Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
Maybe true, but that's like saying Brooklyn Decker would choose Zach Galifinakis over Jonah Hill. At the end of the day, she's not choosing either.Samurai Stang wrote:Not one of the schools you named would be taken over an SMU/ Houston combination.
SMU would not be rejected for the Bush Institute. Stanford has the Hoover Institute. SMU is a strong academic school. We are not Liberty.East Coast Mustang wrote:Maybe true, but that's like saying Brooklyn Decker would choose Zach Galifinakis over Jonah Hill. At the end of the day, she's not choosing either.Samurai Stang wrote:Not one of the schools you named would be taken over an SMU/ Houston combination.
Also, there's no way Pac-12 schools would accept UH academically. Hell, SMU would get dinged for the school's conservatism and the Bush Library/Policy Center. The whackjobs in Berkeley would flip [deleted] over that. It's a moot point.
Stanford is one of the best colleges in the country, and joined what was then the PCC almost one hundred years ago. Not a valid comparison.Samurai Stang wrote:SMU would not be rejected for the Bush Institute. Stanford has the Hoover Institute. SMU is a strong academic school. We are not Liberty.East Coast Mustang wrote:Maybe true, but that's like saying Brooklyn Decker would choose Zach Galifinakis over Jonah Hill. At the end of the day, she's not choosing either.Samurai Stang wrote:Not one of the schools you named would be taken over an SMU/ Houston combination.
Also, there's no way Pac-12 schools would accept UH academically. Hell, SMU would get dinged for the school's conservatism and the Bush Library/Policy Center. The whackjobs in Berkeley would flip [deleted] over that. It's a moot point.
Yeah, this sums it up pretty well.StallionsModelT wrote:Dude, there is no chance of SMU in the PAC 12. None. Zero. They will stay at 12 rather than add total dead weight in SMU/Houston. Houston also is an academic joke.
Next.
The only shot we have of moving to a Power 5 is if the ACC gets raided and are forced to backfill. In reality, the BE is going to pick up 2 more mid-majors and still be the best of the Group of Five conferences. There just aren't many teams left out there that provide more value to the power 5 conferences. I doubt much more happens after these moves settle out, except for BYU joining a conference. If we turn into a TCU level of program we are one of the few that could bring more value and a big market to the lowest valued power 5, the ACC, but we need to win to get there. I hope our admin sees it that way.StallionsModelT wrote:Dude, there is no chance of SMU in the PAC 12. None. Zero. They will stay at 12 rather than add total dead weight in SMU/Houston. Houston also is an academic joke.
Next.
Well someone has to get that Group of 5 BCS spot. Who says it can't be us a few times. We need our admin to be smart about this.StallionsModelT wrote:Nope. Too little too late. This next shift will be the last for the next 10-15 years. In that time we will wither away and die. Time to focus all our energy and resources on basketball.
Pretty much this. We still have time to change it around, but it has to be a comprehensive effort by the university, donors, fans, local people. If that doesn't happen SMU football is done. It might not be done in a literal sense, but it will be done in the sense that it wont ever mean anything to anyone outside of SMU. The clock is ticking, I pray our administration can give the program an adrenaline shot a la basketball or its over. Bye bye tradition and history.StallionsModelT wrote:It would be nice to get that group of 5 spot, but lets face it. Our athletic department needed that Big East TV payday. No way in hell that happens now. Are we really going to continue to throw millions at a product that will draw even fewer fans to Ford Stadium after there was so much hope and promise with the Big East?
Here's the deal. This program has about 5-7 years to get itself into position to be plucked up by a major conference. I'd put those odds right now at 10%. If that doesn't happen, football at SMU is dead. We won't throw money at this thing with no hope of ever competing at a high level.
Not going to happen. Dont listen to the doomsdayers around here. We might go back to 1987-2007 in terms of relevance, but I don't see the program ever being disbanded. Too many alumni would withdraw financial support IMOSMU_Alumni11 wrote:I just dont believe that SMU will pack up football. I get the deficit thing, but Im sure with NBC out there, if they want to show a football conference they need to make sure to pay enough to be acceptable. Im hoping we get 7-8 mil add the 2.2 mil from CoC (if that can still continue) and we are still okay. Running a small deficit will be ok and it can be saved through donation campaigns. The only money at this point Ill donate to SMU is to the football program.
I'm just saying why I don't think it's a realistic scenario. Does everyone here have PMS 24/7?gostangs wrote:that is just stupid. THe only money you will donate to your UNIVERSITY (you know - the place that is created to educate people) - is to the football program? Looks like we should have spent some more time on you in the classroom.
Uhhh... is this your first time looking at my posts. I have been extremely critical of our staff. No matter how much money you through into education, it still yields the same lazy tenure faculty not doing their job. Until schools go to performance based contracts like they should do with coaches, they wont see a dime. Especially going to a liberal based agenda in our faculty, yuck. Im not giving them anything for penalizing me for having a different viewpoint.gostangs wrote:that is just stupid. THe only money you will donate to your UNIVERSITY (you know - the place that is created to educate people) - is to the football program? Looks like we should have spent some more time on you in the classroom.
