PonyFans.com

No way Stanford will be a member of that suggested conference

redpony wrote:Any ideas on what is going to happen with the PAC? are the remaining teams just going to fold and give up or do they want to add enough other teams to become viable again? Obviously they would need a new media deal and perhaps even a new commissioner.
I suspect time is of the essence.

Not yet. They’re still in shock. But I think they will stick together and add selectively.

Hop Sing wrote:No way Stanford will be a member of that suggested conference

Like SMU those two are a better fit with the ACC.

Stanford just lost its President in a huge academic scandal. They aren't focused on sports right now

Topper wrote:

Hop Sing wrote:No way Stanford will be a member of that suggested conference

Like SMU Cal and Stanford are a better fit with the ACC.

redpony wrote:Any ideas on what is going to happen with the PAC? are the remaining teams just going to fold and give up or do they want to add enough other teams to become viable again? Obviously they would need a new media deal and perhaps even a new commissioner.
I suspect time is of the essence.

They have $420 million to divide among the 4 remaining schools. They can use that money to pay exit fees for the best in the AAC and MWC to join them. I would think that league could land a media deal that pays $8-20 million per team.

mustangxc wrote:

redpony wrote:Any ideas on what is going to happen with the PAC? are the remaining teams just going to fold and give up or do they want to add enough other teams to become viable again? Obviously they would need a new media deal and perhaps even a new commissioner.
I suspect time is of the essence.

They have $420 million to divide among the 4 remaining schools. They can use that money to pay exit fees for the best in the AAC and MWC to join them. I would think that league could land a media deal that pays $8-20 million per team.

Canzano says the remaining 4 sticking together and inviting new friends is exactly what they’ll do.

a few they might want to include- SDSU, SMU, FRESNO ST. and Navy, Army and Air Force. IMO adding the academies would bring fans. Those 6 plus the existing 4 would make a nice, compact conference with decent academics.

redpony wrote:a few they might want to include- SDSU, SMU, FRESNO ST. and Navy, Army and Air Force. IMO adding the academies would bring fans. Those 6 plus the existing 4 would make a nice, compact conference with decent academics.

Travel would be a chore, but getting Army to commit would be harder still. They have charted a course that includes some conference affiliations in some sports, but not football exclusively. They have rejected affiliation in the past.

Again, media is driving this bus...we can align with virtually anybody left, but the media and broadcast package is the key. I would love to be in a conference with Stanford, but who would broadcast? Until that is hashed out, this is a moot point.

I am curious where this "TCU and the Big 12 blackballed us" comes from. TCU has been generally supportive of SMU as evidenced by the continued scheduling of football and basketball every year (or almost every year). Hop Sing gets it: The #1 thing that TCU did which SMU did not was make a concerted effort from the Board of Trustees to the Faculty, to Students, to Alums to support athletics with time, money, and planning. The commitment was felt in every sport. Until you understand that and match that focus, conference affiliation won't matter. I'm not casting stones here, just pointing out what worked in Ft Worth and what is different between our school and yours. Your alumni base needs to use whatever persuasion they have to get a better support model in place, and then good things can follow.

Yes, for about 20 years we self-punished ourselves for getting the death penalty. Before that was handed down we were in the Top 20 every year and were competing for championships. (Remember TCU got the living death penalty about the same time, but didn't punish itself afterward). With NIL, SMU can compete with anyone and that scares other conferences because they know the financial wherewithal we have to bring to getting talent.

TCU Alum wrote:I am curious where this "TCU and the Big 12 blackballed us" comes from. TCU has been generally supportive of SMU as evidenced by the continued scheduling of football and basketball every year (or almost every year). Hop Sing gets it: The #1 thing that TCU did which SMU did not was make a concerted effort from the Board of Trustees to the Faculty, to Students, to Alums to support athletics with time, money, and planning. The commitment was felt in every sport. Until you understand that and match that focus, conference affiliation won't matter. I'm not casting stones here, just pointing out what worked in Ft Worth and what is different between our school and yours. Your alumni base needs to use whatever persuasion they have to get a better support model in place, and then good things can follow.

This is not wrong. But I do feel that SMU. . . very belatedly. . .is finally now getting to that place. I attended the 1997 SMU-TCU game when SMU was playing to make a bowl game and TCU was 0-10 and Pat Sullivan had just been fired. I often think back on that as a real inflection point. Seems like TCU really committed after that and got the job done after many years of hard work. SMU's road, in large part due to the entrenched culture of self-punishment EastStang references, has been a whole lot longer.

TCU Alum wrote:I am curious where this "TCU and the Big 12 blackballed us" comes from. TCU has been generally supportive of SMU as evidenced by the continued scheduling of football and basketball every year (or almost every year). Hop Sing gets it: The #1 thing that TCU did which SMU did not was make a concerted effort from the Board of Trustees to the Faculty, to Students, to Alums to support athletics with time, money, and planning. The commitment was felt in every sport. Until you understand that and match that focus, conference affiliation won't matter. I'm not casting stones here, just pointing out what worked in Ft Worth and what is different between our school and yours. Your alumni base needs to use whatever persuasion they have to get a better support model in place, and then good things can follow.

tcwho is an SMU wannabee. All these
years later the gap remains. Tcwho is
the epitome of a national imbroglio.
63-7 shall live in in infamy.

orguy wrote:tcwho is an SMU wannabee

What SMU football fan would not trade SMU football results with TCU football results over last 15 years?

Aztec, i was on record months ago saying i never really bought into SDSU having a serious B12 option

1) your President received her undergraduate, graduate and PhD degrees from Cal-Berkeley
2) for academic reasons, it was in SDSU’s best interest to be associated with Stanford and especially Cal-Berkeley over the B12
3) SDSU was always a secondary choice for the B12, they greatly preferred the 4-corners over you, as it exactly played out

The Dilemma

B12 was not going to give you a serious look unless the 4-corners rejected them
If the 4-corners rejected them, it means they are staying together and you would therefore go PAC

Brett Yormark knew this all along, you were simply a useful pawn to exert pressure on his ultimate prize(s)

B12 was never going to give us a serious look either, but for different reasons

for both SMU & SDSU, it was PAC or Bust