PonyFans.com

While I don't discount the administration is full of idiots theory, I still think that it had some wind of something to allow UNT to get an invite into the AAC. Otherwise that move makes zero sense economically or competitively. But if SMU is leaving, it makes perfect sense.

EastStang wrote:While I don't discount the administration is full of idiots theory, I still think that it had some wind of something to allow UNT to get an invite into the AAC. Otherwise that move makes zero sense economically or competitively. But if SMU is leaving, it makes perfect sense.

SMU has its first ever realistic shot at breaking into the P5 because USC and UCLA out of the clear blue sky ripped the heart out of the PAC.

Our administration had zeroΓÇözeroΓÇöidea that might happen. They just let the UNT thing happen. ItΓÇÖs egregious.

I donΓÇÖt know. We expanded Ford, are pursuing R1, and are building an outdoor Olympic pool, among many other things. Methinks this was required by the Pac-12 for membership. If so, that constitutes forethought.

Judging by our previous administrations miscues, I would guess they had no idea when they let UNT in.

Regarding UNT, who else from CUSA makes any sense instead?

Not sure the MWC or SBC teams would come for a half-share of AAC money which is what all six newbies did to effectively split UH, UCF, and UCΓÇÖs shares in the same lump sum deal.

MTSU? LaTech? UTEP? WKU? Newbies SHSU or JSU? Not exactly deep options there. UNT isnΓÇÖt tall but those competing options arenΓÇÖt exactly up to even NTSUΓÇÖs level.

Now if they could have added 4 instead of 6 I could see leaving them off. But if tv partners require it I see how they might fit. Prevents the MWC from having any TX option other than San Marcos should they need a backfill and better than some other options while also ensuring a dfw school if SMU ever got called up to a P5 or ditched them for the MWC or some ΓÇ£best of the G5ΓÇ¥ breakaway league.

Dukie wrote:

EastStang wrote:While I don't discount the administration is full of idiots theory, I still think that it had some wind of something to allow UNT to get an invite into the AAC. Otherwise that move makes zero sense economically or competitively. But if SMU is leaving, it makes perfect sense.

SMU has its first ever realistic shot at breaking into the P5 because USC and UCLA out of the clear blue sky ripped the heart out of the PAC.

Our administration had zeroΓÇözeroΓÇöidea that might happen. They just let the UNT thing happen. ItΓÇÖs egregious.

It is generally accepted amongst PAC followers that USC played an important role in preventing B12 Texas schools from being invited to the PAC once UT & OU bailed

While i may feel SMU has more upside potential, fact is the schools rejected had more value

So the thought that SMU had a realistic path to flee the AAC for P5 is rather absurd

USC was blocking us on the West Coast, other factors, including ACC GOR + ACCΓÇÖs non-desire to expand, were blocking us on the East Coast. And of course, the B12 had rejected us twice

As far as tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories goes, this realignment is beginning to gain traction...

-No real word from ANYONE who would be in a position of knowledge ...
-If "keeping a secret" about SMU to the PAC is a reality, I gotta say, once one other person knows the "secret" it isn't a secret. Yet we really have heard NOTHING, That doesn't bode well on one front.
-The folks in positions of leadership at SMU have been satisfied with status quo, until recently putting $$$ to infrastructure. As opposed to the above point, this bodes well for some type of move.

The sad reality is that fans/alumni/interested parties are left with "trusting the leadership" that is in place...and that track record means great fountains, but curiously little other substance.

доверяй, но проверяй

SoCal_Pony wrote:

Dukie wrote:

EastStang wrote:While I don't discount the administration is full of idiots theory, I still think that it had some wind of something to allow UNT to get an invite into the AAC. Otherwise that move makes zero sense economically or competitively. But if SMU is leaving, it makes perfect sense.

SMU has its first ever realistic shot at breaking into the P5 because USC and UCLA out of the clear blue sky ripped the heart out of the PAC.

Our administration had zeroΓÇözeroΓÇöidea that might happen. They just let the UNT thing happen. ItΓÇÖs egregious.

It is generally accepted amongst PAC followers that USC played an important role in preventing B12 Texas schools from being invited to the PAC once UT & OU bailed

While i may feel SMU has more upside potential, fact is the schools rejected had more value

So the thought that SMU had a realistic path to flee the AAC for P5 is rather absurd

USC was blocking us on the West Coast, other factors, including ACC GOR + ACCΓÇÖs non-desire to expand, were blocking us on the East Coast. And of course, the B12 had rejected us twice

Not really sure why this is a reply to me. Yes, prior to USC/UCLA leaving, SMU had no realistic path to move up.

WordUpBU wrote:Regarding UNT, who else from CUSA makes any sense instead?

Not sure the MWC or SBC teams would come for a half-share of AAC money which is what all six newbies did to effectively split UH, UCF, and UCΓÇÖs shares in the same lump sum deal.

MTSU? LaTech? UTEP? WKU? Newbies SHSU or JSU? Not exactly deep options there. UNT isnΓÇÖt tall but those competing options arenΓÇÖt exactly up to even NTSUΓÇÖs level.

Now if they could have added 4 instead of 6 I could see leaving them off. But if tv partners require it I see how they might fit. Prevents the MWC from having any TX option other than San Marcos should they need a backfill and better than some other options while also ensuring a dfw school if SMU ever got called up to a P5 or ditched them for the MWC or some ΓÇ£best of the G5ΓÇ¥ breakaway league.

Well, yes; it's exactly that highlighted bit that we are debating: why helping the AAC prepare for that (at the time, remote) possibility would ever be a particular concern for SMU. It shouldn't have been.

Even before the USC and UCLA departures, one had to figure that the PAC-12 would be in for some sort of shakeup. They had a new TV contract to negotiate and that always is disruptive. Would they add some Big XII teams other than OU and UT? I think it is not a secret that SMU did not want to remain with the new AAC. Other than Navy, Tulane, Tulsa and Memphis not a lot of teams with much synergy there.

EastStang wrote:Even before the USC and UCLA departures, one had to figure that the PAC-12 would be in for some sort of shakeup. They had a new TV contract to negotiate and that always is disruptive. Would they add some Big XII teams other than OU and UT? I think it is not a secret that SMU did not want to remain with the new AAC. Other than Navy, Tulane, Tulsa and Memphis not a lot of teams with much synergy there.

What?

No, the PAC 12 was not due for any sort of "shakeup" that would have them considering SMU. It was only the perfidy of USC and UCLA that could cause that.

No, new TV contracts are not always disruptive.

I have no idea if the PAC would've added Big XII teams but for USC stopping them, but SMU is not getting in the Big XII and that PAC/XII speculation doesn't help your case that maybe, somehow SMU's administration wasn't dumb to agree to be in a conference with UNT. Ditto on SMU wanting out of the AAC--not relevant to whether SMU could reasonably foresee a path out.

EastStang, the PAC absolutely was not seriously looking to expand. They had discussions, but some schools, apparently led by USC, shot that down

Tech, Ok St, TCU and others were considered, not SMU

Dukie is correct, USC / UCLA defecting was a complete shock to the PAC, it was only then that meaningful expansion talk occurred

There was no master plan for NTCC to be our ΓÇÿDallasΓÇÖ replacement

We lost four and added UTSA, UNT, UAB, FA, UNCC, Rice. FA makes sense as a travel partner for USF. UNCC makes sense as a travel partner for ECU. Rice makes sense because they replace Houston. UAB makes sense because they are in a large southern market and would be a travel partner for Memphis. UTSA makes sense to help bring San Antonio market in to help soften the blow from losing Houston. So, why does UNT make any sense at all? They don't expand the Dallas market. So, in essence the take-a-way from everyone here is that our administrators lost their collective minds by allowing UNT to be on equal footing with us in the same conference. Trying to figure out the minds of our administrators is an impossible task. Hopefully the pigeons still sit in the eves above Fondren.

A very thorough analysis of where things stand. Interestingly enough he intimates that the Big XII has reached out to SMU which is interesting.

https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/c ... onferences

EastStang wrote:A very thorough analysis of where things stand. Interestingly enough he intimates that the Big XII has reached out to SMU which is interesting.

https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/c ... onferences

With the possible exception of BYU, the Big 12 is comprised of 2nd rate academic schools with no national TV constituencies. Baylor and TCU represent the same situation as SMU: No big national TV audience unless they are playing an OU or UT or if they happen to have a top 10 team that given year which is not going to happen year in and year out. So the Big 12 doesn't need or want us. Frankly, I think we are better off associating ourselves with a better class of schools anyway. Baylor and TCU will be a drag on revenues most years. The networks are going to find out that they have overpaid for those Iowa State / UCF matchups. The PAC is in the position of needing some schedule fillers which is the only reason that we and SDSU are in the discussion. Based on what I read I would be surprised if Oregon and Washington are in the PAC in 6 years. Meanwhile, if the Big 10 does gobble up those two teams, look for the SEC to nab Clemson and Florida State. That will leave the ACC looking for schedule fillers. We are a better fit with those schools than with the PAC and we should be in contact with them. Whatever happens, just get us out of UNT's conference.