Just for the record, I'm not advocating that SMU be the 10th school invited to the BE. I don't have a favorite school at this time. However, I think SMU deserved to be part of the conservation along with the usual suspects...

10Mountain Wrote:
A Houston fan thinks HOUSTON is the best choice???
______________________________________________
That's right my little grasshopper

I think SMU would be a good addition to the Big East. I think you get a few more TV sets in the DFW area as well as a pretty decent little rivalry. Like others have mentioned, they have a stadium in place that seats around 32K. They had almost 36K for the TCU game and they have the ability to expand to 45K if needed. They are also pouring 80 mil into their basketball arena.

SMU football stadium.

Moody Coliseum renovation.

(04-30-2011 05:27 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 05:13 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 04:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 04:13 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  What is the tipping point a program would have to bring to not have their academic deficiencies but have a plan in place to upgrade that area. Would adding 1/2 mil to a mil a year per team in football be enough. For example ECU or Memphis if they boost the tv contract from 9.5 to 10 or even up to 11 vs SMU only bringing a small bump if at all?

What is your minimum amount boost plus academic short term and long term goals for that school?

Are you sure that Memphis or ECU would bring more money than SMU? From a football point of view, I would say that SMU and ECU were equivalent in 2009 and 2010, and Memphis royally sucked during this time period. Of course, Memphis has BB as an enticement that would be better quality athletically than either FB or BB at SMU and ECU. If a 10th school is added to the BE and the conference does not split, Memphis does not bring much of anything to the conference at all, so I would say that ECU and SMU should rank higher than Memphis on athletics alone.

So if we look at SMU vs ECU, we see that ECU has the better cred in football over the last decade; however, SMU has the better market and are located in a better recruiting ground overall. In light of this, I would not be sure that ECU could add more value to an ESPN contract than ECU. When you compare academics, it is clear that SMU ranks better. I didn't mean to draw this response out, but the bottom line is that I don't think it is a given that ECU would make the BE more money than SMU. So with that in mind, I think the academic comparison you put forth is moot and you go for the obviously better school. Memphis shouldn't even rate consideration in a hybrid BE conf; however, they should be given serious consideration in the event of a split. That would be a game changer.

Getting back to the question at hand, take out the 3 schools I listed and put in 3 schools without a name.....now answer the original question.

So your question is what is more important, $1 million/school more in revenue and questionable academics or the no additional money per school but good academics? Honestly, that is a hard question for me to answer because it would not take into account the potential benefits from intangible items such as how enrollments may be affected via school affiliation, recruiting, etc. At the end of the day, I suppose the money in hand would be better, so the school that would build the contract more should get the nod. However, your assumptions may not bear any water, and SMU may very well enhance the payout on a per team basis and have the better academics. For all we know, ECU may have less money per school and worse academics. We don't know.

My original question also included the program with a low standard academic profile would ALSO have to submit their plan short term and long term to better their profile.

But I agree, its possible that an SMU may have the better all around profile than ECU already....but I tend to think even as crappy as Memphis football is, they would trump both SMU and ECU in market attraction and willing to pay more per television set. and all the other bells and whistles that would come with them. I completely understand academics should and do play a role, and UL has strengthen its profile alot with the Big East jump. But I'm on board with a program that has a plan in place and shows they are hitting milestones along the way in one area (academics) of being graded for an invite....as well as hitting milestones in another (football/facilities).

At this point, I'm up for seeing what UMass and Deleware could bring to the table as well......as a fan I can wait to see what program(s) stick out in a year or two, as long as we don't sign the ESPN contract to early....and the possibility of a split is talked about.

SMU probably falls into a similar size/sucess category as most other expansion candidates and would also be great to have onboard. So it really becomes a matter of footprint. If Pitt and Rutgers are the main anti-Nova voices (who just happen to be the closest to Nova), USF does not want UCF in (I don't believe it, nor have seen any evidence, but many claim it...), WV would NEVER want Marshall in... the common thread is proximity. Seems concensus is to spread the conference out a bit, not step on toes, expand the footprint to bona-fide new areas. It's interesting to then be debating SMU, a school well within the 'metro' area of an existing member. I don't know Dallas/FW area well, and I did appreciate the interesting comments above about the differences. Think it would boil down to what the Frogs have to say about this... maybe they don't want a competitor in their back yard, or maybe they like a travel partner. I really have no idea, but based on the examples above I'd guess the former. For my 2 cents though: I really think Houston is the choice for further Texas expansion. Separate metro area, #4 market, 5hr separation from TCU but close enough to help travel costs. Seems logical to me, they just have to get that stadium going.

(04-30-2011 05:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Just for the record, I'm not advocating that SMU be the 10th school invited to the BE. I don't have a favorite school at this time. However, I think SMU deserved to be part of the conservation along with the usual suspects...

I am gonna agree with you on this. SMU absolutely deserves to be in expansion talks. Not because of the last 20 years but because of what they bring now and in the future. The problem is there are not enough slots open if conferences stay at 12. But I agree 100%. They have a great coach and are on their way to some big things.
You do not have a favorite school at this time? So are you gonna wait til 8 games in the season and jump on a wagon? I recommend you become a New Mexico State fan. The other 16 fans they have will be thrilled.

(04-30-2011 06:40 PM)Bull Wrote:  SMU probably falls into a similar size/sucess category as most other expansion candidates and would also be great to have onboard. So it really becomes a matter of footprint. If Pitt and Rutgers are the main anti-Nova voices (who just happen to be the closest to Nova), USF does not want UCF in (I don't believe it, nor have seen any evidence, but many claim it...), WV would NEVER want Marshall in... the common thread is proximity. Seems concensus is to spread the conference out a bit, not step on toes, expand the footprint to bona-fide new areas. It's interesting to then be debating SMU, a school well within the 'metro' area of an existing member. I don't know Dallas/FW area well, and I did appreciate the interesting comments above about the differences. Think it would boil down to what the Frogs have to say about this... maybe they don't want a competitor in their back yard, or maybe they like a travel partner. I really have no idea, but based on the examples above I'd guess the former. For my 2 cents though: I really think Houston is the choice for further Texas expansion. Separate metro area, #4 market, 5hr separation from TCU but close enough to help travel costs. Seems logical to me, they just have to get that stadium going.

Ans word is they are actually serious this time. Those other 2 or 3 times they didn't actually mean it.
But yeah the last I heard the almost had the money to start the planning. I would think they could have it ready by 2014 if they can get going this summer sometime.

SMU does deserve to be in the conversation. SMU will help to pull in fans from Dallas, and TCU will help pull in fans from Ft. Worth. Having both helps the cause in both cities, far better than either would alone...

IMO all SMU needs is BCS afffiliation to complete their return to their days of glory. They've made a good start under June Jones in making their first CUSA Championship game, and I fully expect them to return to the CUSA Championship game this year...

(04-30-2011 04:48 PM)saxamoophone Wrote:  Glad major NCAA Vilolations don't scare you guys

Actually they do, which is why The BEast is stepping back from UCF. UCF has been begging for an NCAA investigation in recent days. SMU's major violations were decades ago...

(04-30-2011 05:27 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 05:13 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 04:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 04:13 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  What is the tipping point a program would have to bring to not have their academic deficiencies but have a plan in place to upgrade that area. Would adding 1/2 mil to a mil a year per team in football be enough. For example ECU or Memphis if they boost the tv contract from 9.5 to 10 or even up to 11 vs SMU only bringing a small bump if at all?

What is your minimum amount boost plus academic short term and long term goals for that school?

Are you sure that Memphis or ECU would bring more money than SMU? From a football point of view, I would say that SMU and ECU were equivalent in 2009 and 2010, and Memphis royally sucked during this time period. Of course, Memphis has BB as an enticement that would be better quality athletically than either FB or BB at SMU and ECU. If a 10th school is added to the BE and the conference does not split, Memphis does not bring much of anything to the conference at all, so I would say that ECU and SMU should rank higher than Memphis on athletics alone.

So if we look at SMU vs ECU, we see that ECU has the better cred in football over the last decade; however, SMU has the better market and are located in a better recruiting ground overall. In light of this, I would not be sure that ECU could add more value to an ESPN contract than ECU. When you compare academics, it is clear that SMU ranks better. I didn't mean to draw this response out, but the bottom line is that I don't think it is a given that ECU would make the BE more money than SMU. So with that in mind, I think the academic comparison you put forth is moot and you go for the obviously better school. Memphis shouldn't even rate consideration in a hybrid BE conf; however, they should be given serious consideration in the event of a split. That would be a game changer.

Getting back to the question at hand, take out the 3 schools I listed and put in 3 schools without a name.....now answer the original question.

So your question is what is more important, $1 million/school more in revenue and questionable academics or the no additional money per school but good academics? Honestly, that is a hard question for me to answer because it would not take into account the potential benefits from intangible items such as how enrollments may be affected via school affiliation, recruiting, etc. At the end of the day, I suppose the money in hand would be better, so the school that would build the contract more should get the nod. However, your assumptions may not bear any water, and SMU may very well enhance the payout on a per team basis and have the better academics. For all we know, ECU may have less money per school and worse academics. We don't know.

We do know that SMU does not play baseball...WTF?

(04-30-2011 07:42 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 05:27 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 05:13 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 04:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 04:13 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  What is the tipping point a program would have to bring to not have their academic deficiencies but have a plan in place to upgrade that area. Would adding 1/2 mil to a mil a year per team in football be enough. For example ECU or Memphis if they boost the tv contract from 9.5 to 10 or even up to 11 vs SMU only bringing a small bump if at all?

What is your minimum amount boost plus academic short term and long term goals for that school?

Are you sure that Memphis or ECU would bring more money than SMU? From a football point of view, I would say that SMU and ECU were equivalent in 2009 and 2010, and Memphis royally sucked during this time period. Of course, Memphis has BB as an enticement that would be better quality athletically than either FB or BB at SMU and ECU. If a 10th school is added to the BE and the conference does not split, Memphis does not bring much of anything to the conference at all, so I would say that ECU and SMU should rank higher than Memphis on athletics alone.

So if we look at SMU vs ECU, we see that ECU has the better cred in football over the last decade; however, SMU has the better market and are located in a better recruiting ground overall. In light of this, I would not be sure that ECU could add more value to an ESPN contract than ECU. When you compare academics, it is clear that SMU ranks better. I didn't mean to draw this response out, but the bottom line is that I don't think it is a given that ECU would make the BE more money than SMU. So with that in mind, I think the academic comparison you put forth is moot and you go for the obviously better school. Memphis shouldn't even rate consideration in a hybrid BE conf; however, they should be given serious consideration in the event of a split. That would be a game changer.

Getting back to the question at hand, take out the 3 schools I listed and put in 3 schools without a name.....now answer the original question.

So your question is what is more important, $1 million/school more in revenue and questionable academics or the no additional money per school but good academics? Honestly, that is a hard question for me to answer because it would not take into account the potential benefits from intangible items such as how enrollments may be affected via school affiliation, recruiting, etc. At the end of the day, I suppose the money in hand would be better, so the school that would build the contract more should get the nod. However, your assumptions may not bear any water, and SMU may very well enhance the payout on a per team basis and have the better academics. For all we know, ECU may have less money per school and worse academics. We don't know.

We do know that SMU does not play baseball...WTF?

It may sound odd, but no biggie. Baseball does not pay the bills.

SMU is a small private school with zero basketball tradition. Houston is a large public school with much basketball tradition. Football is a toss up. SMU ceiling is much lower than Houston's.

(04-30-2011 07:45 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 07:42 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 05:27 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 05:13 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(04-30-2011 04:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Are you sure that Memphis or ECU would bring more money than SMU? From a football point of view, I would say that SMU and ECU were equivalent in 2009 and 2010, and Memphis royally sucked during this time period. Of course, Memphis has BB as an enticement that would be better quality athletically than either FB or BB at SMU and ECU. If a 10th school is added to the BE and the conference does not split, Memphis does not bring much of anything to the conference at all, so I would say that ECU and SMU should rank higher than Memphis on athletics alone.

So if we look at SMU vs ECU, we see that ECU has the better cred in football over the last decade; however, SMU has the better market and are located in a better recruiting ground overall. In light of this, I would not be sure that ECU could add more value to an ESPN contract than ECU. When you compare academics, it is clear that SMU ranks better. I didn't mean to draw this response out, but the bottom line is that I don't think it is a given that ECU would make the BE more money than SMU. So with that in mind, I think the academic comparison you put forth is moot and you go for the obviously better school. Memphis shouldn't even rate consideration in a hybrid BE conf; however, they should be given serious consideration in the event of a split. That would be a game changer.

Getting back to the question at hand, take out the 3 schools I listed and put in 3 schools without a name.....now answer the original question.

So your question is what is more important, $1 million/school more in revenue and questionable academics or the no additional money per school but good academics? Honestly, that is a hard question for me to answer because it would not take into account the potential benefits from intangible items such as how enrollments may be affected via school affiliation, recruiting, etc. At the end of the day, I suppose the money in hand would be better, so the school that would build the contract more should get the nod. However, your assumptions may not bear any water, and SMU may very well enhance the payout on a per team basis and have the better academics. For all we know, ECU may have less money per school and worse academics. We don't know.

We do know that SMU does not play baseball...WTF?

It may sound odd, but no biggie. Baseball does not pay the bills.

Not odd at all... Football pays the bills of most athletic programs...The point is they lack 1 of the 3 traditional sports. The BE does play baseball ..right?

(04-30-2011 07:54 PM)CougarFan89 Wrote:  SMU is a small private school with zero basketball tradition. Houston is a large public school with much basketball tradition. Football is a toss up. SMU ceiling is much lower than Houston's.

Basketball is irrelevant in BEast expansion discussions. We have plenty of strong basketball teams already. Football is the main issue in the expansion discussion. So SMU's basketball tradition is as irrelevant as Houston's...

(04-30-2011 08:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Basketball is irrelevant in BEast expansion discussions. We have plenty of strong basketball teams already. Football is the main issue in the expansion discussion. So SMU's basketball tradition is as irrelevant as Houston's...

You are completely correct.

(04-30-2011 04:48 PM)saxamoophone Wrote:  Glad major NCAA Vilolations don't scare you guys

That was pretty funny.

0 chance if you ask me. It will take a long time for SMU to be relevant again if at all possible

I hope SMU gets all the love in the world, but the one team everyone seems to forget is Southern Miss. They may not be the market the BE is looking for, but their football team is quite fun to watch.

(04-30-2011 09:34 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  I hope SMU gets all the love in the world, but the one team everyone seems to forget is Southern Miss. They may not be the market the BE is looking for, but their football team is quite fun to watch.

I have nothing but respect for USM...Just like ECU it was started as a "normal school" serving it's geographic area and grows despite having to scratch and claw for everything it has achieved. The parallels between our schools is really quite striking.

I think adding SMU to The BEast would be a nice addition. It would renew an intra-conference rivalry with TCU and add a BEast toe hold in both Fort Worth and Dallas. Not having a baseball team is kind of odd; college baseball is pretty popular in Texas. In the greater scheme of conference expansion, baseball is neither here nor there.

I am quite happy at nine football playing members and would also be happy with 10, 11, or 12. If The BEast does expand, and the conference would like to increase its television money, we need teams that put both butts in seats and are compelling for the casual-fan television audience. A lot of people outside of the Big East "footprint" watch the Backyard Brawl, UC-UL, Syracuse-GU, etc. THOSE are the eyeballs the conference needs to get a better television deal - something akin to the ACC deal is doable with a larger television viewing audience - that is above and beyond us die hard fans who watch our teams regardless. TCU-SMU could bring in those extra eyeballs; so could USF-UCF and WVU-ECU.

If The BEast does expand, the conference isn't getting ND, PSU, or BC - much to my chagrin. With the new Big 12 contract, KU, KSU, and Mizzou aren't coming along either. The BEast is The BEast and we need to realize where the conference stands in the collegiate athletics world. The "usual suspects" are all that are waiting and willing to join the club. BYU as a football-only is probably not in the realm of reality. So, the conference needs to select those schools who can provide the most compelling television. (Note: I read the recent threads about the UCF situation. It may amount to nothing or could be a problem. We need more information before passing judgment.)

And to my new ECU friend who thought it was interesting a Pitt fan was commenting on other university's fan base, facilities, and records...I'm not sure I'm following you. Pitt has top notch athletic facilities, a storied football program, and a great fan base! Every BB game has been sold out since they opened the Pete (twice as large as Fitzgerald Field House) and averaged 52K for football last year. That's a great number with a decent-to-good college team that is in direct competition for entertainment dollars/time with an elite NFL team, an elite NHL team, and a miserable MLB team that still draws.

And to my new ECU friend who thought it was interesting a Pitt fan was commenting on other university's fan base, facilities, and records...I'm not sure I'm following you. Pitt has top notch athletic facilities, a storied football program, and a great fan base! Every BB game has been sold out since they opened the Pete (twice as large as Fitzgerald Field House) and averaged 52K for football last year. That's a great number with a decent-to-good college team that is in direct competition for entertainment dollars/time with an elite NFL team, an elite NHL team, and a miserable MLB team that still draws.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You have all of this and you still manage to underachieve every year. You have an NFL stadium and facilities, a BCS conference, a pipeline for basketball in the deepest hoops conference, a century of tradition, and you really haven't did anything with it but disappoint in the last 2 decades. And you're friend said earlier he didn't have a favorite team! He is waiting for November, Then he will let us all know.