|
PonyFans.com •
Board Index •
Around the Hilltop •
Football •
Recruiting •
Basketball •
Other Sports
This is the forum for talk about SMU Football
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
by reddevil » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:09 am
NickSMU17 wrote:Disagree...
You have to sell dallas as a package deal...get COC involed, the mayor, hotels/restaurants/TV, ect
You have a top notch relo guy put together a proposal and its a no brainer....
Dallas is rapidly becoming a major player/city and we are the representative...end of story...
What you are overlooking is that industries that you listed are composed of alum from all the other schools in Texas in addition to SMU. I agree that there is a certain level of logic to your argument, but it is mixed with a significant amount of emotional attachment to SMU. The industries that you name may first look to having Dallas host games at Jerry world and the Cotton Bowl, before the are concerned with filling up Ford. I hope that I am wrong. But look at why the Big Ten is interested in Rutgers and Syracuse, because they can get into the NYC market with it, just like ND would bring the Chicago market to any other conference. SMU does not necessarily carry with it the Dallas market. An AQ conference can get into the Dallas market without SMU. Moreover, Dallas prospects as a major national/international city might be best realized if it focuses on promoting other industries instead of helping to validate the Texas football stereotype. If there was significant interest from the City as a whole with SMU football, they out stadium would be filled. As our stadium is not filled, why should Dallas rallying behind a school with such an apathetic alumni base related to athletics.
PONY UP!
-

reddevil

-
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:50 pm
by smupony94 » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:17 am
Just get a group of schools that put us in a better non-AQ conference.
-

smupony94

-
- Posts: 25665
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: Bee Cave, Texas
by NickSMU17 » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:18 am
They can't play a game here every other weekend, and if you really believ that rutgers and or cuse bring NYC market, then we bring dallas market....
Super conferences want TV viewers in an area...Rutgers doesn bring anything but when they start playing Michigan they will....
Just as likely if we started playing our old rivals...
The stadium isnt filled because we are playing NW st....you were at TCU game werent you?
If we played TT, UT, Baylor, TCU, A&M...do you honestly believe we wouldnt draw 45k in the 5th biggest city in the country...
They know this, we know this...just need to put all the numbers down on paper...
-
NickSMU17

-
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:01 am
- Location: Hinsdale, IL
by smupony94 » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:19 am
NickSMU17 wrote:They can't play a game here every other weekend, and if you really believ that rutgers and or cuse bring NYC market, then we bring dallas market....
Super conferences want TV viewers in an area...Rutgers doesn bring anything but when they start playing Michigan they will....
Just as likely if we started playing our old rivals...
The stadium isnt filled because we are playing NW st....you were at TCU game werent you?
If we played TT, UT, Baylor, TCU, A&M...do you honestly believe we wouldnt draw 45k in the 5th biggest city in the country...
They know this, we know this...just need to put all the numbers down on paper...
I am fine knowing that if the bigger schools it would really be a "home" game for them even if it is at our house
-

smupony94

-
- Posts: 25665
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: Bee Cave, Texas
by NickSMU17 » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:22 am
You guys act like its so crazy...
Here is a list of schools in AQ conferences that dont bring fans to games
USC Miami Northwestern Vanderbilt Duke Wake Forest Stanford TCU---will not be sold out for Lo. Monroe this weekend... Baylor
However their stadiums are usually packed because most are located in optimal locations and play great competition...
-
NickSMU17

-
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:01 am
- Location: Hinsdale, IL
by NickSMU17 » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:22 am
Only USC and Miami are consistent winners, and they still dont sell out...
-
NickSMU17

-
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:01 am
- Location: Hinsdale, IL
by NickSMU17 » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:25 am
Stay the course, continue to get better, use the billion $ endowment to make the facilities and team as good as it can, and lets see how it plays out....
If d1 goes to 64 schools there will be so many lawsuits, ect...I seriously doubt it happens...
Maybe there will be 4 aq conf. but they will have to accommodate the other teams...maybe a playoff for another spot...ect....whatever it is...we will have to make ourselves a perennial contender for that spot...
Lots of wealthy powerful alumni still invested in our football program....your fooling yourself if you think those guys are giving millions to a program that isnt going to exist...
-
NickSMU17

-
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:01 am
- Location: Hinsdale, IL
by Hoop Fan » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:26 am
I definitely think we could play football as an independent. Moreso now with BYU going indy and if UT does. We don't get any tv money from our conference anyway, so its really just an scheduling issue in October and November. Agree with Nick, our location is a huge benefit: easy access, fertle recruiting area, and lots of alums of midwest schools here. Schedule could look something like this: September: @Texas Tech Illinois (good following, beatable team) @Duke (BCS but very beatable) Baylor October: @ Notre Dame Bye week Navy BYU November: @Texas Army TCU @Hawaii
-
Hoop Fan

-
- Posts: 6814
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 4:01 am
by couch 'em » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:26 am
redpony wrote:Couch 'em- it goes back a lot further than Copeland and RGT. IMO if we had taken action to sue the NCAA for selective enforcement we would never have gotten the DP. Maybe a stiff penalty but not what we received. I know many disagree (esp. our orange-blooded poster) but we could have possibly changed the entire fball landscape with that action. Were we wrong? absolutely. Were others cheating just as bad- absolutely.
GO PONIES!!!
Death penalty is irrelevant. If we were playing to win we could have been back with a solid team after 5 years. We still had name value, in a premier conference, etc. We chose to not try to win. Our own fault, not the NCAA's. That said, Pye is irrelevant also. He doomed us to WAC, but again, had we been trying to win we could have been successful then, the TCU/Boise before there was such a thing. Again, we chose not to compete. Our own fault, not the NCAA's. Turner has been here for how long? He kept clearly incompetent Copeland (or handcuffed him to the point of incompetence) for how long? Again, we could be TCU right now, but we chose to accept being horrible, tons of alumni spent time loving upon Copeland and Turner for no reason, and set our goal, to paraphrase Copeland, "go to a bowl game every 5 years or so". Perhaps it wasn't Turner, perhaps it was a key influential alumnus or board of trustees member who was forcing Turner to shut sports. Lamar Hunt died in 2006, soon after we started trying in football again. Was he responsible?
"I think Couchem is right." -EVERYONE
-

couch 'em

-
- Posts: 9758
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:01 am
- Location: Farmers Branch
by StallionsModelT » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:27 am
Do you realize going independent is crazy right? We would drown the entire atletiv department in huge deficits. This is in no way possible.
Back off Warchild seriously.
-
StallionsModelT

-
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:46 pm
- Location: Dallas, Texas
by mrydel » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:27 am
I am totally agreeing with Nick today.
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand
-

mrydel

-
- Posts: 32038
- Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Sherwood,AR,USA
by ponyinNC » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:28 am
One more point...If there are only 64 teams in the new "superconferences" (and I don't know how they can get this done without some serious lawauits and hold ups), there will be many good, recognized programs left out.
You really think the other 55 schools are just going to drop football? Some pretty big-time programs are going to be left out of this mix, and I don't see them going without a fight. Some combo of Wake Forest, Duke, Vandy, Kansas, Iowa St., SMU, Boise St., TCU, Baylor, K St, Wash St, Uconn, BYU, UCF, UH, Indiana, AFA, Navy are going to get the cold shoulder.
Maybe the Magnolia League of Extraordinary Gentleman actually does form??
-

ponyinNC

-
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:55 am
- Location: Wrightsville Beach, N.C.
by PonyKai » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:28 am
I'm going hop on the bandwagon and totally agree with mrydel and Nick.
-
PonyKai

-
- Posts: 6160
- Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Here and there.
by NickSMU17 » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:35 am
I find it amazing how we krappp on our chances of improving our status and applaud JJ for making us mediocre....
Should be opposite....Dont be critical about a university many of us couldnt get into now, whose national presence has grown leaps and bounds....we own by far the most valuable real estate in texas...we also have a presidential library, new basketball facilty, tons of $$$ pouring in...we couldnt be in a better place to grow as a university...Think SMU as U of Chicago or Northwestern in 20 years...It can happen...
Be critical about an overpaid coach not working hard enough and longer for a shtty school in the islands....
Last edited by NickSMU17 on Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
NickSMU17

-
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:01 am
- Location: Hinsdale, IL
by StallionsModelT » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:35 am
To go independent would require a financial commitment that even we are in ZERO position to take on. That would be suicide.
Back off Warchild seriously.
-
StallionsModelT

-
- Posts: 7800
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:46 pm
- Location: Dallas, Texas
Return to Football
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests
|
|