PonyFans.com

Barksdale Pony wrote:Everyone needs to get real comfortable with the Southland Conference.

it might be bad but its not that bad.

Ask yourselves this- would ANY cable provider in TX raise their rates to include the Pac-16 Network if SMU and Houston joined? The answer is a big fat NO- hell, it took them about a year to add the Longhorn Network.

Thus, we won't be going to the Pac-12.

sbsmith wrote:

Hoop Fan wrote:riddle me this, if Rutgers is such an obvious prize, why were they overlooked by the ACC in two full rounds of expansion? ACC took Boston College, Va Tech, Miami, Pitt, Cuse etc and not Rutgers. That's sort of like the Big East passing on Tulsa, and then the Big 12 inviting them. Really shows that a schools potential is really in the eye of the beholder.

I didn't say Rutgers was an obvious prize but they did fit the Big 10s profile. You're right about a school's potential being in the eye of the beholder, but honestly I don't see why the Pac-12 would bother splitting their take with a bunch of parasite schools while the other conferences are making quality adds and enhancing their brands. Maybe Larry Scott is a generous guy who likes underdogs.

That's my point - there aren't any quality adds that will enhance their brand assuming the Big12 survives. Does adding the DFW market decrease the split per school or increase the total TV contract enough to be worth it? I have no inside media mogul info but based on what everyone else has said and what other conferences are doing, I bet DFW is a net positive.

The Pac-12 won't go to 16 unless they can add Texas, Tech, OU, and Okie State. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense for them.

East Coast Mustang wrote:The Pac-12 won't go to 16 unless they can add Texas, Tech, OU, and Okie State. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense for them.

Don't bowl game payouts pay equally to all teams from conferences. Wouldn't this put the PAC12 at a disadvantage? I thought I had heard that somewhere.

you guys might be right. or you may not be. there are parasites in every single league. you can go round and round with the arguments, but if TCU with its alumni base slightly bigger than ours can be an add to the Big 12, we can be a net add to somebody who needs to expand.

Comet wrote:

East Coast Mustang wrote:The Pac-12 won't go to 16 unless they can add Texas, Tech, OU, and Okie State. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense for them.

Don't bowl game payouts pay equally to all teams from conferences. Wouldn't this put the PAC12 at a disadvantage? I thought I had heard that somewhere.

I'm not sure I follow you...what do you mean?

Regardless, I think adding all the Texas markets plus Oklahoma would outweigh bowl payout figures. It's all about eyeballs

Hoop Fan wrote:you guys might be right. or you may not be. there are parasites in every single league. you can go round and round with the arguments, but if TCU with its alumni base slightly bigger than ours can be an add to the Big 12, we can be a net add to somebody who needs to expand.

The question is whether we add enough to be worth an invite. I don't think so, not at least to any conference that isn't woefully desperate (like the Big East). I agree with ECM that the Pac-12s only real play is to pull a UT raid, failing that they stay at 12.

East Coast Mustang wrote:

Comet wrote:

East Coast Mustang wrote:The Pac-12 won't go to 16 unless they can add Texas, Tech, OU, and Okie State. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense for them.

Don't bowl game payouts pay equally to all teams from conferences. Wouldn't this put the PAC12 at a disadvantage? I thought I had heard that somewhere.

I'm not sure I follow you...what do you mean?

Regardless, I think adding all the Texas markets plus Oklahoma would outweigh bowl payout figures. It's all about eyeballs

If we get to a power conference it will be a watered down version of the ACC. This is our natural final resting place.

Hoop Fan wrote:you guys might be right. or you may not be. there are parasites in every single league. you can go round and round with the arguments, but if TCU with its alumni base slightly bigger than ours can be an add to the Big 12, we can be a net add to somebody who needs to expand.

Hoopfan i respectfully disagree with your theory.
TCU has made a major commitment to the football program. They have proven they can play at the Big 12 level.
TCU has done a very good job of marketing themselves as Ft Worth''s team. It is true they do not have to compete against the "pro teams" like SMU does but other than the Mavs the folks in Ft Worth have to drive to Arlington to see the Cowboys and Rangers like the folks in Dallas.
TCU, because of their outstanding marketing efforts has a season ticket base i think somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000, I am probably a little off on that but they get people in the stadium.
The bottom line is TCU had a plan and executed it to perfection. If SMU has a long term plan to upgrade the football program and try to move into a major conference, I would have thought it would be public knowledge by now.
I don't see any reason why the PAC 12 would want SMU if they decided to expand to 16. If SMU wanted to be part of that equation they should have started the effort 10-15 years ago.
Don't get me wrong it hurts to see that SMU could be left out of the big picture if the NBE falls apart, which is looking like it could happen.
Whether SMU is able to stay in a united NBE, or moves back into a MWC type of situation i would think the travel expenses are going to be a strain on the athletic department and those that support athletics.

oh i agree, we are 10-15 years late. Turner has been playing rope-a-dope for way too long with the muddling through, painfully slow changes.

Hoop Fan wrote:riddle me this, if Rutgers is such an obvious prize, why were they passed over by the ACC in two full rounds of expansion? ACC took Boston College, Va Tech, Miami, Pitt, Cuse etc and not Rutgers. That's sort of like the Big East passing on Tulsa two or three times, and then the Big 12 inviting them. Really shows that a schools potential is really in the eye of the beholder.

Rutger had probably the worst sports program in the country prior to 2000. In football they had only been to 1 bowl game in school history and that was a special promotion made for Rutgers at Giant stadium which was only played 1 year. Rutgers football was absolutely the worst until Greg Schiano came in and made an impact starting roughly in 2004. They were making some progress when BC, VA Tech, Miami...etc. left. In basketball they were always a bottom feeder. To their credit they have made great progress in the past 6 years and are now representative in football and becoming competitive in basketball. Academically they are compatible with the Big 10 as well as the ACC. My opinion is that Rutger actually wanted to remain in the Big East and insure it was a good conference and very regionally compatible for fans, travel and costs. Finally, they broke down and took a better offer with the Beast losing all the programs Rutgers believed made the Beast worth while.

Being in SoCal, I would LOVE for this to happen but I don't see it happening unless we string together some great seasons.

ojaipony wrote:Being in SoCal, I would LOVE for this to happen but I don't see it happening unless we string together some great seasons.

Being an SMU fan, I would LOVE for this to happen but I don't see it happening unless we string together some great recruiting classes.

Hoop Fan wrote:riddle me this, if Rutgers is such an obvious prize, why were they passed over by the ACC in two full rounds of expansion? ACC took Boston College, Va Tech, Miami, Pitt, Cuse etc and not Rutgers. That's sort of like the Big East passing on Tulsa two or three times, and then the Big 12 inviting them. Really shows that a schools potential is really in the eye of the beholder.

excellent point. personally think Rutgers is the biggest winner in all of this.

From uncertainty of BE to B10 with a potential $40M payout per year.