PonyFans.com

More grist for the mill:

A friend who is an active Liberty Bowl volunteer spoke with a BigTx AAD a year or so ago. Topic was conference expansion. The AAD told him that Memphis and Cincinnati were begging for admission, but it would never happen. Both schools are viewed as commuter schools with middling academics and therefore not viewed as a good fit for the conference. Houston wasn't discussed, but I assume it falls into the same commuter school bucket. The AAD did say that SMU was a possibility if the football program became competitive again.

I just don't see Texas ever signing off on us into the Big 12.

We've got 2 1\2 more hours until April Fools. I'm sure some doozies are coming....

LA_Mustang wrote:We've got 2 1\2 more hours until April Fools. I'm sure some doozies are coming....

Good reminder...

Thanks for posting BU. Sincerely, I appreciate the well thought out post and the objective viewpoint. You're a welcome poster.

Oh, but by the way, [deleted] Baylor!!!

Cheers

Boone Pickens wants us in the Big 12, "but (we) aren't competitive"

Boone Pickens wants to see the old SWC come back. Ain't ever going to happen.

I'm curious why Boone Pickens is always quoted by the media whenever there are realignment issues in college sports. I think every prediction I've ever seen him make on the subject has been wrong. Remember the "I think the Aggies are coming to their senses" quote?

As far as my general thoughts on realignment, I'll believe SMU will be asked to join a P-5 conference when I see it. Our best bet right now is to kick as much [deleted] in the AAC as we can. The rest of it is out of our control.

Personally, I think the PAC-12 is totally out of the question. I don't see that conference having the slightest interest in SMU, ever. If the PAC-12 comes to Texas, it will be because they got UT. No UT, no PAC-12 in Texas. . . period.

Big-12 won't take us unless their conference is melting down and they are desperate. Big-12 already owns our media market. Any version of the Big-12 that we are asked to join would, in my opinion, probably not include UT or OU. And the Big-12 without UT and OU is not the Big-12.

The SEC would be a decent fit geographically and would be completely amaze-balls (for us). But it will never happen. We don't fit their profile in the least and they already have a very strong foothold in DFW due to the huge numbers of A&M, Arky, and LSU alumni who live here. SEC has zero interest in "Vanderbildt West".

Big-10 will never take us. Too many reasons to list here.

ACC. . .Our school profile actually fits with some of their members (Duke, Wake). It's a great Bball conf., and spans an area of the country that I think would be attractive to SMU. If there is ever a chance that a P-5 conference, AS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED, will take SMU, I think the best chance would be the ACC. Now "best" is a relative term here, because I frankly think the chances are not good. But it seems more realistic to me than any of the other pie in sky PAC-12 invite scenarios we see tossed around here.

Just my two cents. The subject of "realignment rumblings", by definition, is nothing more than rank speculation. . . which is all I'm doing.

There already is a school in the PAC 12 founded by the Methodist church. USC.

EastStang wrote:There already is a school in the PAC 12 founded by the Methodist church. USC.

Yep but they

1) Severed their ties
2) Don't have Methodist in their name

WordUpBU wrote:

Pony Boss wrote:

WordUpBU wrote:One thing to remember about media markets and realignment:

1- A school has to generate big local ratings in that market for it to be lucrative to a league, and not just in an "up" year. How is a team going to do with 6-6 year ratings?

2- The exception to this is if a league has a network they can get money due to large numbers of DEDICATED alumni forcing local providers to carry it at a high cost per subscriber (carriage fees)

So big state flagships with huge alumni bases like UMD & Rutgers can pull off the carriage fee thing (with a ton of help from Big Ten school alumni living in their home markets) but smaller fanbases don't do as well. TCU was a perrenial bcs buster in waiting and couldn't get the MWC's network wide coverage in DFW and couldn't get a high rate where they did get it on tv in DFW.

It's not just "pick team in market A and charge 50 cents per cable tv subscriber". You need leverage with the cable providers and ratings for the over air broadcasts.

1) Where would Baylor fall in this? Waco is not that great of a TV market and neither BU, TCU and SMU combined get to the number of UT, Aggie or Tech alum in DFW.

Please understand I am not talking crap on SMU, Temple, UH, etc.

1- We'd do better than most here would expect but not well enough right now to merit an invitation had we been left out barring unique circumstances. The same issue over duplicating markets would apply.

1b- Actually BU, TT, and SMU all have just north of around 40k alumni in the metroplex. A&M is a tad over 50k. UT I think is higher but they, OU, and to a lesser extent A&M draw a lot of t shirt support. TCU has around 26k if I remember correctly. The alumni count isn't the issue, it's the extra t shirt fans for Ut/A&M and the west texas expats (TT) and Okie expats that drive any real edge in support over your school and mine in DFW which dwarves the alumni gaps considerably. With that said BU does pretty well in DFW, Centex, Austin, SA, and Houston tv ratings. We aren't anywhere near the Goliath of UT but we do respectably given time slots, opponent, competing games, and record.

You and TCU got in through other criteria than the one you are saying will be imposed on us. TCU and BU bring 0 value using this criteria that you just mentioned...essentially making you both freeloaders of the other publics.

2a- BU, TCU, Tech, OSU, and KSU largely duplicate market share their state flagships cover. Not any disagreement there.

2b- Tech also got in literally the exact way BU did with politics crashing what would have been a 10 team league according to TT's AD at the time. It wasn't a 12 team idea until Bob Bullock got involved.

2c- TCU's inclusion had everything to do with contract obligations (needed a 10th team FAST) and the fact that BYU, UL, WV were slow playing. Their ratings/wins made them appealing after those 3 but the opportunity they made the most of doesn't occur if 2 of the above list could/would move quick.


Either way I don't want to derail this any further. If you want to debate this with me I am happy to private message it as I'd prefer not to take this thread off course beyond this reply.

SMU has a lot of potential if they can consistently capture dallas TV sets in a big way. Morris appears to be turning things around and if he gets football as "in" as LB has hoops watch out.

BYU and Louisville were desperate for a P5 invite and would have taken less than a nano second to say yes. WVU probably as well although I think they were hoping ACC. Also, the Big 12 didn't have a set time constraint. The problem was the network partners had to approve the additions, and feel they were getting equal value for the losses, or the contract would need to be renegotiated. True story versus your made up stuff.

I guess you missed the statement from the chairman of the search committee, president of KU I believe, when she said they kept proposing names and the network partners kept bringing the conversation back to TCU. In the end it was clear who they needed.

In the end, Deloss had to tell Baylor and tech, the two that didn't want TCU in, to sit down, shut up and color. And here we are.

If SMU can get their [deleted] together on the field and be a top 25 program they will bring more to a conference than Baylor by a mile.

froglicious wrote:
BYU and Louisville were desperate for a P5 invite and would have taken less than a nano second to say yes. WVU probably as well although I think they were hoping ACC. Also, the Big 12 didn't have a set time constraint. The problem was the network partners had to approve the additions, and feel they were getting equal value for the losses, or the contract would need to be renegotiated. True story versus your made up stuff.

I guess you missed the statement from the chairman of the search committee, president of KU I believe, when she said they kept proposing names and the network partners kept bringing the conversation back to TCU. In the end it was clear who they needed.

In the end, Deloss had to tell Baylor and tech, the two that didn't want TCU in, to sit down, shut up and color. And here we are.

The story I have heard from many people who seem very plugged in is that it went:

BYU- Tv rebroadcast issues, wanting to be fair to WCC, and Sunday issues they wanted written assurances on. Fox had issues w/ some of that leading B12 to move on instead of bog down.

WV/Pitt/UL- All had two year obligation to Big East they'd have to fight in court and slow played. WV/Pitt tried to package together to ACC and B12 but Pitt took ACC bid with Cuse.

TCU- No obligation due to not officially joining BE and also met with Network approval.

At the very least TCU's bid was aided by contract issues with the others. Also I have heard nothing that supports BU opposing TCU's entry. In 2011 we needed a 10th team and were fighting to keep the league like mad. Tech may have due to political assurances of soft landings if things went bad for the league but we didn't. The added bonus of replacing a primary hated rival with another primary hated rival was a plus.

What SMU needs to do is develop the brand & following to when another opportunity to step in shows up they can capitalize. The GOR agreements with all tees conferences likely stabilize the P5 over the next decade and that gives SMU time for a superior recruiting ground and budget to leverage success against the AAC the way TCU did it in CUSA/MWC. It's all about putting yourself in position to strike. I do think SMU has more potential than UH unless UH's housing expansions can dramatically impact their fan/alumni/donor base makeup. UH is a lot like UNT where there are TONS of alumni locally but they don't support at a very high participation rate whereas schools like the Big12 schools (including BU/TCU/ISU/KSU) do a really good job at getting a solid amount of support at getting students connected to the school when they become alumni. Culturally SMU is much closer to the Big 12 in alumni interest and if football explodes that would likely pay quicker dividends than UH.

If we were allowed to pick which P5 to join, PAC 12 hands down. But we would love to be in the Big 12 if that opportunity arose.

TCU seems offended by the idea their selection was anything other than the networks dying for them. It was clearly a need by Big 12 to add a team to keep the network from slamming them. They were the best available unencumbered choice. They should embrace that - what made them the best choice available was their record of success and their DFW location. That is exactly what we are trying to do so we are the next best option when someone needs a team - and I wouldn't care if they were in a panic or not when they made the choice as long as we got the life line.

WordUpBU wrote:BYU- Tv rebroadcast issues, wanting to be fair to WCC, and Sunday issues they wanted written assurances on. Fox had issues w/ some of that leading B12 to move on instead of bog down.

The BYU Athletic Director should be drawn and quartered for this epic fail. BYU over-estimated the strength of the cards they were holding and made 3rd tier broadcast demands for their precious LDS-TV channel as if they were the Longhorns. They started to believe there own propaganda that BYU was the next Notre Dame as an independent so they were inflexible in the negotiations. IMO the Sunday play thing wasn't that big of a deal. So BYU sat on these laurels and the Big 12 gave the finger to Provo and invited TCU instead - LoL.

CargoGunki wrote:Still a better chance to go P5 than SMU.

UH and their 500 fans huh