PonyFans.com

I think this article already confirms what many of us here already know (except the MWC yappers.) The Big East is done but if we have a good showing for a few years we'll then get snatched up by the dying ACC or a big conference if they're desperate enough. We offer modest revenues and potential especially as one of the few remaining "market schools" left.

MWC offers virtually no money and we get to kiss Boise's [deleted] in a similar setup as the Big 12 does with Texas revenue wise.

Anchor schools BYU, TCU, Utah are gone and all that's left are lower tier MWC schools and a few mediocre WAC transients.

That is not a conference we should accept and we have every right to reject that [deleted]. While it was bad for us to do it publicly so soon PR wise, it's obvious that neither fans nor the administration believes the new WAC should be our final destination.

We joined the WAC in the 90's because we had no other choice and were begging for a conference. let's not repeat history if there is potential for a better option.

Please stop with the BYU talk. When will people realize that BYU is not changing course to join MWC.

MWC will always be there for us if everything truly does fall apart.

MWC has had ONE call up to the big leagues in Utah. Big East is the real call-up league - WV, LV, Rutgers, TCU, Pitt, Cuse, Miami, VT, BC, etc.

The choice is clear.

Treadway21 wrote:

WE ARE BACK wrote:

Johnny Utah wrote:Plano Stang, the only joke is your love for our AD and the Big East.

Both are dated and need to go... Time to have our one year of Glory in 2013 and then its off to the Mountains to join both sets Cougs and Broncos... Go West Young Man.

You got that from me.

Yep... That's why I put it... Should have used " "

The 2 biggest arguments against the MWC (which IMO are dispositive) are the following:

1. MOUNTAIN STANDARD TIME, and

2. PACIFIC STANDARD TIME

Going west to anything not called the PAC-12 is to sentence yourself to media purgatory. Looking east, even to a vastly diminshed BE, is the right play for SMU at this time. When the [deleted] hits the fan for the ACC, we want to have that eastern footprint. If you go west, you're just hoping that at some point the PAC will decide to expand again and take you. We've gone over that possibility a lot on this board and I won't re-hash it all here. But I am in the camp that thinks the PAC will never have any interest in a Texas school not called The University of Texas at Austin. We do not fit the PAC profile in any way, shape or form. Got to look east and bide our time until the next opportunity arises.

On another note, wouldn't it be great if we win the BE next season and grab that BCS bid. Not that it will happen, but you know. . .just sayin'.

On another note, wouldn't it be great if we win the BE next season and grab that BCS bid. Not that it will happen, but you know. . .just sayin'.

It would be both great & hilarious!!!

Especially for the schools that ran away from our entry into the nBE - Pitt, Syracuse & the list goes on.

ponyinNC wrote:

MWC has had ONE call up to the big leagues in Utah. Big East is the real call-up league - WV, LV, Rutgers, TCU, Pitt, Cuse, Miami, VT, BC, etc.
The choice is clear.

Yes, I remember the Glory of TCU athletics in the Big East - Best two and a half weeks of my life.

Our best chance is to do the one thing that SMU is best at, Spending money. Johnny Utah's plan is the only way we will ever get into a top tier conference. I know it's easy to spend other people's money, but we are what we are, a school with some very wealthy boosters and friends.

I don't see a major conference turning down $100M and I sure we have good enough lawyers to structure a contract with a loophole or two we can use later if needed.

What's in it for the the "very wealthy boosters and friends"? What return do they get? It's one thing to raise $2 million+ a year for a coach, but really $100 million just for the hell of it? What's in it for them? It's easy for us to sit around and say "hey throw $100 million at the situation, that'll make things better", the reality is more money rarely solves the problem. How does giving say the ACC (because we have no chance of landing into any other conference) $100 million make us more competitive on the field? We didn't exactly dominate this year. If I was a "very wealth booster or friend" I'd tell you to [deleted] off with that non-sense. I'd rather give SMU $100 million directly to their athletic bugdet and build anything they want, higher the best coaches they want and then worry about things. Think Nick Saban would turn down $10-15 million a year? That alone would be better money spent. And if he turned you down, there would be a line out the door of coaches ready to come to the hilltop.

Reality folks, throwing other people's money at the problem isn't going to solve this.

And what is the cost of getting to the top level? We have seen that two mill. will only get us mediocrity. Is the school really committed to getting to the top or is that just 'lip service'?

ericdickerson4life wrote:What's in it for the the "very wealthy boosters and friends"? What return do they get? It's one thing to raise $2 million+ a year for a coach, but really $100 million just for the hell of it? What's in it for them? It's easy for us to sit around and say "hey throw $100 million at the situation, that'll make things better", the reality is more money rarely solves the problem. How does giving say the ACC (because we have no chance of landing into any other conference) $100 million make us more competitive on the field? We didn't exactly dominate this year. If I was a "very wealth booster or friend" I'd tell you to [deleted] off with that non-sense. I'd rather give SMU $100 million directly to their athletic bugdet and build anything they want, higher the best coaches they want and then worry about things. Think Nick Saban would turn down $10-15 million a year? That alone would be better money spent. And if he turned you down, there would be a line out the door of coaches ready to come to the hilltop.

Reality folks, throwing other people's money at the problem isn't going to solve this.

While the plan isn't perfect, using our wealthy boosters to make our program legitimate is the only shot we have. Quite frankly, it is surprising that he haven't tried this already. Baylor is in the Big 12 strictly because of political connections... Nobody is chomping at the bit to include a privite university in Waco Texas in their confrence.(especially considering where they were at the time the Big 12 formed) Amazingly enough, Baylor is now one of the strongest members of the conference when looking at their Athletic department in totality. Fact of the matter is, we are a wealthy school with wealthy alumni that are connected throughout Texas and beyond. We have a Presidential library almost completed and are in the heart of Dallas,Texas. The days of 50,000+ fans coming to see SMU are not coming back anytime soon. Therefore, the only way we become relevant is to use money/connections coupled with our location to entice someone to take a flyer on us. If we can sneak into a situation like that, we should be able to have as much success if not more than Baylor. Problem is, I find it very hard to believe that we will ever be in that situation.

smubrooks wrote:Our best chance is to do the one thing that SMU is best at, Spending money. Johnny Utah's plan is the only way we will ever get into a top tier conference. I know it's easy to spend other people's money, but we are what we are, a school with some very wealthy boosters and friends.

I don't see a major conference turning down $100M and I sure we have good enough lawyers to structure a contract with a loophole or two we can use later if needed.

I can see the DMN headline and pic now:

SMU Student Body President Presents B12 With Entry Fees

Is that Mary-Jane for UT?

smubrooks wrote:Our best chance is to do the one thing that SMU is best at, Spending money. Johnny Utah's plan is the only way we will ever get into a top tier conference. I know it's easy to spend other people's money, but we are what we are, a school with some very wealthy boosters and friends.

I don't see a major conference turning down $100M and I sure we have good enough lawyers to structure a contract with a loophole or two we can use later if needed.

Hire Saban! 10-mil per oughta do it.

Johnny Utah wrote:Plano Stang, the only joke is your love for our AD and the Big East.

me agree.

Here's what the boosters could get (and I'm not suggesting boosters be our first option for the money): 5 years into the deal when SMU might start to get a percentage of the tv contract pie, the money would first go to paying back the boosters with interest if they so choose to collect. Also, even if SMU never gets any percentage of the pie, if SMU became a nationally popular brand as a result of their association with the conference, there would be other revenue from which to pay back the boosters, i.e. merchandise.

However, what if we just borrowed the money from say a bank like everyone else? If it all backfires, don't we have like 1.4 billion in an endowment.

Paying a coach a ton of money is not going to get us into a major conference. How does that help the conference? HHHMMM let me take a team with Nick Saban at head coach (thus impacting the member teams recruiting) and share the revenue with that team.

If you were a member of the ACC, would you accept the following proposal:

1. Get paid 10 million to let a team in.

2. The team will be a punching bag and not impact recruiting.

3. Increase exposure in Texas by sending teams like Florida St. to Dallas to play.

4. The conference does not have to share TV revenue with the new member or a small percentage.