PonyFans.com

Looks like we are about to get [Gary Patterson] on. Mother [Gary Patterson], the only SEC I know we could possibly be having serious conversations with is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. What could we of possibly done? I guarantee you this is the work of that [Gary Patterson] Gary Patterson.

smubrooks wrote:So who do I have to sleep with to make this happen?

Don't take any chances, sleep with everyone you can, never know which might do the trick.

EJ is your source, and he is a reliable one.

FYI EJ works for PonyPride (SMU rivals) and the Cowboys I believe

http://twitter.com/#!/EJSports4

Here is his twitter feed, btw.

I had thought early on that this would not be that bad a move for us, and I still see a whole lot of upside. Will it take time to build up enough to really compete, of course. But the reality is the SEC is probably the most stable conference in the country, so we will have the time to settle in, make the investments (and no, I don't mean a new payroll) and give it a go. Add to that we immediately get some serious cash infusion, and we give the SEC some things that they want. My thought has always been, if we can land a top 50 recruiting class while being in CUSA and relatively obscure nationally, we could do HUGE things in a high profile conference (which is exactly why the B12 was NEVER going to happen). It's a much better long-term situation that riding the BE for two years until it folds and then jumping on the merry-go-round again. Will it be rough for a few years, probably. But we spent a quarter century in the wilderness; I think we can suck it up for a few more to get to the promised land. Time to think long-term and take big risks if we're going to get a seat at the table. And with that, I am now going to buy a lottery ticket. Can't be any more of a gamble than SMU to the SEC!

Just hoping the SEC didn't issue a keep it quiet June type of edict

SMUstang07 wrote:FYI EJ works for PonyPride (SMU rivals) and the Cowboys I believe

Does that mean Jerry Jones is working the SEC for us?

I thought it wouldn't be a bad move for us for us either but I sure as [Gary Patterson] didn't think it was even plausible.

I would love for this to happen just so I can rub it in all the Mizzou grads faces in my family.

I've heard from friends back home that when the SEC heard Mizzou say 'Well, we want the Big 10, but we'll take the SEC' the SEC got pissed and started looking elsewhere.

It all depends on what the SEC wants:
You want a Vandy in the West? Check.
You want someone who can compete in all sports? Check.
You want coverage in a media market you aren't getting any in right now? Check.

But they will have to be patient in football. I would argue that we are better suited than Vandy to compete in football because we DON'T have their academic standards for athletes (at least not anymore) and are surrounded by talent like they never have been, but it will be an uphill climb nontheless. Facilities-wise, we will get there, but it will also take time.

I will not pretend to be unbiased in this:
GOD, I SAY AGAIN, PLEASE LET THIS HAPPEN.

Obviously our stadium is way to small. even with current expansion plans doesn't it only go to like 45-50K? Is there any way to make Ford bigger? And I'm sure we would have to add baseball, which I'm in favor of.

CoxMustangFan wrote:For this to have any truth, something is obviously warped with MU...

I think this is just a full out invasion of Texas by the SEC. They are putting the Big 12 on notice.

I would laugh this off completely except for one thing-why did Tony Barnhart mention SMU as reported. The guy is one of the most tuned in media experts on the SEC. I see things from recruiting perspectives-that is the name of the game in College Football. DFW produces more Division 1A prospects than 45 States-The Big 12 would [deleted] in its pants. The only way I see this happening though is if Clemson, Miami, Florida St, Georgia Tech are truly blocked by their presence in an SEC state. Maryland and North Carolina might be no go because of long time ACC connection. Virginia Tech already cashed in its chips to get into ACC. I could almost buy the argument that DFW gets you more in the long run than West Virginia. Missouri? This almost could be a paid media blitz to scare the hell out of the Big 12. Its now almost routine in big time litigation and the corporate world to hire media consultants to get your message out. This is the type of things they do

This may have been posted here before but I have not seen it. This is an Arkansas fan making a interesting case for SMU to the SEC back in early September.
Long but interesting read.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/c ... 0/31856350

"Assuming Texas A&M will enter the SEC in 2012 or 2013, the question of who will be the SEC's 14th team has arisen. Florida State, Clemson, Missouri, and West Virginia seem to be the leading candidates, but I have a suprise suggestion.

SMU.

Hear me out. I wouldn't suggest a mid-level Conference-USA team unless I believed in them. But there are more pros than you may think. Here's the pros/cons of SMU to the SEC.

Fig. 1 - Cons/Pros of SMU
Cons
-Went 7-5 in CUSA last season. Would be obliterated in SEC play for at least 2-3 years.
-As a private school, they have a relatively small fanbase (though much larger than Vanderbilt...)
-Adds significantly less revenue to the SEC as a private school

Pros
-Once were a BCS caliber school in the Southwest Conference (pre-Death Penalty)
All-time, the Mustangs were the 4th-best school in the SWC, behind Texas, Arkansas, and Texas A&M, respectively. That's right. Better than Baylor, TCU, Rice, Houston, and, yes, Texas Tech.
-Great media potential in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
DFW is one of the top 3 sports cities in the country. HUGE deal for the SEC to control. For those of you that assume Texas A&M will carry this region, you are dead wrong. I've lived in DFW and as a student at Arkansas--40% of our student body hails from East Texas, notably Dallas--I know the makeup of Dallas. It looks something like this: Texas-20%, TAMU-20%, Oklahoma-15%, SMU-15%, TCU-12.5%, Arkansas-10%, others-7.5%. Adding SMU is nearly as big a boost to the SEC's control of DFW as Texas A&M is.
-Trademark logo and brand.
The SMU Mustang is highly recognizable...to the casual sports fan it won't appear that the SEC has gone off the deep end in terms of school selection.
-Elite academics.
Best way to shed the SEC's rep for being a poor academic conference? Add another private school. Financially it hurts, but seriously, what's the difference of a few hundred thousand when you're talking millions and millions of dollars in SEC revenue? BTW, SMU adds more financially than Vanderbilt...
-Potential solution to the Baylor problem.
It's inevitable...when (not if) the Big XII collapses, Baylor is going to be left out. Adding SMU allows Baylor to fill their spot in the Conference-USA. It may not be ideal, but it fits geographically and Baylor fans can take some solace in renewing rivalries with old SWC foes Rice and Houston.
-Solves the "Subtraction by Division" problem.
More on that below.

Subtraction by Division
This is a real issue when the SEC considers expanding. Consider Mississippi State in 2010. They went 9-4, and beat similarly ranking (in conference) Michigan 52-14 in the Gator Bowl. The SEC may be better than the Big Ten, but not that much better. If MSU is in the Pac-12, they're looking at a 10-2 season last year. In the ACC, possibly even 11-1. But they went 1-4 against SEC West schools and as a result were much better than their record indicated. Same can be said for Arkansas, who knocked off LSU but had to play Alabama and at Auburn. Now we've added Texas A&M (9-2 vs. non-SEC teams in 2010, a program on the rise as well). Adding another powerhouse will cause a chain reaction. For now, a team that should be 10-2 goes 8-4 because of the conference they play in. They get a lower ranking and weaker bowl. High-level recruits shun them because they are so-called "middle of the road" even though they have the talent and coaching of a top 10 team. When they consistently go 8-4 when they are more talented, they look, to their fans and to the rest of the nation, to be "average." Now, the overall prestige of their school has diminished. Dividing the power among a ton of really good schools hurts all of them, except the one or two that can rise above, and even they won't do so unscathed. SMU, for obvious reasons, will fix this problem. They will be a doormat, but because they devote more money (and have more fans) in football than Vanderbilt, they have the ability to nab good recruits and pop up every now and then (think TCU). They'll be happy because they get MUCH more money and national exposure. It's a bit of a win-win. I made the graph below to figure out how the new division alignments will work, hoping to preserve school's prestige.

Fig. 2 - A ranking of every school.

Note: If you disagree with any of my rankings, stop and think. Is it way off so that it destroys the basis of the argument? If not, don't reply. If I've made a castrophic error in judgement, let me know. These are my best guesses.

Key
P: Prestige Schools are rated on a scale of D-A+ for all-time winning percentage, national and conference titles, and
L2: Recent success Schools are rated on a scale of D-A+ for records of the last TWO seasons, plus the potential of the next TWO based on coaching situation, recruiting, and other factors.
F: Fanbase and media outlets Schools are rated on a scale of D-A+ for the size of the fanbase (and alumni) and control of major media markets.
O: Other sports Success in all other sports, mostly basketball and baseball.

West
Alabama A+ (P: A+, L2: A+, F: A+, O: A-)
Auburn A (P: A, L2: A, F: A, O: B+)
LSU A (P: A-, L2: A, F: A+, O: A-)
Arkansas A- (P: B+, L2: A-, F: B+, O: A+)
Ole Miss B (P: B, L2: B-, F: B, O: B)
Miss State B (P: B-, L2: B, F: B-, O: B)

East
Florida A (P: A, L2: A-, F: A+, A+)
Georgia A- (P: A-, L2: B-, F: A, O: A-)
S. Carolina B+ (P: B, L2: B+, F: B+, O: A)
Tennessee B+ (P: A-, L2: B-, F: A, O: B+)
Kentucky B (P: C+, L2: B-, F: B, O: A+)
Vanderbilt B- (P: C-, L2: C+, F: C+, O: A+)

Texas A&M B+ (P: B, L2: B+, F: A+, O: A)
SMU B- (P: B-, L2: B-, F: B, O: C)

From this graphic, the obvious decision is to move Auburn (who is east of Vanderbilt anyway) over to the SEC East. Here would be new divisions, with permanent rivals marked by the <> symbol:

Fig. 3 - Proposed divisions
West East
Alabama <> Auburn
Arkansas <> South Carolina
Miss State Georgia
Ole Miss Florida
SMU <> Vanderbilt
Texas A&M Kentucky

I've only filled in the permanent rivalries that would matter. Alabama-Auburn must be preserved, though at the cost of Alabama-Tennessee, the only major rivalry lost by this outline. SMU-Vanderbilt is to give the Mustangs a chance to win a game for the first couple of years.

Fig. 4 - Scheduling
The conference schedule would consist of 9 conference games, 6 vs. division, 1 permanent, and 2 rotating non-division. The SEC would silence all critics of its schedule by requiring (overridable with commisioner approval) each school (besides SMU for the first couple years) to schedule at least one AQ game nonconference. Proposed OOC games below:

Alabama: Penn State, Notre Dame, others by rotation
Arkansas: Texas, TCU, Missouri, Oklahoma, others by rotation
Auburn: Clemson, Florida State, Miami, others by rotation
Florida: Florida State (permanent)
Georgia: Georgia Tech (permanent)
Kentucky: Louisville (permanent)
LSU: rotation
Mississippi State: rotation
Ole Miss: rotation
SMU: TCU (permanent)
South Carolina: Clemson (permanent)
Tennessee: North Carolina, ACC schools by rotation
Texas A&M: Texas (permanent)
Vanderbilt: Wake Forest (permanent)

Anyone who claims the SEC schedules weak, even if every team schedules an FCS and Sun Belt school for their other 2 OOC games, is crazy.

So, what does everyone think? I spent some time on this, so please stay somewhat on topic in this thread, and feel free to criticize any part of it. Just be cordial and give me a chance to reply!"