West Coast Johnny wrote:When you have an 8-5 U-Conn team in the Fiesta bowl - yes the Tallest Midget comment is totally appropriate for the Big East in many years - especially after realignment.
You could say that for a lot of the conferences. Clemson had no place in a game against this year's Big East champ, and yet no one seems to have an issue with the ACC.
True. The AQ designation changes everything. Would SMU have gone to the Big East is it wasn't for the AQ designation? Perhaps yes, but only for money? Perhaps no as C-USA is more regional and better for non-revenue sports? TCU would not have jumped to the Big East had it not been for the AQ designation.
West Coast Johnny wrote:When you have an 8-5 U-Conn team in the Fiesta bowl - yes the Tallest Midget comment is totally appropriate for the Big East in many years - especially after realignment. I've read many times on this board about how unfair the BCS system is. Now that SMU is a BCS wellfare recipient, the tune has changed.
TCU was the "tallest midget" and it was great, wasn't it? We'd do anything short of selling our soul for that kind of of success. TCU was drooling at the BE because joining would guarantee "tallest midget" status every other, if not every year. Now that you're B12 you're going to disparage the BE because a 8-5 team can win?!! You guys are so pompous. The only reason you'd do that is if you still thought you'd get in BCS just as easily and winning the B12 would legitimize you for national champion consideration, which it would. Sorry, but you guys aren't going to touch a national championship as long as Texas and OU are there. Hope for #2 in a TX/OU down year every once in awhile which gets you back to where SMU hopefully will be often, even if it's the "tallest midget". The house of cards falls on us if the BE loses AQ status, then we'd wish we were in the B12, but we didn't get the invite anyway, so why cry about it at that point? The "unfairness" we mentioned on here was that SMU, TCU, UH and Rice were left in the cold after the SWC demise and program like ours have to break our necks to go undefeated to earn the same bowl as a 8-5 UConn or Pitt can, or an 11-2 Nebraska, Texas or Kansas State, etc. That is unfair and I see no conflict with believing this yet being gungho for the BE. You guys didn't either not too long ago.
West Coast Johnny wrote:When you have an 8-5 U-Conn team in the Fiesta bowl - yes the Tallest Midget comment is totally appropriate for the Big East in many years - especially after realignment. I've read many times on this board about how unfair the BCS system is. Now that SMU is a BCS wellfare recipient, the tune has changed.
TCU was the "tallest midget" and it was great, wasn't it? We'd do anything short of selling our soul for that kind of of success. TCU was drooling at the BE because joining would guarantee "tallest midget" status every other, if not every year. Now that you're B12 you're going to disparage the BE because a 8-5 team can win?!! You guys are so pompous. The only reason you'd do that is if you still thought you'd get in BCS just as easily and winning the B12 would legitimize you for national champion consideration, which it would. Sorry, but you guys aren't going to touch a national championship as long as Texas and OU are there. Hope for #2 in a TX/OU down year every once in awhile which gets you back to where SMU hopefully will be often, even if it's the "tallest midget". The house of cards falls on us if the BE loses AQ status, then we'd wish we were in the B12, but we didn't get the invite anyway, so why cry about it at that point? The "unfairness" we mentioned on here was that SMU, TCU, UH and Rice were left in the cold after the SWC demise and program like ours have to break our necks to go undefeated to earn the same bowl as a 8-5 UConn or Pitt can, or an 11-2 Nebraska, Texas or Kansas State, etc. That is unfair and I see no conflict with believing this yet being gungho for the BE. You guys didn't either not too long ago.
You guys are a bit hypersensitive to this issue. The only thing that I am disparaging is the arguement that the Big East is the easier road to the BCS and therefore a better conference for SMU.
West Coast Johnny wrote:When you have an 8-5 U-Conn team in the Fiesta bowl - yes the Tallest Midget comment is totally appropriate for the Big East in many years - especially after realignment. I've read many times on this board about how unfair the BCS system is. Now that SMU is a BCS wellfare recipient, the tune has changed.
TCU was the "tallest midget" and it was great, wasn't it? We'd do anything short of selling our soul for that kind of of success. TCU was drooling at the BE because joining would guarantee "tallest midget" status every other, if not every year. Now that you're B12 you're going to disparage the BE because a 8-5 team can win?!! You guys are so pompous. The only reason you'd do that is if you still thought you'd get in BCS just as easily and winning the B12 would legitimize you for national champion consideration, which it would. Sorry, but you guys aren't going to touch a national championship as long as Texas and OU are there. Hope for #2 in a TX/OU down year every once in awhile which gets you back to where SMU hopefully will be often, even if it's the "tallest midget". The house of cards falls on us if the BE loses AQ status, then we'd wish we were in the B12, but we didn't get the invite anyway, so why cry about it at that point? The "unfairness" we mentioned on here was that SMU, TCU, UH and Rice were left in the cold after the SWC demise and program like ours have to break our necks to go undefeated to earn the same bowl as a 8-5 UConn or Pitt can, or an 11-2 Nebraska, Texas or Kansas State, etc. That is unfair and I see no conflict with believing this yet being gungho for the BE. You guys didn't either not too long ago.
You guys are a bit hypersensitive to this issue. The only thing that I am disparaging is the arguement that the Big East is the easier road to the BCS and therefore a better conference for SMU.
Based on where SMU is program-wise it probably is the better conference for us at this time. Once we reach the next level of success, like TCU, there is no question that the Big XII would be a much better conference for SMU.
Yep...all they have to do is run up to us and invite us in. The B12 was not, is not and probably won't be any time soon an option for us.
SMU's first president, Robert S. Hyer, selected Harvard Crimson and Yale Blue as SMU's colors to symbolize SMU's high academic standards. We are one of the few Universities to have school colors with real meaning...and we just blow them off.
If we want to be a bball school let's kill football and go that way. Otherwise we need Big 12 to play teams people care about and do what is needed to win.
BE is a step up but talking about the SMU vs UCF game is still going to be considered small time when the TCU grad in the office talks about their games vs OU, UT, Tech, etc. in front of capacity crowds in FW
couch 'em wrote:If we want to be a bball school let's kill football and go that way. Otherwise we need Big 12 to play teams people care about and do what is needed to win.
BE is a step up but talking about the SMU vs UCF game is still going to be considered small time when the TCU grad in the office talks about their games vs OU, UT, Tech, etc. in front of capacity crowds in FW
So how exactly do you propose we get in the B12? They have already said no?
SMU's first president, Robert S. Hyer, selected Harvard Crimson and Yale Blue as SMU's colors to symbolize SMU's high academic standards. We are one of the few Universities to have school colors with real meaning...and we just blow them off.
couch 'em wrote:If we want to be a bball school let's kill football and go that way. Otherwise we need Big 12 to play teams people care about and do what is needed to win.
BE is a step up but talking about the SMU vs UCF game is still going to be considered small time when the TCU grad in the office talks about their games vs OU, UT, Tech, etc. in front of capacity crowds in FW
So how exactly do you propose we get in the B12? They have already said no?
Read the name of the thread. We are discussing 'if we are invited'
couch 'em wrote:If we want to be a bball school let's kill football and go that way. Otherwise we need Big 12 to play teams people care about and do what is needed to win.
BE is a step up but talking about the SMU vs UCF game is still going to be considered small time when the TCU grad in the office talks about their games vs OU, UT, Tech, etc. in front of capacity crowds in FW
So how exactly do you propose we get in the B12? They have already said no?
Read the name of the thread. We are discussing 'if we are invited'
If Nick Saban wants to coach SMU, should we hire him?
couch 'em wrote:If we want to be a bball school let's kill football and go that way. Otherwise we need Big 12 to play teams people care about and do what is needed to win.
BE is a step up but talking about the SMU vs UCF game is still going to be considered small time when the TCU grad in the office talks about their games vs OU, UT, Tech, etc. in front of capacity crowds in FW
So how exactly do you propose we get in the B12? They have already said no?
Read the name of the thread. We are discussing 'if we are invited'
OK, but your first sentence sounded like you were saying that we needed to make some kind of decision now.
SMU's first president, Robert S. Hyer, selected Harvard Crimson and Yale Blue as SMU's colors to symbolize SMU's high academic standards. We are one of the few Universities to have school colors with real meaning...and we just blow them off.
CalallenStang wrote:Disclaimer: This thread was started by BB#2...for some reason, his post is no longer there and it looks like I started the thread. I didn't.
CalallenStang wrote:Disclaimer: This thread was started by BB#2...for some reason, his post is no longer there and it looks like I started the thread. I didn't.
The B12 was not, is not and probably won't be any time soon an option for us.
