PonyFans.com

Mexmustang wrote:On another series of post, probably on a paid site many of you follow, there was a debate about the Holy Seven (basketball schools) leaving the conference. There were two articles that were posted. One suggested that the inclusion of Tulane into the conference was done so without these members approval and that Tulane downgraded the RPI of the basketball teams and brought nothing (TV set, football, basketball) to the conference. The other suggested that they did vote and had been a problem child in the conference for years.

I found the addition to the conference of Tulane perplexing. There was no obvious school in support of Tulane. As the first article mentioned they brought nothing to the conference but losing records and empty stadiums. Certainly New Orleans isn't a big TV market.

I was told by friends of mine in NYC that SMU sponsored and pushed for Tulane. Turner served for several years on the Knight Commission with their president, and he wanted an academic ally.
Personally, I felt Rice or Tulsa would have brought more to the table.

Others argued that SMU didn't even had an official vote yet and wouldn't until we became official members. I suggested that the new schools, in particular Houston and SMU had more power and influence in the conference than at any other time. If we did bolt for the MWC there would be no Big East--new or old. That Turner had tremedous power at this time, whether we could officially vote or not. It was the new schools that the commissioner was now loyal to.

Thank you for the summary. I certainly have read all that but it is nice to see it all together.

However, how do you get from that to your statement that it is a done deal that Turner was the decision maker? It seems like you presented to opposing scenarios. I agree SMU and Houston had influence and I can sort of see your argument that they could have forced the schools who could vote to vote for Tulane, but that does not mean that is what happened. Regardless, under your scenario why don't you split the potential blame for Tulane between SMU and Houston?

Also, I am still confused by the statement that Turner had the only connection to Tulane. At a minimum, UH is in the same conference so I am pretty sure their leadership would know Tulane's leadership.

Mexmustang wrote:I am not sure! UConn? USF? UCF? Memphis? UofH? ECU?, right down with Boise in my opinion. I am just saying the academic strength left when the last bus left with the last nine schools and it should no longer be a claim. Quite frankly, I am not sure I can even name the New Big East schools right now. It was meant to be a rehtorical remark, not absolute fact. Based on what I see, neither conference sets the academic world on fire.

As far as the PAC schools mentioned, I don't believe there is a school in the Big 10, Big 12, or Big East that competes academically with UCLA, CAL and Stanford. USC is no slouch, but I don't remember how high they rank. Even Michigan isn't as highly regarded.

Northwesterrn, Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois compare favorably. I agree on BE.

SMU is not responsible for the addition of Tulane. A more plausible conspiracy theory would be that the Catholic 7 strategically added Tulane to further dilute the conference making a split a much easier sell to their administrations, alumni, fans, etc. Additionally, now that they have split off we are rival conferences and as such they weakened our conference thus making recruiting easier for them and making their conference more desirable for TV and ours less desirable.

I agree that Turner/Tulane is being made bigger than it is. What's the connection? He and Tulane Prez are friends? Have worked together in C-USA? Just because my company hires a friend of mine does not necessarily mean that I got him hired. Could be that the company felt he was qualified, and if I just got hired and haven't even started work there, that makes more sense, since my opinion probably doesn't carry much weight.

Doesn't really matter now? Wish we weren't but we are stuck with them. At least for now.

You know what, even if Turner did push Tulane, if you're banking on a marketable product in the future which will compete for the spot of best-of-the-rest, Tulane isn't a malignant tumor. Granted, they have been awful. But, if they are going to commit to playing on a level field competitively (rumored to be following SMUs plan to compete competitively) then there are far worse choices than a very-well regarded school in the south, in a major media market, and in a relatively speaking, recruiting hotbed. Six years ago, we were basically Tulane, except with better facilities and about a dozen or so more fans.

Again, yes, they have been awful, and they have been trying to run a race one-legged. But if they're going to commit financially and administratively, I'd prefer them over UMASS, any MAC school, or a number of northern options. A big part of this is banking on future success achievable with an infusion of a larger amount of capital. If Tulane has additional capital to invest, they build on-campus facilities comparable with what other SUNBEAST schools have, and they have a staff in place that can recruit, then I don't see them as some malignant tumor stuck on the SUNBEAST's heart. Much better than adding a UMASS which has absolutely no prospects of flourishing as a revenue athletics program. You can grab a Tulsa and a USM, and as far as best of the rest goes, you've positioned yourself reasonably well for the next few years as a marketable motley crew of products.

Notice that not a single MAC school, at any point during this entire process, has been invited to another conference. Looks like everybody else has noticed there just isn't much to be had in adding big old land grant schools in the rust belt overshadowed by massive Big 10 teams where there isn't enough talent to go around and the weather sucks.

If the Big Priest schools have their panties in a wad over it, they can [deleted]. They rode the Big East gravy train for three decades and took part in a number of decisions or non-decisions that ultimately sent the Big East down it's current path. They tout that garbage about Tulane not being what they wanted or not being consulted, when really they just decided they were going to get paid more from ESPN or Fox by jumping ship and starting their own conference. Even if they all were pissy over Tulane, they'd still be sitting right here if it were financially lucrative to do so.

^ dead on

And i was against Tulane then and now, but still better then Rice or Tulsa since it adds somewhat of a market. Turner did not know they were being added. The reason they got added hastily is that BE commish was trying to finish up a TV contract and they needed a certain minimum number of schools - and it keeps moving out from under them. They panicked in my view - but of course easy for me to say not having to produce a TV contract in an environment where everything is moving.

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:You know what, even if Turner did push Tulane, if you're banking on a marketable product in the future which will compete for the spot of best-of-the-rest, Tulane isn't a malignant tumor. Granted, they have been awful. But, if they are going to commit to playing on a level field competitively (rumored to be following SMUs plan to compete competitively) then there are far worse choices than a very-well regarded school in the south, in a major media market, and in a relatively speaking, recruiting hotbed. Six years ago, we were basically Tulane, except with better facilities and about a dozen or so more fans.

Again, yes, they have been awful, and they have been trying to run a race one-legged. But if they're going to commit financially and administratively, I'd prefer them over UMASS, any MAC school, or a number of northern options. A big part of this is banking on future success achievable with an infusion of a larger amount of capital. If Tulane has additional capital to invest, they build on-campus facilities comparable with what other SUNBEAST schools have, and they have a staff in place that can recruit, then I don't see them as some malignant tumor stuck on the SUNBEAST's heart. Much better than adding a UMASS which has absolutely no prospects of flourishing as a revenue athletics program. You can grab a Tulsa and a USM, and as far as best of the rest goes, you've positioned yourself reasonably well for the next few years as a marketable motley crew of products.

Notice that not a single MAC school, at any point during this entire process, has been invited to another conference. Looks like everybody else has noticed there just isn't much to be had in adding big old land grant schools in the rust belt overshadowed by massive Big 10 teams where there isn't enough talent to go around and the weather sucks.

If the Big Priest schools have their panties in a wad over it, they can [deleted]. They rode the Big East gravy train for three decades and took part in a number of decisions or non-decisions that ultimately sent the Big East down it's current path. They tout that garbage about Tulane not being what they wanted or not being consulted, when really they just decided they were going to get paid more from ESPN or Fox by jumping ship and starting their own conference. Even if they all were pissy over Tulane, they'd still be sitting right here if it were financially lucrative to do so.

...and N.O. ain't too shabby a place to go for an away game.

In this musical chair conference world, why does partnering with academic schools matter at all?
It's all a money grab. You want the best teams you can get, period. Please stop with the academic conference nonsense.

GiddyUp wrote:In this musical chair conference world, why does partnering with academic schools matter at all?
It's all a money grab. You want the best teams you can get, period. Please stop with the academic conference nonsense.

Hate to tell you this, but I think this is where we are concerning getting the best teams considering who we are at this point in time. Same probably goes for the money part. The nBE may not be much, if any, better than the MWC teams wise, but hopfully better money wise and exposure wise.

Of course PK

LA_Mustang wrote:Why isn't our AD doing this or any interviews? We need a vocal, proactive AD during this time, IMO.

But he tweets several times a day. Isn't that good enough for you? C'mon man.

The other day when the Big East made a statement regarding -either the B7 leaving or SDSU leaving-the Big East authorized only 2 speakers to comment. Big East Commissioner and Turner as the head of Television Committee. Pretty standard litigation tactic to funnel all media to certain designated representative who have been thoroughly prepped by media consultants

Once again, to say Turner or SMU didn't have the power to push for Tulane was the issue here. He is head of the Television Committee of the conference--the most important committee to ensure the conference's survival. Pretty significant post for a school without a "vote".

The Holy Seven had no interest in lowering their RPI and no interest in Tulane--neither did a single other school. Name one. My speculation is simply SMU is the only school that could have had a personal interest in Tulane because of president's relationship with theirs.

18 years at the helm, not one basketball or football championship of any kind says it all. Beginning and end of argument!

Thirteen years of academic restrictions on athletic admissions under his watch. Only begins to change when June is hired. Incredible that he wouldn't even implement his own recommendations earlier that he proposed and signed off on as head of the Knight Commission. He fires the only catalyst we've had in athletics in 25 years and are now back to a yes man AD--Copeland II.

A number of us were promised two years ago: An academic program for athletes (Brown and Jones continue to be frustrated over this); an IPF (no longer in the athletic department's plans); and the ability to provide raises for our key FB assistants (now more important in light of the money thrown at basketball.

Until our own administration demonstrates the sincere backing of athletics, no major conference will want us as members. Do you really believe Norm's audience wanted or cared about relative academics of two or three conferences?

I have to say the diatribe against Turner is both surprisingly and misplaced. SMU earned our position in college athletic lore (I know we are not unique, except in the penalty phase), but Turner has carefully crafted our return with uneven results. But, the task was and is monumental.

The BCS and the economics of college football, which are so unfairly distributed to Power Conference schools and their state schools with enrollments, is the new reality for any private schools, TCU not withstanding. The Frogs took the necessary steps, while we were fumbling for the twenty years after the DP.

The facts remains that Private Schools and their smaller alumni base work against the Golden Rule, i.e. he who has the gold, rules!

In any case, conspiracy theories about Tulane or deliberate sabotage of our curriculum is both silly and a waste of time. Any truth is these theories begs the bigger question, when are we going to take matters into our hands on the field, in recruiting, in the classroom and in the media? We should be looking forward on the concrete steps everyone should take from the coaches, adminstration, students, alums and fans. No one is exempt from responsibility and accountabilty. But, looking for dark purposes or villians is not worthy of our role to provide leadership, money and support to SMU and its teams, including FB, BB and, most importanly, the non-revenue sports, especially Swimming & Diving.

;-D