rumors that Big-12(10) might hang on. . .

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Not sure whether that will happen at this point, but it seems to me that the Big-12 going foward with 10 schools would be a good thing for SMU. It would slam the brakes on the realignment trainwreck and buy more time for schools like SMU who are just starting to see the on-the-field dividends of a commitment to athletics (at least in football). Or, maybe it means the Pac-10 takes Utah and the MWC has to add between 1-3 schools, giving SMU an opportunity to rejoin TCU.

Am I missing something here?

[smupony94]

Yes, post in another thread

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Ah, I see. . .thank you.

[Hoop Fan]

too many possible permutations to know what is good and what is bad at this point. Whats clear is we need some luck. The only thing we control is the willingness and ability to write a check to buy our way into something decent. Kansas is the key to our destiny to me. And TCU of course. Friend or foe?

[mr. pony]

too many possible permutations to know what is good and what is bad at this point. Whats clear is we need some luck. The only thing we control is the willingness and ability to write a check to buy our way into something decent. Kansas is the key to our destiny to me. And TCU of course. Friend or foe?

Is that a serious question?

[Hoop Fan]

well, yes. My feeling is that TCU would just assume see us die. However, things are fluid and we may be the lesser of evils to them in certain circumstances. For instance vs. Baylor. Or vs the inclusion of Wyoming in something new formed. At some point, if there is a blank slate and influence can be thrown around, which way does it go?

[ponyboy]

If there's anything apparent now it is that there is no such thing as a friend in college football. Alliances are only as good as the next better deal. It's a shame, really. Understandable, but a shame.

[davidpaul123]

its interesting that TCU and Baylor would block each other from joining one anothers conference, meanwhile I think both would consider us a good addition to their conferences (not neccessarily meaning we are the first on the invite list).

If there is a mass exodus to the Pac-10 and Baylor doesnt go it will be interesting to see who eats who (MWC vs Big-12-Leftovers). Either way we might have a shot at a new destination while TCU & Baylor blackball each other

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

Would TCU rather see us die? I'm not so sure. SMU is the only natural rival TCU has. Granted, it hasn't been much of a rivalry over the past decade. But conversely, it wasn't much of a rivalry when SMU beat TCU 15 years in a row in the 1970s and 1980s. The point is that the rivalry has potential to be exciting and something that could generate real interest in DFW. I for one am really looking forward to this year's game. We may not be there yet in terms of talent, but I guarantee that it will be a sellout and the Blvd. will be rockin'. Likewise, other than the attendance at the Utah game last season (which was a big historical anamoly for post-SWC TCU) the SMU game is typically one of the best attended games they have in Ft. Worth.

Another factor is that TCU apparently cannot "deliver" the DFW television market on its own. Maybe adding SMU to the conference would be the boost that could get the Mtn. on cable here. I'm not an expert on TV and don't actually know that. But it couldn't hurt the chances. I'd be interested to hear what people who know more about TV than I do think.

Everyone talks about UH "delivering" the Houston market. I don't see that at all. Hell, we've got both UH and Rice in our conference and I don't see the Houston market giving two figs about C-USA. What's better for TCU, adding SMU and possibly getting the Mtn. on DFW cable. Or adding Houston, which probably won't add any TV value.