years ago. GK thought this was stupid. Now he's getting routed by the Big12.

GK would have been better off hiring an advisor from a fan message board with the highest number of posts.

[peruna81]

GK is Marinatto but more arrogant and with less experience.

Bowlsby asked GK to merge Big12 and Pac12 years ago. GK thought this was stupid. Now he's getting routed by the Big12.

GK would have been better off hiring an advisor from a fan message board with the highest number of posts.

Stallion has the chops, and is a good attorney as well....Just sayin'...

[leopold]

Stallion, flawed as he may be, has a grasp on reality and some vision. The same can't be said about everybody.

[Charleston Pony]

So, SteveAztec...how do YOU feel about the PAC after this week's developments?

[Big Hoss]

I've never been a big fan of the Pac 12, so after USC and UCLA left, I definitely didn't want us to join them. I definitely don't think we should now because the small core of decent schools that is left out there is certainly not strong enough to build up any better of a conference than we are ultimately in now.

This may be my own personal "get off my lawn" moment, but the super conference movement sucks for college football.

[mustangxc]

I still think the Pac can be a very good 10-12 team conference.

Stanford
Cal
OSU
WSU
SDSU
SMU
Navy/Gonzaga
Tulane
Memphis
Boise State

If 12 then add any of: Colorado State/Fresno State/UNLV/USF/Temple/Air Force

The benefit of 10 is it would probably be a top 6 conference with a conference championship game landing a playoff bid and fewer mouths to feed. Also, maximize NCAA tournament bids. MWC teams have been very solid in basketball.

[GHammond]

Memphis!??! Speaking of dumpster fires - they bring nothing.

[mustangxc]

They bring basketball, fans, and decent football. They are also in the central time zone and in an ok market. They've accomplished a lot more than we have in the last 30 years.

[rodrod5]

If one goes with:

WSU
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford

All staying then you need to get somewhere close to the NCAA requirements to get a waiver for a full conference. That probably means 6 or 7 members.

I would say it is going to be difficult for MWC members to cover that $34 million with what the nPAC12 will be offering so they are probably two years out to break that number in half.

That leaves SMU, Navy, and Army as the best adds to get to 7 members, get two of the The Academies in a single conference, and start going coast to coast.

WSU
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
SMU
Army
Navy

From there you need to start looking at "fit" and IMO at budgets and more importantly sustainable non-subsidized budgets. UNLV, SDSU, Boise, Colorado State, Memphis, Fresno State, ECU, Wyoming, USF, New Mexico, Air Force, Nevada in that order is the non-subsidized budgets.

I think SDSU and CSU are no brainers as is Air Force to get all 3 of The Academies in a single conference. That is a conference of 10. You have Army and Navy way out on an island on the east coast, but they are national programs and Navy of course is huge in San Diego.

Hawaii has a horrible budget, but they are huge with Navy and their new stadium should help some.

WSU
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
SMU
Army
Navy
Air Force
SDSU
CSU

From there to get to 12 you are looking at UNLV, Boise, Fresno, Hawaii, New Mexico and if one can look past the budget and look at a "state flagship" you have Nevada that would all be a "fit" on the western half of the USA.

I think you are going to deal with Cal and Stanford not wanting Boise and I am not sure if WSU would want them or not and same with Oregon State.

Cal and Stanford would probably not be too hot on Fresno either and I think SDSU would love to be without them and SJSU.

Is there any desire for more teams in Texas or more teams on the east coast. That probably places USF at the top of that list with their new AAU membership and Florida recruiting. Temple budget figures are not available so who know there, probably not great, but they are near Army and Navy and probably have "acceptable" academics for Cal and Stanford.

The budget of Rice and Tulane are also not available, but i think both would be acceptable to Cal and Stanford and both have fantastic recruiting and would work well with SMU. Navy has always made it clear that they want to have a presence in Texas for recruiting so that also works.

Both of them should have the money and support to also buy out of the AAC in a "see ya would not want to be ya" moment just like SMU.

If you look at Rice and Tulane as "available ASAP" and academically acceptable then you have:

WSU
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
SMU
Army
Navy
Rice
Tulane

A 9 team conference that needs no NCAA waiver with some strong academics added and some rivalries and recruiting grounds.

Two years later:

WSU
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
SMU
Army
Navy
Rice
Tulane
Air Force
SDSU
CSU

That is a 12 team conference with rivalries in place the moment it comes together, recruiting grounds, programs having their "needs and desires" met in terms of academics, where they want to recruit and play games, and some regional focus.

I do not think there would be a NEED to expand from there, but if there is you have Temple, USF, UNLV, Hawaii, Nevada, and New Mexico that I think all would pass the "Cal Stanford snob test" if they held their noses for a few. Then you have Boise, Fresno, UTSA, Tulsa, and maybe Memphis if you want either some on the field performance, recruiting, "potential", or a bit of "academics" all with warts. But there is 2 or more years to decide that and see how things align money wise, complaint wise, and on the field and court wise for that pretty solid, for what you have to work with, 9/12 teams.

With the 12 I think you split it:

WSU
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
CSU
SDSU

SMU
Army
Navy
Air Force
Rice
Tulane


This limits the cross country travel and it keeps The Academies all aligned along with SMU and Rice, Rice and Tulane, SMU and Tulane, and of course all the PAC 4 together.

You would need to protect some rivalries like CSU and Air Force and then probably fake some new ones like SDSU and Navy, Rice and Stanford and go from there. Again I think that is pretty solid for what is available and it breaks down really well. they would have to go with a max of 8 conference games and I would actually say 7 conference games to give programs a lot of flexibility to meet their own needs.

[35straight II]

Why does everyone keep mentioning Rice in these new scenarios? Being associated with Rice does not help SMU.

[rodrod5]

Why does everyone keep mentioning Rice in these new scenarios? Being associated with Rice does not help SMU.

TCU admittedly did well all by themselves and thinking only of themselves, as they should have, when they were in the MWC. But there is no guarantee that long term being alone on that island would have continued to be the best option for them. I feel that 3 is the maximum amount of schools that can be in the same state in the same conference before it becomes harmful to those schools and the conference. So 4 in the Big 12 is a bad idea and has been forever and Houston was a horrible mistake to add. The SWC was going to be a disaster no matter what. Four Texas teams in the AAC is a disaster. Four NC teams in the ACC is detrimental. Four teams from Florida in the SEC or ACC would be horrible. Five teams in Ohio in the MAC is extremely bad. Four Texas teams in the CUSA is bad and 4 California teams in the PAC 8-12 has always been bad.

With that said a single team in Texas in a conference that has to have members on the far west coast, in the eastern part of Mountain Time, and possibly into Central Time or even Eastern Time is going to be problematic. TCU had the advantage of being the unique team that was not one of the 4 Texas teams in the Big 12 or one of the bunch of Texas teams in the CUSA. In addition UTEP and north Texas state were wondering out in the wilderness and north Texas state especially was totally sucking. Texas State and UTSA were not in D1-A or in the case of UTSA even playing football. Sam Houston had not stupidly moved up and Houston and SMU were lost in the CUSA and just, barely, going through the motions.

So TCU did not have a lot of competition and being unique while actually investing in athletics paid off for them while others wandered aimlessly. Or in the case of Houston cried about Texas and vilified Baylor and Tech for taking action while investing nothing in their program and playing in dumps for facilities and demanding to be let into the Big 12.

Today is a lot different situation and you are still having to deal with the academic snobbery of Cal and Stanford that are simply not going to go down the list and add Boise, UNLV, Fresno, Memphis, SMU, and two more randos that have some "recruiting grounds", some fleeting success, or some short term academic side subsidies to inflate their budget.

I am not sure who you think is available, much less that meets any academic criteria that Cal and Stanford will want or that is not so far flung the conference would be senseless.

Are you thinking that:

Stanford
Cal
WSU
Oregon State
SDSU
CSU
SMU
Temple
Buffalo
UConn
USF
Air Force

Is that going to work?

Or:

Stanford
Cal
WSU
Oregon State
SDSU
Fresno
SJSU
UNLV
CSU
Air Force
Boise
SMU

Or sub out Nevada for SJSU. Are you excited by that?

Or:

Cal
Stanford
WSU
Oregon State
CSU
SDSU
Memphis
USF
Temple
Tulane
UConn
Tulsa

If you are starting with:

Cal
Stanford
WSU
Oregon State
SMU

Well there is five. Who is next out of Boise, Nevada, UNLV, SJSU, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, USF, UConn, Rice, Hawaii, Fresno, CSU, New Mexico, Air Force, Army, or Navy?

Every single one of them comes with at least one fan base asking "what why them" of not several asking that. From there you are getting into Buffalo, ECU, Wyoming, ECU, NIU, NMSU, Utah State, UTSA, or God forbid north Texas state if you are trying to talk about something academic, Buffalo, or some perception of "markets", NIU that do not exist, or again God forbid "potential".

I am pretty sure that if SMU tries to push to be a singular program on their own island in Texas there is a better than average chance that others will push to have a pair in their area or a small group in their larger geographic area and a single team on an island might find themselves alone on that island and not in the PAC X. Or worse yet still slumming with the "sleeping giant that everyone is scared of" in Denton.

[35straight II]

There will no longer be a Pac12. That’s not an option.

[Charleston Pony]

At this point I'm just glad we have a home in the AAC and the exposure we will hopefully get from our current media arrangements. Time for SMU to win and win big to get the most visibility possible