Pac-10 expansion teams may need to be selected this summer

[East Coast Mustang]

Thanks, Stallion.

Reading these boards you'd think the SEC was kicking LSU out for us in the west division.

[East Coast Mustang]

I'm not being a homer about it, I am being realistic about it. I'm also not just conjuring up these things in my head for the fun of it. I'm going off of what I've been told, and talked about with, by people who spend their whole lives around college football, and know much, much more about it than I do, and have objective, respected opinions. It's tempting to look at what happens on the field of play when these things happen. Really, it's what goes on off of the field that matters an enormous amount. True, it would damage SMU's prospects of jumping up if the football program went in the tank over the next few years, but you have to shift your focus a little bit to recognize how attractive SMU is as a candidate for a power conference.

I don't see what the specific advantages are that SMU has over TCU at this point. Does one of our alumni have a sex tape featuring Dan Beebe and Bill Hanc0ck?

[Charleston Pony]

can't argue with anyone who says the PAC-10 or Big-10 is looking to expand for the opportunity to host a football championship game and increase revenue for the conference. That's reality. All this talk of the small private schools being the least bit attractive is simply ridiculous. It's true that TCU is light years ahead of SMU with what they've done with their football program, but they are hardly a "prize" for a BCS conference looking to increase revenues.

As someone else posted, TEXAS is the program that delivers the DFW, Houston and San Antonio markets. They are the prize. Not TCU, not SMU, not Houston, etc... We are "non-BCS" for a reason. Programs like Baylor, Vandy, Northwestern, etc.. are "marginal" members of the BCS conferences and are very fortunate to be included. Those conferences aren't looking to add for the sake of adding. To cut a new member in on revenue, they have to help increase revenue for the conference.

This next round of expansion will be about the big boys trying to cannibalize each other. The Big East, ACC and maybe the MWC should be concerned by all of this. I can't see any of this affecting CUSA in terms of increasing/decreasing what little revenue there is to share.

[Samurai Stang]

As someone else posted, TEXAS is the program that delivers the DFW, Houston and San Antonio markets. They are the prize. Not TCU, not SMU, not Houston, etc...

This next round of expansion will be about the big boys trying to cannibalize each other. The Big East, ACC and maybe the MWC should be concerned by all of this. I can't see any of this affecting CUSA in terms of increasing/decreasing what little revenue there is to share.

No one is suggesting that SMU or TCU are as desirable as Texas. What schools such as these are attempting to do is position themselves to replace those that do defect. Any major conference shift will have implications for C-USA, as other conferences will need to fill their vacancies. When the "prizes" are gone you take the best that is available.

[SoCal_Pony]

TEXAS is the program that delivers the DFW, Houston and San Antonio markets. They are the prize. Not TCU, not SMU, not Houston, etc... We are "non-BCS" for a reason. Programs like Baylor, Vandy, Northwestern, etc.. are "marginal" members of the BCS conferences and are very fortunate to be included.

So CP, should Miami consider itself 'fortunate' to be included in the BCS? because that is the school you should compare SMU FB to.

Give us BCS membership and we would smoke Baylor, Vandy and NW. We are far superior to UH and should be superior to TCU.
"fort worth is to dallas as new jersey is to new york" - that's great raplh.

I'll take it even further....give us BCS membership and we surpass TTech and OK St and could potentially stand shoulder to shoulder with A&M.

So in conclusion, SMU can be the 2nd best program in the State of Texas...not too shabby if you ask me. I include FB and BB equally in my analysis and would hardly be considered a sunshiner if you check my record.

[SMUstang]

I remember when SMU routinely smoked A&M.

[35straight]

I remember when SMU routinely smoked A&M.

Sounds like a crazy party that I'm glad I was not invited to.

[PonyKai]

Geez -its really hard to argue with a cheerleader even when they attempt to make ridiculous claims based on what they heard from other cheerleaders. TCU is far ahead of SMU in any conceivable expansion at this time-and it isn't even close.

Okay, fine, live in your little world and think that everyone who doesn't have an opinion that jives with your world view is high on cheerleader syndrome. Jesus Christ I would think that in all your years of belittling people and sorting through the blatant cheerleading crap you would be able to decipher what is drek and what isn't. But hey, that's alright, I really don't mind if you always selectively read what you see, and pick and choose what you read. The chips will fall if and when they do. I'm not really bothered either since this isn't some drug-induced fantasy I decided to come up with. You all are more than welcome to believe what you want. Shockingly, someone who actually knows how to spell college football, I mean other than you of course, happens to believe this and articulated it. But of course, it must be complete drivel spewed out by the Mustang Club Cheerleading Camp, because obviously I've been doing nothing but spewing that for months.

Personally I can't get enough of the fact that I actually use the words "I've talked to someone" and that somehow triggers this chemical reaction in your brain where you automatically vilify, marginalize, and denounce whatever it is that person decided to say. As much as I respect what you have to say about recruiting, every single thing you have to say on every topic is not the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ. If you want to flipping marginalize what I have to say, why don't you actually substantiate your claims instead of just saying, hey, that's complete and total crap and obviously you're a blatantly high zombie employed by the athletic department. Cmon, back it up, big man. Actually say why it's ridiculous crap instead of making a vague, broad, generalized statement about what someone else has to say.

I also love how when I state that within the next two to three years SMU will be a very attractive commodity for conference re-alignment, that also sends this signal that clearly I'm saying TCU is a worthless pile of crap and has done nothing to make themselves an attractive candidate for conference jumping themselves. Seriously, actually articulate your position, oh Lord and Master of all things SMU football, let the rest of us poor, sniveling, peasants know what you know. If and when the dominoes fall, SMU, as a university, will be an attractive commodity to certain groups looking to obtain a new member. In no way is that denouncing TCU's prospects of jumping conferences, and in no way is that saying SMU has magically built something better than TCU in a single year in a single sport. It really depends on whom goes where, and how things begin. My point is that for certain reasons beyond success on the field, SMU is an attractive university to certain groups if they were looking for a new conference mate.

[couch 'em]

SMU is not going to challenge top schools for places in top conferences. We DO however have a few key positives that we can use to help ourselves, if we keep winning in football and doing other things (practice facility?) to prove we're here to play. We have an active plan to back our way into an AQ conference.

[i phone money]

Geez -its really hard to argue with a cheerleader even when they attempt to make ridiculous claims based on what they heard from other cheerleaders. TCU is far ahead of SMU in any conceivable expansion at this time-and it isn't even close.

Okay, fine, live in your little world and think that everyone who doesn't have an opinion that jives with your world view is high on cheerleader syndrome. Jesus Christ I would think that in all your years of belittling people and sorting through the blatant cheerleading crap you would be able to decipher what is drek and what isn't. But hey, that's alright, I really don't mind if you always selectively read what you see, and pick and choose what you read. The chips will fall if and when they do. I'm not really bothered either since this isn't some drug-induced fantasy I decided to come up with. You all are more than welcome to believe what you want. Shockingly, someone who actually knows how to spell college football, I mean other than you of course, happens to believe this and articulated it. But of course, it must be complete drivel spewed out by the Mustang Club Cheerleading Camp, because obviously I've been doing nothing but spewing that for months.

Personally I can't get enough of the fact that I actually use the words "I've talked to someone" and that somehow triggers this chemical reaction in your brain where you automatically vilify, marginalize, and denounce whatever it is that person decided to say. As much as I respect what you have to say about recruiting, every single thing you have to say on every topic is not the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ. If you want to flipping marginalize what I have to say, why don't you actually substantiate your claims instead of just saying, hey, that's complete and total crap and obviously you're a blatantly high zombie employed by the athletic department. Cmon, back it up, big man. Actually say why it's ridiculous crap instead of making a vague, broad, generalized statement about what someone else has to say.

I also love how when I state that within the next two to three years SMU will be a very attractive commodity for conference re-alignment, that also sends this signal that clearly I'm saying TCU is a worthless pile of crap and has done nothing to make themselves an attractive candidate for conference jumping themselves. Seriously, actually articulate your position, oh Lord and Master of all things SMU football, let the rest of us poor, sniveling, peasants know what you know. If and when the dominoes fall, SMU, as a university, will be an attractive commodity to certain groups looking to obtain a new member. In no way is that denouncing TCU's prospects of jumping conferences, and in no way is that saying SMU has magically built something better than TCU in a single year in a single sport. It really depends on whom goes where, and how things begin. My point is that for certain reasons beyond success on the field, SMU is an attractive university to certain groups if they were looking for a new conference mate.

Burn...

[EastStang]

Whatever happens, will according to this thread will happen THIS SUMMER, not two three years from now. We had our first winning season in decades. TCU has had 10 and went to a BCS bowl this year. Utah averages over 40,000 per game. BYU over 50,000. We average only 18,000. Money talks here. And the money that talks are TV revenues. Will SMU/TCU move the dial with the networks to make adding them to the conference worthwhile financially. If not, they won't be added. Interestingly enough Colorado's attendance is not much better than Utah's. I don't personally think Colorado will leave the Big XII. So, yes, Turner and Orsini need to be involved in the process, but more likely it will be to see what happens when the merry-go-round stops. Until it stops no one knows who is going where. My view the biggest losers will be MWC and BE. The question for CUSA is whether the BE raids CUSA for multiple teams or just promotes Villanova to FBS Division - remember they did this with UConn before. If they don't raid CUSA, then the only CUSA raid might come from the MWC. Again, the only possible defectors I see are UH or UTEP, but without BYU, the MWC is not as attractive. The rest of the schools in that conference draw flies in the DFW. I'd rather play Rice and Tulane every year than Wyoming and UNLV. I'd rather play Tulsa and UTEP every year than SDS and New Mexico. Again $$$$ will drive any mergers, not history or rivalries. Assume that all of the colleges are women looking to date Tiger Woods.

[Stallion]

But you never said the next 2-3 years-Realignment is happening now. TV Contracts are being negotiated now for years in advance and expansion will be in conjunction with those TV contracts just like expansion has always occurred in conjunction with TV Contracts. You insinuated that SMU was ahead of TCU with regard to realignment-that means now-that's complete balderdash. If the PAC 10 goes to 12 and Big 10 goes to 12 that's just about the ballgame and it won't matter what happens in 2-3 years. If the expected realignment occurs the MWC will fade into mediocrity and everybody else but the BCS Conferences will be on the outside looking in and that's the way its going to stay without litigation. Did your inside source tell you that?

And just reminder-here is where you claimed that SMU might be more attractive than TCU:

"SMU is perfectly situated in an incredibly attractive commodity (Dallas) to certain parties that don't currently have a stranglehold on the DFW media market. This school, for a multitude of reasons, is primed to make a significant jump IF there is conference re-alignment. To suggest otherwise because of the fact that TCU crams more bodies into an aging stadium and played in the Fiesta Bowl last year is, incorrect. They have built an extraordinarily impressive program in Fort Worth, one I want to see SMU mimic save for winning our BCS game, but the two things are un-related to an extent."

Now here is what I said: "TCU is far ahead of SMU in any conceivable expansion AT THIS TIME-and it isn't even close." AT THIS TIME is the only time period relevant to this discussion.

[PonyKai]

This isn't some magical inside source, it's people who know the college football scene awfully well, and I respect what they have to say. Much more then BS message board chatter. Although I've always gone by the rule "if someone worth a crap actually told you something important, you wouldn't be sharing it on a message board", this is really just musing about what may or may not happen. It's just speculation that when the chips fall, SMU has positioned itself well to make a case for inclusion in an AQ conference. Oh by the way, yes the Big 10 expanding to 12 teams was what we talked about, just so you know what my magical inside source and I are sharing.

Other re-alignment scenarios, however, do not make SMU an attractive candidate at all. Not to everyone, and not in every situation. I was disputing the fact that TCU is firmly ahead of SMU in their quest to jump into an AQ conference, but perhaps I should have just added the little line "in all scenarios", because in some scenarios SMU wouldn't even enter into the discussion for humor, nor should it even be discussed as a viable choice.

My point is that:

-SMU is a more attractive candidate for conference re-alignment than many will give us credit for.

-SMU is only attractive to certain parties, it isn't a universal thing. It depends on how re-alignment unfolds, and who goes where.

-SMU's cards to play aren't the tangibles that you see on the football field, because, obviously, we don't bring as much as other schools.

And yes, you did say AT THIS TIME, but that was only after trying to insult and label me as some half-wit shill for the athletic department. Thank you for at least kind of substantiating your claims though, it's always nice to get your point of view beyond the marginalizing of someone elses.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

It seems like a lot of this discussion about realignment largely starts with the premis that the current BCS-tier will expand to include certain schools that are not currently part of the deal. Starting from that place, the conversation then turns to what current non-BCS schools will make the cut.

I view the situation differently. Over time, I believe the number of current BCS-tier schools will shrink, not expand. Not only do I think there is no seat at the table for SMU, TCU, UH, or similar schools; I also feel that some schools currently at the table (read Iowa State, Baylor, etc.) will find their seats pulled out from under them at some point in the not-to-distant future.

I view the BCS as an imperfect stop-gap; the first effort of the big boys to set themselves apart and exclude other schools. That experiment has failed (see 2009, Sugar Bowl, 2010 Fiesta Bowl, etc.). They have been forced to keep a spot open for the non-BCS schools and have been repeatedly embarrased on the field (which of course makes it more difficult to argue that the non-BCS schools are not on the same level and thus should be excluded).

I think the BCS will eventually go away and be replaced by a new system that will include a few (not 6) 12-14 team conferences. I really see the Big East losing its seat at the table. If the Big-12 gets raided, I could see Texas and A&M bolting and that would be the end of the Big-12. At that point, you'd have 4 super-conferences. Frankly, I think that's exactly what the power schools want.

[couch 'em]

What is the contractual requirements to de-AQ a conference?