BIG EXPANSION NEWS ON RIVALS

[ponyboy]

Yes, I believe the posts generally had the academic angle in conjunction with the discussion of Texas to the PAC.

[ponyinNC]

We're in serious trouble if we do not get into MWC or some sort of reconfigured Big 12 that still includes leftovers. Otherwise, all of those Sunbelt and UNT jokes we've been making will bite us in the [deleted]...

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Hoop Fan: "There is no tomorrow. Hope we overachieve this time, but with the exception of Orsini, this is the same cast of characters driving the bus since the SWC broke up. Hope they learned alot from all the experience."


I believe they have. Let's not forget how far we've come since 1996. Ford Stadium, JUCOS, The Boulevard, more competitive admissions, June Jones, the Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education and Human Development, The Circle of Champions, C-USA (when we could have been just as easily consigned to the WAC forever), rebuilding the relationship with former SMU football stars, etc.

The results are just now starting to show up in the Ws and Ls, but SMU has come a long way since the SWC broke up.

[East Coast Mustang]

"I agree, but in the end, will our wealthy alumni make up for our lack of a fanbase and presence in the DFW market? Is Carl Sewell going to cut a $20 million check to the MWC?"

I would make the argument that if SMU is left behind and Baylor and TCU are in BCS conferences, the loss to the SMU "Brand" will be far greater than $20M.

In time, I could see TCU surpassing us academically.

I would put the NPV loss at over $100M.

I agree completely- hell, the NPV loss could be considerably more in the worst case scenario. It is imperative that SMU gets it right this time. As someone said earlier, this could be the final showdown for conference realignment. Win or go home (to the Sun Belt)

But my point is, all of Sewell/Hunt/insert rich donor name here's dollars aren't going to change the fact that we don't have a large alumni/fan base and that there aren't a whole lot of people who want to watch SMU football on TV vs. other alternatives. And that's what is going to dictate this round of realignment, it seems like. And are our alumni really prepared to bail us out with a blank check for facilities improvements/membership fees/whatever else it takes to get us in a legitimate conference in a crappy economy with little or no return on investment for them? At this point, what (besides a lot of Ws in 2010) makes us more competitive for a promotion in the upcoming realignment cycle? Expand Ford to 45,000 when we can't even sell it out now? An indoor practice facility? More renovations to Moody? Hell, we should throw an effing retractable roof on Ford if it gets us in a conference with BYU, TCU, Utah, Boise, etc. for the next 25 years.

[Cardinal Puff]

The action starts if Nebraska goes to the Big 10, then the Pac 10 expansion follows. This is the time for SMU to leverage all of the effort and the results from the June Jones era and move up the food chain. Pretty confident that we now have the leadership and supporters who can improve our status rather than try to just hold on to what we have or avoid Sunbelt oblivion. I see this as an opportunity to reach a level of recognition we have not had since the end of the SWC.
I do believe that the new PAC 10 pledges will have to deal with a risk of losing some prestige, independent network money, and travel that the mustang nation hated in WAC days.
Let's see who we can play with for the next generation, I think it will be better than the last 20+ years.

[SMU89]

http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2010/06/the_pac-16.php

A more probable scenario is that the Pac-10 will add two teams, with Colorado and Utah being the most likely new members. The Big-10 will probably add Missouri, Nebraska, and 1-2 schools from the Big East, with Rutgers, UConn, and Syracuse being among those discussed. At that point, the Big-12 will have lost three members, and will seek to replace them among a group of schools that could include TCU, SMU, BYU, UNLV, Houston, New Mexico, and Memphis.

At that point, rather than adding six Big-12 schools, the Pac-10 and Big-12 will enter into an alliance, and create some sort of western regional TV cable network. The alliance could also include some scheduling partnerships. While it's possible the Pac-10 is actually issuing the invitations to those six Big-12 schools, my guess is that only Colorado will accept right away. The Texas and Oklahoma schools will hold out until they are assured that the Big-12 will survive.

[SMU89]

From SI

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... =si_latest

A little more than a year ago, the Pac-10 hired a college athletics outsider -- a tennis CEO who admitted he hadn't attended a college football game since the mid-'90s -- to help modernize a perceived country-club league lacking for national exposure. If commissioner Larry Scott manages to pull off the jaw-dropping makeover his league is reportedly considering -- a 16-team mega-conference that would bring in Texas and Oklahoma and reap Big Ten/SEC-level clout -- he should win every executive-of-the-year award there is to offer.
As long as you're at it, Larry, care to help clean up the oil spill?
In talking with various parties across the sport Thursday and Friday, it's sounding more and more like the proposed plan first reported by Texas fan site Orangebloods.com (whose reporter, Chip Brown, was a longtime beat writer for the Dallas Morning News) is more than mere gossip. While the process isn't nearly as far along as some would like to believe (Scott was presumably being truthful Thursday when he said "we have not developed any definitive plans"), a number of signs point to the "Pac-16" being an eventual possibility.
The No. 1 reason: It makes too much sense.
Fans, media, administrators and coaches have been busily theorizing all sorts of scenarios ever since the Big Ten and Pac-10 announced their intentions last winter to explore expansion. For the most part, none of them seemed particularly sensible. Texas to the Big Ten? OK, but why would the Longhorns want to spend half their season traveling to State College and Madison? Utah to the Pac-10? Geographically it makes sense, but it's not going to send the TV networks scrambling for their checkbooks.
The plan laid out by Orangebloods is the first we've seen where both the conference and teams involved would get substantially richer without destroying rivalries and terrorizing schedule-makers.
Texas is obviously the crown jewel in the Pac-10's eyes (as it is several conferences these days) due both to its national prestige and massive state full of TV sets. Texas A&M is its logical expansion partner. Presumably, a 12-team league with these two additions is one of several models Scott and his conference presidents (with the help of Creative Artists Agency, the powerful Hollywood entertainment firm the league hired as a consultant) have either discussed or will be discussing at their meetings this weekend in San Francisco.
In that model, however, there's little incentive for Texas to leave the Big 12, which, contrary to various accounts, remains the school's first preference. In a 12-team Pac-10, the 'Horns and Aggies would be geographic outliers, and Texas' annual rivalry games with Oklahoma and Texas Tech become endangered.
In the 16-team plan, however, where the six former Big 12 schools (according to Orangebloods' report, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado) join Arizona and Arizona State in an eight-team "East Division," league schools would still spend at least three-fourths of their season within their traditional backyard. USC could play seven traditional Pac-10 foes and take one trip to, say, Norman. Texas' basketball team could play 10 league games against fellow Big 12 imports, do home-and-homes with Arizona and Arizona State and take one Thursday-Saturday swing to, say, the Oregon schools.
Then you use conference tournaments and title games to determine a champion.
Mind you, this is all far from becoming reality. Expanding a conference is not like making a fantasy-football trade. Even if Scott is convinced that 16 teams is the way to go (and we don't know that he is), he still needs the approval of 16 different university presidents (who themselves are presumably consulting with athletic directors, coaches and boosters). If by some chance he leaves San Francisco this weekend with the league's 10 current CEOs on board, then clearly, this man has Svengali-like persuasion abilities.
For years, Scott's laissez-faire predecessor, Tom Hansen, led us to believe that not just he, but his school's presidents, were content with their beach-bum status quo. Preserving league traditions was more important than, say, getting a second BCS berth. And any mention of expansion was always couched with reminders about the Pac-10's serious attention to academics.
With that being the case, you're telling me those same schools are suddenly OK with Oklahoma State? (No offense, Cowboy alums.) It's hard to believe the presidents of USC and UCLA will make that decision lightly.
But then again, Cal Chancellor Robert Birgeneau sounded positively giddy when he told a Massachusetts alumni group last Monday he would be "surprised if something did not happen [this weekend] that revolutionized college athletics," and that the league was considering "a couple of schools, at least one of which meets the academic standards of the rest of the Pac-10."
Just how many TV $$$ does it take for a group of presidents to lower their "standards?"
Meanwhile, university administrators won't be the only power-brokers with a say in various schools' destinations. Get ready to hear from the politicians.
The Big 12 was formed in part out of political pressure, with Texas' governor (Ann Richards) and House speaker (Pete Laney), among others, essentially forcing Texas Tech and Baylor's inclusions. That Virginia Tech wound up in the ACC rather than initial choice Syracuse was almost entirely the work of then-Virginia governor Mark Warner.
Should we reach the point yet again where one conference (the Pac-10 and/or Big Ten) threatens to destroy another (the Big 12), you can be sure that legislators in the affected states will start frothing. With the massive amounts of money at stake, you think the governor of Iowa is going to stand by and watch Iowa State lose its BCS affiliation? Or the Kansas legislature will allow KU and K-State to go separate ways? Not without funding-cut threats or other maneuverings.
We saw a hint of this dilemma in an e-mail exchange between Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Ohio State President Gordon Gee, reported Friday by the Columbus Dispatch. In it, Gee makes reference to Texas' "Tech problem" -- as in, how do we lure Texas without getting stuck with its stepchild? Whether the Pac-10 is willing to make that compromise, or whether it's even necessary, remains to be seen.
So while it's undeniably fun to fantasize about this seemingly impending realignment wave, in reality, it will not play out nearly as smoothly as some of this week's reports make it sound. Don't expect either the Pac-10 or Big Ten to emerge from their respective conference meetings this weekend having locked-in new lineups.
(The one domino we could see fall Monday: Boise State to the Mountain West.)
Right now the entire college sports industry is either engaged in or watching a very high-stakes poker game. Who's going to blink first?
Texas isn't necessarily looking to flock West -- but it almost certainly would if Nebraska bolts to the Big Ten. (Texas reportedly has little interest in the SEC, mainly for academic reasons.) Of course, we don't yet know whether the Big Ten is serious about the Huskers or whether they'll have to make a decision before the Longhorns make theirs. And remember, it was only a month or so ago that the Big East seemed to be the conference most in jeopardy -- and it may still be. Nobody knows.
About the only thing we can take away from this week's rumblings is that the Pac-10 could wind up every bit as much a player as the Big Ten in whatever eventual shakeups ensue. That alone would have seemed implausible six months ago.
So kudos to you, Larry Scott. You were hired to make your conference more relevant. It feels like you already have.

[Mexmustang]

I will need to re-read your lengthy post, but I probably agree with a great deal of it.

First, the Pac Ten needs to be viewed realistically as to their position vis a vis the Big Twelve. The Pac Ten has no chance to expand westward, and there are very great distances going East. They are three time zones behing the biggest markets in the country. Their lead school, USC is about to get the hammer thrown on them by the NCAA, and no one cares about any of their members residing outside of the state of California.

Second, the Pac Ten offer begs the question, why doesn't the Big Twelve offer the four California schools membership in their conference leaving the schools in Arizona, Washington and Oregon to flounder in their own regional confence? The Big Twelve is far and away the the more important conference, if only in terms of scheduling/TV times, yet rather than be the agressor, have chosen to try to stand pat and let rumors from the Big Ten and Pac Ten widdle away their cohesion?

Third, the Pac Ten is the conference in trouble, not the Big Twelve. They have been cutting back on non-football sports because of budget contrants and can't compete with revenue distribution levels of the Big Twelve, ACC, SEC and Big Ten.

Because of the lack of leadership, and member jelousies the confernce may break apart. Where is the commissioner? or is this just an Austin rumor designed to get Nebraska and Colorado back in line? Rather than be defensive, the Big Twelve needs to be the agressor.

This doesn't help SMU of course. I would love to believe that the Big Twelve lets MO and CO leave, get a loyalty oath (and contract) fromt the other members and invite SMU and TCU to replace them, but then I am still awaiting the tooth fairy to appear for my last root canal!

[Stallion]

I kind of agree-except Texas will not invite any new Texas team into the Big 12-as I've said this is really a PAC/Big 12 fight for survival. Only one will survive as the Big Dog of the West. That's why I've never felt the vaunted 1 blackball system that PAC schools keep mentioning is that big an obstacle. Stanford and most of the PAC schools can't afford to use its blackball against Tech and Oklahoma St because this is a fight for survival. USC, UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona St and maybe Oregon and Washington will just say fine we are going to merge with the best of the Big 12. And guess what those PAC teams would be competitively stronger due to less competition for recruits. Texas and the rest of the Big 12 don't have to move immediately. Basically, the PAC is conceding its vaunted Academic Standing in trade for allowing Texas to merge the teams it needs to have regional partners so it travels to the West Coast only about once a year. In exchange the PAC survives.

[Dwan]

Mexstang,

You fail to understand that all of this expansion talk is being fueled to TV dollars. The Big 10 Network and the SECs deal with ESPN both dwarf anything the Big 12 and Pac-10 have. TV dollars come from being in big TV markets and the Pac-10 schools are located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix and Portland. That is very strong. The Big 12 on the other hand has Texas which brings the DFW, Houston, San Antonio market, Colorado brings Denver, and Missouri brings St. Louis/Kansas City. They really want Texas and Colorado but they feel the best way to get Texas is to bring along their natural rivals. The Pac-16 would then control the LA, San Franciso, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, DFW, Houston, and San Antonio Markets. They could then dictate the terms of the TV deal which would be even richer than the Big 10 Network.

Also, as a longtime Pac-10 fan, props to Larry Scott. Tom Hansen was terrible. He could have had Texas and Colorado in the late 80s but he was a stubborn man with no Vision. Larry Scott.....not bad for a guy from Women;s pro tennis.

[Dwan]

The Pac-10 and their academic requirements is such a load of BS. Oregon State, Arizona State, and Washington State are not exactly Ivy League schools. And their football and basketball teams are loaded with JC players and high school players who could not get in anywhere else. Chad Johnson went to Oregon State out of a JC. Nobody else would take him, during his one season there, he played football and did not attend a class. He had a 0.0 GPA. He then went pro after "attending" Oregon State for one semester, the fall semester which was football season

[NickSMU17]

The risk being SMU could be left in a conference that might look something like this SMU, Rice, NTSU, UTEP, Tulsa, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, Arkansas St, New Mexico St. and hopefully maybe Southern Miss. The result would probably also mean little national TV coverage, more regional/local TV and fewer and less prominent bowls

If this happens...we should drop down to division 3, pocket the athletic money and offer it to the best students possible in hopes of becoming the U. of Chicago for the Dallas area....

I have no desires to be in that block of teams looking at the 80 or so BCS teams, with no hope of ever gaining access...

On another note, what about the acc or big east trying to get their own TV network and grabing us to access the DFW Cable market....I know its a long shot, but I feel like thats what we are shooting at now anyway...

[Corp]

I have the feeling that TCU will try to keep Baylor out of the MWC...

Considering past history, why would any of the former rejected SWC members

feel the least bit of compassion for something as sanctimonious as Baylor.

Call the Governor..it worked in 1996. What goes around, comes around.

[huskerpony]

Larry Scott.....not bad for a guy from Women;s pro tennis.

Are you kidding? What that guy did with women's tennis is nothing short of amazing. He took one player and made it the only women's sport in the world that not only commands an audience, but gets prime time Saturday night viewing. The women's US Open final pre-empts college football the day it is on. Granted, most of the games are crap at that point in the season... but there is a reason that the Pac-10 hired him. And there is a reason the Big 12 hired Dan Bebe. That is the reason the Pac-10 will win this battle.

[Mexmustang]

Dwan, I do see this driven by TV dollars. I am just suggesting that the current Big 12 is more valuable than the current Pac 10. The three hour time difference from LA to NYC alone diminishes the Pac 10's contract value. I am only debating the point that perhaps the Big 12 should go after the four CA teams, rather than split and have 6 of their teams break away and join the Pac 10. I am really saying that NEB, MO, KS, K-State, IA-State have as much football value as the balance of the PAC 10, sans CA. I am simply posing the question, why shouldn't the Big 12 get aggressive and become the agressor, instead of the victim? Just a thought...Read the article in another post, by Kirk Bohls, I agree, that this is all about holding NEB in line.