PonyFans.com

SMU 86 wrote:If all the competitive schools leave then that only makes it easier for SMU to go to a BCS bowl when then new BCS arrangement starts in 2014.

Boise St, BYU, SDSU, Fresno, or Potentially Houston or whoever the MWC Champion is would all get the BCS nod over SMU if all of the competitive schools leave.

Unless UH and other schools font leave and BYU joins MWC. That is as much as an of as the BE holding. Pure speculation at this point.

What is the infatuation of the MWC? How do people not see it as the pinnacle conference for future FCS division of football.... I just don't get the logic or lack thereof.

The only thing attractive about the MWC is Boise and stability. But stability is not necessarily a good thing when it has an inferior product to offer.

Treadway21 wrote:The only thing attractive about the MWC is Boise and stability. But stability is not necessarily a good thing when it has an inferior product to offer.

It would be interesting to see if Boise would be much of an attendance draw.........

Yeah. Would have loved to play them, but rather play old SWC rivals. Win or lose still more fun.

I don't understand the panic that SMU is going to be left out in the cold if it doesn't join the MWC. Here's the reality: There will be two premium mid-major conferences no matter what happens: The MWC in the West and The nBE in the East. It's just a matter of SMU committing to one or the other.

The MWC, as is currently comprised, has only one program that gets even a glance from Top 25 voters. And that program, Boise St., just got a sweetheart deal to stay in the MWC. Do you really want to be a in league where Boise St. calls all the shots?

The Big East, at least for now, has Cincinnati and UConn programs that have played in BCS Bowls. But the real future of the eastern league lies in the two Florida schools. UCF, USF or both could really blow up. Those are big schools (in terms of enrollment) in a recruiting hotbed. We couldn't stay on the field athletically with UCF this year, and they will likely get better.

The Big East isn't going to die. It may transform or take a new name, but the Eastern mid-majors will have a league. Schools like UCF and USF will need someplace to go, and it's probably not the Sun Belt. Might as well hitch our wagon to them as much as any of the MWC programs.

Well stated.

With or without UH (who may overreact and run to the MT or PT zones), SMU is a national university and, as a result, is better served long term in the East (CT and ET). I think USF, UCF, Cincinnati, UConn, Temple and Navy are a strong core with big budgets and media markets. Memphis adds quality BB and along with Tulane good road games. ECU will always be competitive.

If San Diego stays, even better, along with another western partner. If not, as well as for UH, backfills near us work. I believe that is why SMU is publically not playing games. I believe the BE is about to feel some stability, despite some further erosion; so we can finally focus on our new conference and mates.

Longtime wrote:I don't understand the panic that SMU is going to be left out in the cold if it doesn't join the MWC. Here's the reality: There will be two premium mid-major conferences no matter what happens: The MWC in the West and The nBE in the East. It's just a matter of SMU committing to one or the other.

The MWC, as is currently comprised, has only one program that gets even a glance from Top 25 voters. And that program, Boise St., just got a sweetheart deal to stay in the MWC. Do you really want to be a in league where Boise St. calls all the shots?

The Big East, at least for now, has Cincinnati and UConn programs that have played in BCS Bowls. But the real future of the eastern league lies in the two Florida schools. UCF, USF or both could really blow up. Those are big schools (in terms of enrollment) in a recruiting hotbed. We couldn't stay on the field athletically with UCF this year, and they will likely get better.

The Big East isn't going to die. It may transform or take a new name, but the Eastern mid-majors will have a league. Schools like UCF and USF will need someplace to go, and it's probably not the Sun Belt. Might as well hitch our wagon to them as much as any of the MWC programs.

I agree with everything besides using the word premium and MWC in the same sentence unless overrated premium mid major conference lol. Not saying big east is a monster but definitely a degree of separation since we kicked the crap out of the co conference champion and "better passing QB than manziel" butt.

Longtime wrote:I don't understand the panic that SMU is going to be left out in the cold if it doesn't join the MWC. Here's the reality: There will be two premium mid-major conferences no matter what happens: The MWC in the West and The nBE in the East. It's just a matter of SMU committing to one or the other.

I don't see any panic; personally, I'm just disappointed at the amount of daylight between SMU and Houston, and the stupidity of SMU apparently telling MWC that Houston is coming with SMU when Houston is apparently, instead, negotiating with MWC.

The NBE is the better choice. Better exposure at reasonable hours, no games at altitude, decent hoops and football slightly better than our current conference. Yes, there will be instability as long as the ACC is unstable. But if the ACC gets fully raided it will ultimately have to decide if it wants to just merge with the NBE. If it does, the Texas TV and recruiting markets will be in our favor.

Hart is in a unique situation - his father is an SEC AD. I would hope he gets some pretty good info regarding realignment from Dad. He likely still has relationships at UNC and OU, as well as the other Big East and CUSA AD's.

I know the Presidents ultimately make the decisions, but I like having Hart and his contacts.

Seems to me that conference realignment is about as honest as some parts of college recruiting. Just because there's a story out that says SMU told MWC "to shove it" doesn't convince me in the slightest that SMU actually told anyone anything of the sort. I assume most of the information floating around out there is, in fact, intentional misinformation.

Pony4Life wrote:Seems to me that conference realignment is about as honest as some parts of college recruiting. Just because there's a story out that says SMU told MWC "to shove it" doesn't convince me in the slightest that SMU actually told anyone anything of the sort. I assume most of the information floating around out there is, in fact, intentional misinformation.

I agree and that "characterization" is actually opinion, not fact or intent necessarily. SMU can hardly be self-righteous or enjoy unrealistic expectations, until we actually deserve them.

Aresco and Hart need to do their jobs. If they so, we will be fine for the immediate future.

Pony Up!