Is SMU Going To Fundamentally Change College Football As We

[NavyCrimson]

Just for arguments sake. What other schools besides BYU/Utah could the PAC10 go for? I don't see it. If so, there goes the MWC & the bcs-BS opp? Those two are the MWC for the most part.

Texas & CO, was that pushed more by the media or the schools themselves?

Any thoughts?

[huskerpony]

It is my understanding that if the MWC can put together a formula to get into the BCS, no one will be able to raid it. No one will bail for the Pac-10 or an opening in the Big 12 if they are already in the system in an easier conference. This is the kicker to the whole scenario. Everyone assumes that the MWC would be the last domino, but their goal is to stick together and get in on their own merit, so expect them to act immediately after the Big 10, if not before.

If the Big 10 takes Pitt, then it puts the MWC in even better shape in a comparison to the Big East, especially if they expand to 12. I find it hard to believe the unanimous vote will be an issue. If the MWC can get into the BCS, the vote will be unanimous for whatever scenario provides the best opportunity for that to happen.

Next year is a very important year for SMU to make a statement. If we can sneak in a victory over TTU in their first game with a new coach, it would be huge. (Thanks Craig! )

[Topper]

Just for arguments sake. What other schools besides BYU/Utah could the PAC10 go for? I don't see it. If so, there goes the MWC & the bcs-BS opp? Those two are the MWC for the most part.

Texas & CO, was that pushed more by the media or the schools themselves?

Any thoughts?

There has been talk for years that Colorado is interested in PAC 10 membership. The last time there was serious talk about PAC 10 expansion, BYU and Colorado were the two most mentioned schools. I suppose it is possible that BYU could leave the MWC without Utah, but I doubt it. Utah could never leave the MWC without BYU. The politicians would never allow it.

Yes, you are correct, making Utah and BYU BCS teams would quell a lot of the vocal opposition to the BCS for a while anyway.

[leopold]

Just for arguments sake. What other schools besides BYU/Utah could the PAC10 go for?

After Colorado, next to no one - That's the biggest issue facing PAC 10 expansion. The old Conference Commissioner said multiple times they weren't interested in BYU. Simply put, the ideas on what makes a good school or an athletic conference are different in Palo Alto, California than in Provo, Utah. They have said time and time again they want research instituions only and that qualification is actually very limiting - BYU and Utah don't fit it, much less a Boise State. I don't know if Colorado even fits it.

The Pac-10 is NOT a football conference, at least not in the sense that football is the driving factor like the SEC. The idea that they would go in this direction is actually shocking.

[Topper]

Just for arguments sake. What other schools besides BYU/Utah could the PAC10 go for?

After Colorado, next to no one - That's the biggest issue facing PAC 10 expansion. The old Conference Commissioner said multiple times they weren't interested in BYU. Simply put, the ideas on what makes a good school or an athletic conference are different in Palo Alto, California than in Provo, Utah. They have said time and time again they want research instituions only and that qualification is actually very limiting - BYU and Utah don't fit it, much less a Boise State. I don't know if Colorado even fits it.

The Pac-10 is NOT a football conference, at least not in the sense that football is the driving factor like the SEC. The idea that they would go in this direction is actually shocking.

Well, people do a lot of shocking things for money, and the state of California is certainly hurting. This article describes BYU and Utah as both being "research" institutions, with Utah having a
very high level of research

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3279 ... on-options

[Stallion]

SMU did have hanshake agreement with Rice, Tulane and Tulsa which is why I have thought from Day 1 that TCU had a better idea. A Private School Handshake means that you are content with giving up the BCS Dream.

[RE Tycoon]

SMU did have hanshake agreement with Rice, Tulane and Tulsa

Did or does? I'm all for sticking together, but this is time to step up to the big boy table if the opportunity presents itself.

What are the politics involved with TCU? Are they more interested keeping us in the little league or allying with us in a conference shake up. I have no knowledge of their motives, but I can see making an argument either way.

[leopold]

Well, people do a lot of shocking things for money, and the state of California is certainly hurting. This article describes BYU and Utah as both being "research" institutions, with Utah having a
very high level of research

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3279 ... on-options

Great article, thanks for posting. I've have wondered what exactly was the definition of a 'research institution' and I'm glad to see someone actually give a some decent definition.
My only question is if the Pac-10 really wants to expand to keep up with the Joneses. Hard to see them take on a couple of schools just to compete on the football field.

[East Coast Mustang]

Great article, thanks for posting. I've have wondered what exactly was the definition of a 'research institution' and I'm glad to see someone actually give a some decent definition.
My only question is if the Pac-10 really wants to expand to keep up with the Joneses. Hard to see them take on a couple of schools just to compete on the football field.

Biggest advantage to a "Pac 12" would be a football championship game...although I don't see the Utah schools splitting up and I don't see the Pac 10 schools wanting them both, but maybe. Remember, the league is split up into 5 sets of two rival schools as it stands now. I think CU would definitely be their most coveted target, though.

An expanded MWC is intriguing, and likely SMU's only shot at a BCS conference in the next quarter century. If this comes to fruition (which I think it will), the Orsini/June/Turner/Sewell/Hunt/etc machine better bust their asses to make it happen. As it stands now, Houston, Fresno, Tulsa, and Boise are all more attractive to the MWC than SMU. Our football team is on the rise and our academics would put us at the top of the conference, but travel wise they have better options, and we don't bring much in terms of a TV audience. Everyone keeps beating their chests about us and the DFW market, but we don't exactly own it, and that's a considerable understatement. Two more solid football seasons (and a pulse in the Men's BB program) would certainly help our chances.

Finally, can I please get whatever the SMU to the SEC people are smoking? Please? This will never, ever happen. Ever. If SEC wanted to expand into the DFW market, they'd go after Texas, A&M, and/or OU. We would provide them with no financial benefit, and would be another mouth to feed siphoning dollars from the likes of Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. Not gonna happen. You don't see the Pac 10 looking at Boise State, do you?

[Topper]

Well, people do a lot of shocking things for money, and the state of California is certainly hurting. This article describes BYU and Utah as both being "research" institutions, with Utah having a
very high level of research

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3279 ... on-options

Great article, thanks for posting. I've have wondered what exactly was the definition of a 'research institution' and I'm glad to see someone actually give a some decent definition.
My only question is if the Pac-10 really wants to expand to keep up with the Joneses. Hard to see them take on a couple of schools just to compete on the football field.

I find it interesting that some sports conferences consider "research institution" as a criteria for membership since graduate level research has nothing to do with undergraduate athletics as far as I can tell. I think the use of this phrase is shorthand for "flagship" universities, i.e., little brother state institutions need not expect to compete with the big, poliitcally powerful state schools on the playing field.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Some random thoughts:

1. Agree that there is no chance of SMU being in the SEC. They don't need or want another Vanderbilt.

2. It seems to me that the PAC-10 is actually very happy with their conference the way it is right now. I sense that their plans for expansion are merely contingency plans in case they are put in a position where they essentially have to expand to keep up with the other power conferences. They don't seem very enthusiastic about it though. I can't blame them. The PAC-10 is set up beautifully with 5 sets of natural rivals in 4 contiguous states. There really is no natural fit for the PAC-10 that isn't already part of the conference.

3. I'm curious about all the talk of Colorado going to the PAC-10. Is that because half their student body is from California? Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense. Colorado has never been with the PAC-10 schools and typically doesn't even have PAC-10 opponents on their schedule. Their natural rivals (based on both tradition and geographics) are and always have been the old Big-8 schools. I could see them thinking about a move when the Big-8 was crapping out. But now that they are in the Big-12, moving to the PAC-10 seems like a lateral move. What's the logic behind that speculation? Just curious.

4. Someone earlier wrote about the MWC being essentially bullet-proof if it obtains BCS status. Ie. no one would raid the MWC. What about the Big East? They are an original BCS conference and that hasn't stopped the ACC (and now probably the Big Ten) from raiding them. Even if the MWC becomes a BCS conference, an offer to Utah and BYU to join the PAC-10 would have to be very tempting for those schools.

5. I don't think basketball plays much of a role in this. It seems as though the conference musical chairs game is driven primarily (if not exclusively) by football. If we get our football program back to where we all know it can be, we'll be fine. I'm not too worried about basketball from the perspective of conference shifting.

6. Some people on this board seem to think that TCU wants nothing to do with us. I'm not sure I agree. I would agree that TCU wanted nothing to do with pre-June Jones SMU football. But now we are a program on the rise and could be a very attractive partner for TCU. If they wanted to part company with us that badly, they could have dropped us from their non-conference schedule a long time ago. Yet they still seem willing to play us every year in both football and basketball.

[Samurai Stang]

Some random thoughts:



I'm curious about all the talk of Colorado going to the PAC-10. Is that because half their student body is from California? Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense. Colorado has never been with the PAC-10 schools and typically doesn't even have PAC-10 opponents on their schedule. Their natural rivals (based on both tradition and geographics) are and always have been the old Big-8 schools. I could see them thinking about a move when the Big-8 was crapping out. But now that they are in the Big-12, moving to the PAC-10 seems like a lateral move. What's the logic behind that speculation? Just curious.

The Pac-10 once attempted to add both Colorado and Texas. Colorado is a weak liberal school, and fits in well with the California schools in this way.

4. Someone earlier wrote about the MWC being essentially bullet-proof if it obtains BCS status. Ie. no one would raid the MWC. What about the Big East? They are an original BCS conference and that hasn't stopped the ACC (and now probably the Big Ten) from raiding them. Even if the MWC becomes a BCS conference, an offer to Utah and BYU to join the PAC-10 would have to be very tempting for those schools.

Agreed. The Pac-10 would make more money and have greater prestige. Any school would run if the Pac-10 offered membership.

5. I don't think basketball plays much of a role in this. It seems as though the conference musical chairs game is driven primarily (if not exclusively) by football. If we get our football program back to where we all know it can be, we'll be fine. I'm not too worried about basketball from the perspective of conference shifting.

Fortunately the BCS has not yet infiltrated basketball. However, it will no doubt play a factor, albeit a lesser one than football.

6. Some people on this board seem to think that TCU wants nothing to do with us. I'm not sure I agree. I would agree that TCU wanted nothing to do with pre-June Jones SMU football. But now we are a program on the rise and could be a very attractive partner for TCU. If they wanted to part company with us that badly, they could have dropped us from their non-conference schedule a long time ago. Yet they still seem willing to play us every year in both football and basketball.

TCU wants what is best for them. SMU simply needs to work to fill a need.

[EastStang]

The other school that the PAC 10 might try to lure would be UT. Don't know why the Whorns would be interested in that they would be walking away from their rivals A&M and OU, but they've walked away from rivals before. However, if for arguments sake, Missouri moved to the Big Ten and Colorado said they would move to the Pac-10 and UT saw that OU would be moved to the north and that TCU, UH, SMU or Rice would be added to the Big XII South, then they might be tempted to move west. That's the only scenario that I could see tempting them. If that happened, you could see a scenario where TCU, SMU and Rice or UH would be offered a spot in the Big XII.

[Stallion]

OK for the final time-UT is not going to to Big 10-UT is not going to the PAC 10 and I'll also venture to speculate that Penn St is not going to the Pac 10 and Hawaii isn't going to the Big East. Please pull out your map and use some common sense

[EastStang]

I see the map as well as anyone. But if you're the Pac-10 do you want a cash cow like UT plus Colorado or do you hold your nose and take Utah and BYU? Of course they would make shake their rears for UT and I doubt UT would be interested. However if CO was going to leave and Missouri was going to leave and they were looking at OU and OSU being moved north to be replaced by SMU and Rice (for example), they might decide the PAC is looking good at that point in time. They could then play OU every year as a OOC game as opposed to every other year if OU became Big XII north.