BRStang wrote:We are not even in the list of the top 25 teams the SEC would consider...
On what evidence do you make this statement?
Clearly, they would prefer certain teams over us, but question is, what are the Top 5 "available" teams?
Fla State is not "available" - why would they want to leave an easier path to a BCS game for the SEC, when the ACC is perfectly fine conference - Same goes for Clemson, NC, VaTech (with uVa legislature issue), etc.
Florida St would leave in a heartbeat-its the veto power of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Kentucky for inclusion of in-state schools that keep them out.
"With a quarter of a tank of gas, we can get everything we need right here in DFW." -SMU Head Coach Chad Morris
When momentum starts rolling downhill in recruiting-WATCH OUT.
ericdickerson4life wrote:I get SEC is a better conference, closer, fans would travel, etc.
I am thinking from a competitive stand point. From where we stand today. I want to win. If every decision we make simply comes down to making the university money over winning games and competing for a national championship I'm out. I don't care how much money the school makes or how filled up the stadium is going to be on Saturday. Those are all nice effects of winning.
You are applying the same thinking to the Big East which SMU applied to the WAC upon first joining. The belief was that the school would dominate among weaker competition. Once among such weaker competition, SMU's foolish leadership found that recruiting suffered drastically.
Why did SMU lose in the WAC? Because SMU was not committed to winning. The entire plan was that SMU, doing nothing different, would have greater success simply by playing weaker competition. The fallacy of this thinking is that in the Big East, SMU would stand as an equal among its conference members. With similar recruiting to that of our competition, there is no reason to assume that SMU would win as easily as you suggest, if at all.
Winning and recruiting are relative to your competition. There are no easy paths.
BRStang wrote:We are not even in the list of the top 25 teams the SEC would consider...
On what evidence do you make this statement?
Clearly, they would prefer certain teams over us, but question is, what are the Top 5 "available" teams?
Fla State is not "available" - why would they want to leave an easier path to a BCS game for the SEC, when the ACC is perfectly fine conference - Same goes for Clemson, NC, VaTech (with uVa legislature issue), etc.
I just read some lengthy article/blog entry by some SEC insider yesterday on that. I tried to find it, but gave up. I read so much yesterday on the interwebs that I got nothing done at work...Suffice it to say that we were not even on the list, and the list even included ECU and Rutgers.
EDIT: Wait, here it is: _________________________
EDIT again: No, that was not it
Last edited by BRStang on Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think we would see an increase in recruiting joinging a new formed big east, you stil get 6 games in Tx (maybe 7 if our game with UH is at there place), plus you get the BCS money to augment the coaches recruiting travel budget. It helps also to be able to sell a relaistic chance to play in sugar/rose/fiesta/orange bowl. Look at that list right now I think we would be competitive this year in that division (Boise and WVU would probably beat us but at home inone game who knows). As far as filling the ford goes i think way more people in dallas (who are just college football fans) will start taking in an SMU game or two when we have a match up between to top 20 teams (SMU V WVU in 2 years).
ericdickerson4life wrote:I get SEC is a better conference, closer, fans would travel, etc.
I am thinking from a competitive stand point. From where we stand today. I want to win. If every decision we make simply comes down to making the university money over winning games and competing for a national championship I'm out. I don't care how much money the school makes or how filled up the stadium is going to be on Saturday. Those are all nice effects of winning.
You are applying the same thinking to the Big East which SMU applied to the WAC upon first joining. The belief was that the school would dominate among weaker competition. Once among such weaker competition, SMU's foolish leadership found that recruiting suffered drastically.
Why did SMU lose in the WAC? Because SMU was not committed to winning. The entire plan was that SMU, doing nothing different, would have greater success simply by playing weaker competition. The fallacy of this thinking is that in the Big East, SMU would stand as an equal among its conference members. With similar recruiting to that of our competition, there is no reason to assume that SMU would win as easily as you suggest, if at all.
Winning and recruiting are relative to your competition. There are no easy paths.
ericdickerson4life wrote:I get SEC is a better conference, closer, fans would travel, etc.
I am thinking from a competitive stand point. From where we stand today. I want to win. If every decision we make simply comes down to making the university money over winning games and competing for a national championship I'm out. I don't care how much money the school makes or how filled up the stadium is going to be on Saturday. Those are all nice effects of winning.
You are applying the same thinking to the Big East which SMU applied to the WAC upon first joining. The belief was that the school would dominate among weaker competition. Once among such weaker competition, SMU's foolish leadership found that recruiting suffered drastically.
Why did SMU lose in the WAC? Because SMU was not committed to winning. The entire plan was that SMU, doing nothing different, would have greater success simply by playing weaker competition. The fallacy of this thinking is that in the Big East, SMU would stand as an equal among its conference members. With similar recruiting to that of our competition, there is no reason to assume that SMU would win as easily as you suggest, if at all.
Winning and recruiting are relative to your competition. There are no easy paths.
I want to beat TCU every year and I firmly believe that they are in a better conference and therefore will enjoy a recruiting advantage over us until we are in a conference of equal strength.
Samurai Stang wrote:You are applying the same thinking to the Big East which SMU applied to the WAC upon first joining. The belief was that the school would dominate among weaker competition. Once among such weaker competition, SMU's foolish leadership found that recruiting suffered drastically.
Why did SMU lose in the WAC? Because SMU was not committed to winning. The entire plan was that SMU, doing nothing different, would have greater success simply by playing weaker competition. The fallacy of this thinking is that in the Big East, SMU would stand as an equal among its conference members. With similar recruiting to that of our competition, there is no reason to assume that SMU would win as easily as you suggest, if at all.
Winning and recruiting are relative to your competition. There are no easy paths.
Thanks for the response. Actually you make a lot of sense. Better than "Wrong Answer". I was just trying to start a discussion. I think the major difference between SMU in the WAC and SMU in ___ is our commitment. Before we were not committed on all fronts, now it appears we are. But I would argue that being in the BE would prove much easier for us to make a BCS game than out of the SEC. You could lose 3-4 games in the BE and still make it. SEC no way. SEC is different than any other conference out there in terms of depth. That makes a difference. But you are correct, there are no easy paths.
BRStang wrote:I just read some lengthy article/blog entry by some SEC insider yesterday on that. I tried to find it, but gave up. I read so much yesterday on the interwebs that I got nothing done at work...Suffice it to say that we were not even on the list, and the list even included ECU and Rutgers.
EDIT: Wait, here it is: _________________________
EDIT again: No, that was not it
I know the article that you are talking about. It was posted on here yesterday. That was his list not necessarily the SEC's list. I'm not saying we have a chance I'm just saying that is opinion just like 99% of everything else out there.
Stallion wrote:Florida St would leave in a heartbeat-its the veto power of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Kentucky for inclusion of in-state schools that keep them out.
That's a common myth. Yet there are three states with 2 schools - Miss/Msu, Tenn/Vandy, Alabama/Aub
Regardless, it doesn't diminish my argument, that FSU is not "available" for SEC expansion.
BRStang wrote:We are not even in the list of the top 25 teams the SEC would consider...
On what evidence do you make this statement?
Clearly, they would prefer certain teams over us, but question is, what are the Top 5 "available" teams?
Fla State is not "available" - why would they want to leave an easier path to a BCS game for the SEC, when the ACC is perfectly fine conference - Same goes for Clemson, NC, VaTech (with uVa legislature issue), etc.
I just read some lengthy article/blog entry by some SEC insider yesterday on that. I tried to find it, but gave up. I read so much yesterday on the interwebs that I got nothing done at work...Suffice it to say that we were not even on the list, and the list even included ECU and Rutgers.
EDIT: Wait, here it is: _________________________
EDIT again: No, that was not it
uh - huh....where's the other Top 25 teams, the ones on the list that we didn't make?
Last edited by GRGB on Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All you not gonna happen SEC-ers are looking at this the wrong way - it's not about what SMU would bring to the SEC, it's about allowing the current SEC members to expand their brand to a new market, and aTm doesn't give them DFW.
WVa offers nothing
Cincy/UL nope
Mizzu give them St. Louis / KC? Posts here so far point out 'not so fast my friend.' Does Playing in Columbia bring the SEC to KC / St L (dieing cities)? Is missouri "southern" fried?
SMU "brings" Dallas? Nope.
SEC can play games in Dallas? Yep.
SEC wives can come shop in Dallas? Yep.
Dallas is a major media outlet? Yep.
4-5 SEC games in Dallas bring economic impact? Yep
Dallas gives SEC an opportunity to connect/re-connect with area alum. check. Lots of SEC alum in WV, Missouri, Cincy, UL? not likely.
Anyone know how many SEC alums (LSU Ark aTm Miss Bama) live in DFW?
Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Vandy, Tennessee, Auburn, and Alabama are all charter members of the SEC going back to 1932. The dynamics of college athletics were entirely different in 1932. You didn't have schools black-balling one another like you do today. Conferences were based on region. How do you think the SWC over time ended up with 8 different schools in Texas, with a mix of large public schools and small privates?
The fact that these schools are located in the same states is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Florida, Georgia, or South Carolina would black-ball current non-member schools located in their states. Every indication points to the fact that they are doing exactly that.
