35straight II wrote:Why does everyone keep mentioning Rice in these new scenarios? Being associated with Rice does not help SMU.
TCU admittedly did well all by themselves and thinking only of themselves, as they should have, when they were in the MWC. But there is no guarantee that long term being alone on that island would have continued to be the best option for them. I feel that 3 is the maximum amount of schools that can be in the same state in the same conference before it becomes harmful to those schools and the conference. So 4 in the Big 12 is a bad idea and has been forever and Houston was a horrible mistake to add. The SWC was going to be a disaster no matter what. Four Texas teams in the AAC is a disaster. Four NC teams in the ACC is detrimental. Four teams from Florida in the SEC or ACC would be horrible. Five teams in Ohio in the MAC is extremely bad. Four Texas teams in the CUSA is bad and 4 California teams in the PAC 8-12 has always been bad.
With that said a single team in Texas in a conference that has to have members on the far west coast, in the eastern part of Mountain Time, and possibly into Central Time or even Eastern Time is going to be problematic. TCU had the advantage of being the unique team that was not one of the 4 Texas teams in the Big 12 or one of the bunch of Texas teams in the CUSA. In addition UTEP and north Texas state were wondering out in the wilderness and north Texas state especially was totally sucking. Texas State and UTSA were not in D1-A or in the case of UTSA even playing football. Sam Houston had not stupidly moved up and Houston and SMU were lost in the CUSA and just, barely, going through the motions.
So TCU did not have a lot of competition and being unique while actually investing in athletics paid off for them while others wandered aimlessly. Or in the case of Houston cried about Texas and vilified Baylor and Tech for taking action while investing nothing in their program and playing in dumps for facilities and demanding to be let into the Big 12.
Today is a lot different situation and you are still having to deal with the academic snobbery of Cal and Stanford that are simply not going to go down the list and add Boise, UNLV, Fresno, Memphis, SMU, and two more randos that have some "recruiting grounds", some fleeting success, or some short term academic side subsidies to inflate their budget.
I am not sure who you think is available, much less that meets any academic criteria that Cal and Stanford will want or that is not so far flung the conference would be senseless.
Are you thinking that:
Stanford
Cal
WSU
Oregon State
SDSU
CSU
SMU
Temple
Buffalo
UConn
USF
Air Force
Is that going to work?
Or:
Stanford
Cal
WSU
Oregon State
SDSU
Fresno
SJSU
UNLV
CSU
Air Force
Boise
SMU
Or sub out Nevada for SJSU. Are you excited by that?
Or:
Cal
Stanford
WSU
Oregon State
CSU
SDSU
Memphis
USF
Temple
Tulane
UConn
Tulsa
If you are starting with:
Cal
Stanford
WSU
Oregon State
SMU
Well there is five. Who is next out of Boise, Nevada, UNLV, SJSU, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, USF, UConn, Rice, Hawaii, Fresno, CSU, New Mexico, Air Force, Army, or Navy?
Every single one of them comes with at least one fan base asking "what why them" of not several asking that. From there you are getting into Buffalo, ECU, Wyoming, ECU, NIU, NMSU, Utah State, UTSA, or God forbid north Texas state if you are trying to talk about something academic, Buffalo, or some perception of "markets", NIU that do not exist, or again God forbid "potential".
I am pretty sure that if SMU tries to push to be a singular program on their own island in Texas there is a better than average chance that others will push to have a pair in their area or a small group in their larger geographic area and a single team on an island might find themselves alone on that island and not in the PAC X. Or worse yet still slumming with the "sleeping giant that everyone is scared of" in Denton.
