PonyFans.com

lwjr wrote:

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.

Of course it would have helped to have a plan and execute it, but let's not forget, Tulsa could have the best plan in the entire non-BCS world and they could execute it to perfection. They are still in Tulsa.

Success on the field is important, no doubt, but I think it is a little over-emphasized here. We have been terrible in hoops for some time now, but our future looks better than a lot of schools that have had plenty of success in BB. It’s all about Dallas and selling it to someone. And the fact that we have the financial backing to make it happen.

SMU to PAC, I don't see it, but I certainly didn't see Rutgers to the B10 either.

SoCal_Pony wrote:

lwjr wrote:

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.

Of course it would have helped to have a plan and execute it, but let's not forget, Tulsa could have the best plan in the entire non-BCS world and they could execute it to perfection. They are still in Tulsa.

Success on the field is important, no doubt, but I think it is a little over-emphasized here. We have been terrible in hoops for some time now, but our future looks better than a lot of schools that have had plenty of success in BB. It’s all about Dallas and selling it to someone. And the fact that we have the financial backing to make it happen.

SMU to PAC, I don't see it, but I certainly didn't see Rutgers to the B10 either.

The hiring of Larry Brown could be the saving grace for SMU in some form or another

If it helps fuel the rumor mill. A PAC-12 rep was at The Rob during the Tulane game this past Saturday. And according to the talking heads along with the rest of the country, we're apparently a package deal so...

Cougar high will be the tech of the deal they offered UT and OU. Get better grades and faculty!

SMU_Alumni11 wrote:Cougar high will be the tech of the deal they offered UT and OU. Get better grades and faculty!

No need to be snooty with our UH friends. We're not going to the Pac-12 with them...ever, but we're attached to the hip with them in conference realignment nonetheless. Remember, there was in a time when they were in CUSA and were in the WAC that they were looking down on us.

We all know the advantages and disadvantages SMU has to offer. I say the advantages, specifically Dallas, outweigh the disadvantages absent our one big stumbling block, football attendance.

Here are the stadium sizes of some of the smaller PAC12 schools.

Washington State is 35,000 and Oregon State is 45,000. More importantly, newly added Colorado is 53,000 and Utah is 45,000, while Stanford’s stadium, opened in 2006, seats 50,000. Suffice to say if we had a 45,000 seat stadium it would satisfy the PAC. I think expanding Ford could be as easy as a couple of phone calls if it meant admittance.

So we are left to deal with our biggest obstacle, getting people to attend, but is it really that big an obstacle?

You telling me that given the choice of making $8M per year in a watered-down BE vs. $25M per year in the PAC, we’re going to throw our hands up and say it can’t happen?

I was there during the Pony Express Days. I believe with PAC membership and us doing virtually minimal marketing, we could still average 25,000 fans per year. If our goal is to get to 40,000 to satisfy the PAC, that means getting 15,000 more fans per game per year for 6 home games. That’s 90,000 tickets. Assume we threw $4.5M at this problem; that equates to $50 per ticket. We solve our biggest problem and are still miles ahead of the game.

How nice would it be to announce Ford expansion, Petrino and staff hiring and PAC membership all in one day (with a true academic commitment via athletic friendly majors).

Not saying it will happen, but Hart, Turner and others better be thinking big right now. Alternative is too depressing.

I thought that the PAC 12 tried to match the Big 10's PR gimmick that its schools are all research institutions. If so, we are not in the mix and neither is BYU. I don't think that BYU is too religious, or Air Force too military for the PAC 12, but neither is considered a research institution in the world of academia and consequently dont meet the PAC 12's perception of itself.

I still think that it would be shrewd for the SEC to take us along for the ride. We have demonstrated that we can sell tickets if the opponent is big time and it would be nice for them to have a weekly presence in Dallas. The media attention and corporate sponsorship possibilities here are tremendous. And I think Dallas would be the biggest city with an SEC team. Back in the 90s I recall talks concerning us partnering with Houston in a move from the WAC to the SEC, but our people were afraid of the perception that the SEC is not academically strong. We are not an SEC team by any means at this moment, but the conference affiliation would open so many recruiting doors that are currently closed to us.

SoCal, I like the way you are thinking.

East Coast Mustang wrote:

SMU_Alumni11 wrote:Cougar high will be the tech of the deal they offered UT and OU. Get better grades and faculty!

No need to be snooty with our UH friends. We're not going to the Pac-12 with them...ever, but we're attached to the hip with them in conference realignment nonetheless. Remember, there was in a time when they were in CUSA and were in the WAC that they were looking down on us.

Lol I know just giving them a hard time like most the people on here after Houston gane with their 7-11 talk. I'm sure if we were invited along with Houston some heads would roll.

Topper wrote:I thought that the PAC 12 tried to match the Big 10's PR gimmick that its schools are all research institutions. If so, we are not in the mix and neither is BYU. I don't think that BYU is too religious, or Air Force too military for the PAC 12, but neither is considered a research institution in the world of academia and consequently dont meet the PAC 12's perception of itself.

I still think that it would be shrewd for the SEC to take us along for the ride. We have demonstrated that we can sell tickets if the opponent is big time and it would be nice for them to have a weekly presence in Dallas. The media attention and corporate sponsorship possibilities here are tremendous. And I think Dallas would be the biggest city with an SEC team. Back in the 90s I recall talks concerning us partnering with Houston in a move from the WAC to the SEC, but our people were afraid of the perception that the SEC is not academically strong. We are not an SEC team by any means at this moment, but the conference affiliation would open so many recruiting doors that are currently closed to us.

Topper, more research

Never Ever thought of Oregon and especially Washington St, Arizona St and Oregon State as anything other than lower mid-tier academic institutions. Will have to look into the research aspect of it. Agree that if it comes to research institution we are woefully behind.

I also think that if the PAC does have to expand to 16, BYU is in.

Lets be real here for a second.

The SEC has about 12 options that are easily better suited for them before they would need to add SMU.

The Big 12 will never add SMU as long as Texas is still in the conference.

The only way we are added to the PAC is if there is some sort of mandate to get to 16. Its not like if they stay at 12 that the system still won't benefit the PAC 12 champion or a 1 loss PAC 12 team. The only way they expand beyond their current membership is if there is some kind of agreement among the four conferences that they MUST get to 16. I just don't see any incentive for the PAC to dilute their brand and add two schools that are geographically isolated from the rest of their conference.

That said, if by some small miracle we rattle off a couple of 9 or 10 win seasons and finish in the Top 20 and our basketball program makes the kind of progress we all think we will make under Larry Brown we should have a fighting chance of landing in a power conference. If we continue to go 6-6 or worse then I don't see us being a factor.

I have enjoyed reading this conversation. I think there is alot of good ideas here.

I came to the same conclusion about the PAC. SMU / Houston provide great markets for the PAC if they wish to expand. That is the big point. What do the PAC AD's and President's want?

I got a note / response from Rick Hart today. This is the most intriguing line:

"Thank you for your note. I appreciate your concern and willingness to assist. As you know, much of this is beyond our control; however, we are doing our best to be proactive to ensure that SMU is well-positioned moving forward."

To me, it does not sound like we have anything in the works. Almost sounds a tad alarming.

But back to the point. IF, big IF here, PAC decides to take teams to go to 16, who would they be? The B12 and ACC will fight to stay alive and relavent. If the PAC steals Texas / OU and crew, SMU would be invited to the B12 (which wouldnt be as good, but still an upgrade). If B12 Stands and goes to 16, The ACC would lose teams and SMU / Houston would go there. Either way, the top 5 conferences will not just sit there if they are raided, and give up. Hell, if the BE hasnt given up, neither would these conferences. There are plenty of situations that would open the door into a top 5 conference. I just hope the stars align and we get lucky again.

Cougar King wrote:If it helps fuel the rumor mill. A PAC-12 rep was at The Rob during the Tulane game this past Saturday. And according to the talking heads along with the rest of the country, we're apparently a package deal so...

Regardless of the **** talking that happens on forums, I do like being tied with Houston.

Maryland needs the Big Ten for money. Rutgers needs the Big Ten for the same reason, and also to escape the giant pit of quicksand known as the Big East.

But every major transaction offers something for both parties, and the Big Ten needs Maryland and Rutgers, too. The Big Ten needs their markets -- Washington, D.C., and New York -- for television and branding purposes, plain and simple.

Does Maryland obtain the D.C. market for the Big Ten? No, of course not. Does Rutgers do the same with New York? Fughetaboutit.

According to The New York Times' Nate Silver -- who, if you followed the latest election, isn't bad at this polling thing -- Rutgers and Maryland don't account for large percentages of sports fans in their respective mega-markets. Silver writes that Rutgers will rank near the bottom of the Big Ten in number of football fans, while Maryland will supplant Northwestern, the Big Ten's only private school, as the smallest football fan base in the league.

Is that a concern? Maybe a little. But the Big Ten didn't add Maryland or Rutgers for their fan bases and certainly not for their athletic prowess in the major sports (sorry, lacrosse fans). It added them for their locations, and what the existing Big Ten brand -- the one that netted a record $284 million in revenue last year and continues to grow despite mostly disappointing on-field results in recent years -- can do with a more frequent presence in these markets.

This isn't about converting pro sports towns such as New York and Washington into college towns. That's not realistic. But the Big Ten already has a sizable presence in those cities, thanks to its alumni bases.

The top two cities for Michigan alumni are, not surprisingly, Detroit and Chicago. The third and fourth? New York and Washington. The top regions for Ohio State alumni outside the Buckeye State are Washington, D.C./northern Virginia and New York. It's the same for much of the Big Ten.

Delany said the Big Ten has approximately 540,000 alumni between northern Virginia and southern New England.

Those are the people who will want the Big Ten Network in their homes. Those are the people who might buy season tickets to Maryland football or Rutgers football just to ensure they see their favorite team in person. Those are the people who help make Big Ten football games some of the most watched in the country, even if they have little to no bearing on the national title chase.

"Whether you're talking expansion or bowl relationships, you're always looking at where your people are," Delany said. "Where you're going to recruit your students, where you're going to recruit your student-athletes, where your alumni live. So every analysis takes into consideration where you are, where you'd like to become stronger, where you can move.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... -is-itself

Because of their locations, schools like SMU and Houston will generate interest.

Still, no one here can make a case for how SMU, or Houston for that matter, expands the pie for the Pac-12 in terms of revenue. Look, I'd love to see us go to the Pac-12 too. It just doesn't make any sense on their end. If you're running a company that makes $1 million a year and has 12 employees, are you going to bring on two extra people who don't produce any extra revenue?