PonyFans.com

The only answer is us ending up in the PAC, given the follow prerequisites:

1. PAC feels compelled to move to 16.
2. Big12 does not explode.

First let's look at the prereqs:

1. We have to assume the PAC is moving to 16. Obviously the Big10 is moving 16 as we speak, and the ACC is talking to at least 3 big east teams. This signals that they believe they will be raided yet again. We all remember the rumors going around about several ACC teams in talk with the Big12, and that talk is coming back again. If Big10, Big12, and SEC move to 16, the PAC must as well.

2. Nobody has been talking about any Big12 teams defecting, and their media rights deal is pretty ironclad keeping teams except Texas put. Doubtful Texas goes anywhere. This conference is stable and will go to 16.

Now if #1 and #2 are true, what does that mean?

I had hoped that we could be a candidate for the SEC. Yes, it would be an ultra longshot, but it would give a second base of power in Texas to maximize the addition of Texas A&M. With the ACC exploding, it looks like there will be better targets for the SEC to pick up unless they just want Dallas. Theoretically possible, but just unlikely.

So this means all 3 major conferences other than PAC are looking east. They are raiding ACC and BE schools and will stabilize at 16. Where will PAC get schools?

It is clear all that matters in expansion is media market. Do we have a media market?

Some will point out that we don't draw flies. This doesn't matter for two reasons.
1. There aren't really any other teams west of the Mississippi not already in the Big12 or Big10 that have great attendance except BYU
2. It is about TV sets, not what team is being rooted for. If there are plenty of PAC alumni in the DFW metroplex, and there are tons, they are no different from SMU fans from a media market/media contract perspective. Thus, as far as PAC (or Big12, or SEC) media deal is concerned, we have a huge following.

So since we DO have a huge and strong media market, what is our competition for the final PAC slots?

We can make a strong assumption that any teams they take must be west of the Mississippi. To go any farther east would require taking a block of 4 schools to be worth it, and it is unlikely they could find four such solid media markets not already going to be taken by the other conferences.

So looking at markets west of the mississippi, what do we have available that isn't garbage?

DFW
Houston
BYU(national)
Air Force (national)
Las Vegas
Colorado State (Maybe?)
California Schools
San Antonio

You can immediately throw out any new Colorado or California schools. You can likely throw out BYU, as they are seen as just too religious for Cali schools to handle. Is Air Force too military?

Of all these, the clear top 2 choices are DFW and Houston. TCU isn't leaving the Big 12, and we clearly bring a huge advantage over NTSU, so the top two expansion targets for PAC must therefore be SMU and Houston.

When you factor in recruiting grounds I'm not sure even BYU could edge us out, if they were palatable.

Myths about SMU and Houston:

1. Houston doesn't have the academics. Come on, PAC took Arizona schools. Houston isn't ideal but their academics aren't likely to be a deal breaker in my book. Hard to predict this.
2. SMU is too religious. As much as some old-timers and hardcore religious types wish it were otherwise, SMU isn't a religious institution. If it were I wouldn't have had two very "nice" girls living right across the hall from me in the dorms 12 years ago. SMU is a secular school with a methodist founding, just like USC. We just also have a theology school that is as much history/criticism based than anything that could be considered promoting the Methodist dogma. We would fit in just fine. We even have nearly as many disgusting california imports as disgusting yankee imports in school at SMU.

If we are headed to 4x16, SMU is headed west, likely with our new main rival Houston.

If we weren't so desperate I would say screw the PAC. The fact they have a problem with religious schools is sickening. I hope one day those California nutjobs have a taste of own "tolerance" medicine. Couch'em unfortunately you look to be right. They are the only hope however it's weird they haven't been in any of the gossip since they feel so stable as-is. I rather us be in big 12 or SEC but neither of those conferences are looking for a vandy or Baylor.

If the recent Big 10 move indicates how conferences are looking to expand geographically for recruits and future students as opposed to just fans...PAC to Dallas and thus SMU actually makes a lot of sense.

Seems like triumph of hope over reason though...

I doubt the PAC feels compelled past 12 unless a tv network makes it profitable.

WordUpBU wrote:I doubt the PAC feels compelled past 12 unless a tv network makes it profitable.

True, they're not going to dilute their brand by adding a bunch of parasites that happen to be in big markets.

sbsmith wrote:

WordUpBU wrote:I doubt the PAC feels compelled past 12 unless a tv network makes it profitable.

True, they're not going to dilute their brand by adding a bunch of parasites that happen to be in big markets.

Exactly, as an athletic department, we are not bringing much to the table right now..

Rutgers added to the Big10 brand?

couch 'em wrote:Rutgers added to the Big10 brand?

I understand your argument and partially agree with it, but the Rutgers brand is huge compared to ours. Rutgers may not have added much to the B1G brand, but they would hurt that brand much less than we would hurt the PAC12 brand. I don't mean to be a debbie downer, but SMU hasn't done anything to justify getting a sniff from any major conference. I don't even want to begin feeding myself any delusions of possible invitations either.

It is all about tv if they expand and getting into a new time zone. PAC had an issue with the byu religious thing but was also concerned academically. That is the hold up with Houston.

From a PAC perspective, a partnership with rice makes more sense than houston in some ways, but either way I think it is a long shot. They want to get into Texas but I think they may hold out for bigger schools. The big 12 would have to expand first and show it is around for the long term before they would even sniff our way.

The one thing going for us is that the reach into Texas worked for the sec. Others may attempt to emulate that.

couch 'em wrote:Rutgers added to the Big10 brand?

Rutgers is a large AAU research university in the nation's #1 market and they're currently outdrawing and outperforming several Big 10 schools in football. They definitely added to the Big 10 brand.

riddle me this, if Rutgers is such an obvious prize, why were they passed over by the ACC in two full rounds of expansion? ACC took Boston College, Va Tech, Miami, Pitt, Cuse etc and not Rutgers. That's sort of like the Big East passing on Tulsa two or three times, and then the Big 12 inviting them. Really shows that a schools potential is really in the eye of the beholder.

I think couch 'em is right.

Samurai Stang wrote:I think couch 'em is right.

i think Couch em is really Larry Scott and his posts have been a carefully planned ruse this whole time.

Everyone needs to get real comfortable with the Southland Conference.

Hoop Fan wrote:riddle me this, if Rutgers is such an obvious prize, why were they overlooked by the ACC in two full rounds of expansion? ACC took Boston College, Va Tech, Miami, Pitt, Cuse etc and not Rutgers. That's sort of like the Big East passing on Tulsa, and then the Big 12 inviting them. Really shows that a schools potential is really in the eye of the beholder.

I didn't say Rutgers was an obvious prize but they did fit the Big 10s profile. You're right about a school's potential being in the eye of the beholder, but honestly I don't see why the Pac-12 would bother splitting their take with a bunch of parasite schools while the other conferences are making quality adds and enhancing their brands. Maybe Larry Scott is a generous guy who likes underdogs.