PonyFans.com

In all liklihood SMU to the PAC is a longshot at best. The current system does not call for the PAC to expand. The only way they do at this point is a mandate to get to 16. I doubt that happens in the next 2-3 years. This will be a slow, gradual process UNLESS one of the other conferences takes the plunge to get to 16 first. Then it will be a feeding frenzy.


The only thing that SMU can control is its product on the field/court and our perception out in the marketplace. If we can string together a couple of double digit win seasons, a conference title or two, and make a few NCAA tournament appearances while we are in the Big East then SMU will be a target for expansion. If we waddle around .500 or revert back to our 2 and 3 win seasons then you can expect us to be out of the conversation.

It is more important now that at any point in the history of SMU athletics for us to WIN. This is why getting rid of June Jones and hiring a new coach is paramount.

While our conference name might of changed, our conference has not. We need out of ConferenceUSA#2 and the PAC might be our best hope

Honest question - What the HECK have we done to deserve better?? Seriously.

I know we don't WANT to be in CUSA 3.0, but what hav ewe actually done?? 4 bowls is nice start if we can keep up momentum. But we do not deserve better. We are pretty luck to be in Dallas or we may have been stuck in the real cusa like Marshall, USM, Tulsa and have to play UNCC, ODU, UNT, et al.

With Tulsa' record in last 8 years (68-35) and our university then we might have an argument. We don't

Stallion wrote:With Tulsa' record in last 8 years (68-35) and our university then we might have an argument. We don't

Speaking of Tulsa, why don't we just hire Blankenship?? I know he is a TU alum, but if they are stuck in cusa pergatory, he may want out.

If he can do it at Tulsa, he can definitely succeed at SMU. I know we want a bigger name, but I want wins.

um....calling UCLA and big, ugly city school like UH.....are you serious? UCLA is located in Bel Air

I never called UCLA ugly...

I think UH is ugly...

ponyinNC wrote:

Stallion wrote:With Tulsa' record in last 8 years (68-35) and our university then we might have an argument. We don't

Speaking of Tulsa, why don't we just hire Blankenship?? I know he is a TU alum, but if they are stuck in cusa pergatory, he may want out.

If he can do it at Tulsa, he can definitely succeed at SMU. I know we want a bigger name, but I want wins.

PonyNC, I have thought the samething, why not Blankenship? He wins

ponyinNC wrote:Honest question - What the HECK have we done to deserve better?? Seriously.

I know we don't WANT to be in CUSA 3.0, but what hav ewe actually done?? 4 bowls is nice start if we can keep up momentum. But we do not deserve better. We are pretty luck to be in Dallas or we may have been stuck in the real cusa like Marshall, USM, Tulsa and have to play UNCC, ODU, UNT, et al.

spot on. too many on this board are in denial. the FACT of the matter is that our resume is a lot closer to Tulane's than TCU's these days

we are fortunate to have the Big East "brand" name and can only hope that a high profile bball team in the near future will help football take it up a notch

ponyinNC wrote:Honest question - What the HECK have we done to deserve better?? Seriously.

I know we don't WANT to be in CUSA 3.0, but what hav ewe actually done?? 4 bowls is nice start if we can keep up momentum. But we do not deserve better. We are pretty luck to be in Dallas or we may have been stuck in the real cusa like Marshall, USM, Tulsa and have to play UNCC, ODU, UNT, et al.

+1. We've played in one conference championship game in the past 25 years.

as much as everyone wants to act like adding tulane/ecu/memphis etc. is such a disgrace

Done a lot of thinking about this. Bottom line is, if 4x16 isn't happening then we are not headed to PAC. If 4x16 is happening, then PAC is very likely going to be the conference that throws us a lifeboat.

PAC will want to secure some Texas markets, and because B12 schools are bound by a Grant of Rights, SMU and Houston are the two best Texas options out there. BYU won't be invited (PAC will not accommodate a No-Sundays schedule) and even if they were, who else does PAC take? Simply by thinking it through, SMU and Houston are in the scenario by the good fortune of being in large Texas markets and not being in the Big 12.

We will know that 4x16 is happening if someone leaves the ACC for Big 10 or Big 12. ESPN reported last night that UNC would listen to a Big 10 offer if it were "can't miss," and I have seen similar rumors about UVA and GT. We also know that the Big 12 has explored taking FSU and Clemson in the past, and Virginia Tech and NC State may find lifelines given by the SEC.

Under a 4x16 scenario, the ACC is the conference that gets picked through, and Big Ten adds 2 teams, SEC adds 2 teams, and B12 adds 6 (not necessarily all from ACC - I think BYU is likely to end up here).

But is it possible smu once again gets in its own way, not taking a possible path to the PAC (however unlikely that is) because of rgt's statement/position that smu's goal is east coast exposure ?

RGV Pony wrote:But is it possible smu once again gets in its own way, not taking a possible path to the PAC (however unlikely that is) because of rgt's statement/position that smu's goal is east coast exposure ?

Yes. Under a 4x16 scenario, there is a possibility that the ACC suffers such massive defections that they have to turn to SMU (after they get done taking all of the eastern Big East schools) and give us an invite contingent upon signing a grant of rights. Turner and Co. may not see the writing on the wall that (under that scenario) the ACC is done for, and commit us to it while we watch UTSA pass us by by taking our place in the PAC.

Yes. CalAllen...

I agree with your logic. Thats why I think we are in a decent position right now. We have to go into the Big East, whatever it is left of it, and really do well. We need to be a force in the league. We also, need to be building up our brand at the same time.

If the momentum continues, and the SEC / BIG add some more schools, SMU is in a good place.

This is a key point people are talking around: The 'Conference network'

SEC, PAC, BIG - all are developing this network. In order for this to be sucessful, they want to reach markets. THIS is driving the revenue line, which is driving conference realignment.

ACC - Big12 do not have their own network. The LHN is what destroys this potential for the B12, and ESPN's full ownership of ACC is what destroys this for ACC. So, these 2 leagues will not have the same revenue driving force the other 3 do.

This is why I think SMU / UH are in a good position. Whether or not the B12 takes schools, or if ACC goes to 16 or not... The PAC can move on its own.

What we should hope for is that the SEC and the BIG go to 16. If this happens, the PAC is doubtful to just stick around and be 'left behind'. The PAC would be in the top 3 stable conferences out there, and a long term home for SMU. Yeah, Id much rather us be in the B12 for rivalries, or SEC for geography, but PAC is strong and not a bad home.

What I try to do to check myself from letting my hopes cloud my logic... If I was the PAC, who would I expand with? Common, basic logic would tell you that SMU / UH are on the short list. Thats our play.