http://espn.go.com/dallas/college-footba...ll-program

Now Dickerson, who says SMU should step up its profile or drop football, doesn't make any decisions for SMU. And SMU has demonstrated they have plenty of well-monied boosters.

But its a question a lot of schools need to ask themselves, not just SMU.

It would be incredibly sad for the state of Texas if schools like SMU and Rice who helped found the Texas College Football religion had to pack up their fb. Those two HAVE the resources to compete.

SMU isn't dropping football nor "going out of business."

Hell, if there is one program in the AAC that can literally afford to do anything and everything the "P5" programs can do, it is SMU.

EDIT-- Ironically, the "new" world looks remarkably like what SMU was doing when they got the "death penalty" served on them. So, in theory at least, SMU should flourish in the "brave new world" of college athletics...

SMU has the money to play football forever. Whether or not they're any good, that's a different story.

SMU's next coaching hire will say a lot about if the school actually cares about winning or just wants the exposure of having a team.

And from what I've read, a big part of SMU's recent problems was not that the school and boosters didn't want to win, but that the coaches were content to give minimal effort.

(09-10-2014 09:50 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It would be incredibly sad for the state of Texas if schools like SMU and Rice who helped found the Texas College Football religion had to pack up their fb. Those two HAVE the resources to compete.

I don't really think so....Honestly, schools like SMU, Rice, and TCU have lived privileged football lives, being the small private schools they are. In most states, its the STATE schools that have become powers....Ohio State, LSU, FSU. I think Texas is an anomaly because of the SWC.

North Texas, Texas State, and UTSA are catching up though....THATS the future of football in Texas (besides UT and A&M of course).

(09-10-2014 09:53 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  SMU isn't dropping football nor "going out of business."

Hell, if there is one program in the AAC that can literally afford to do anything and everything the "P5" programs can do, it is SMU.

EDIT-- Ironically, the "new" world looks remarkably like what SMU was doing when they got the "death penalty" served on them. So, in theory at least, SMU should flourish in the "brave new world" of college athletics...

The advantage of doing those things back then was that few others were doing those things.

If all are doing the same, there is no advantage.

June Jones, by every account I have read, loved being in Hawaii and loved being Head Coach of the Rainbows. But when SMU dangled all that money in front of him, he couldn't turn it down. My guess is June Jones' heart never really was in the SMU coaching position. And, I don't fault June so much as I fault SMU officials for not understanding the situation. I mean, if someone dangles $2 million in front of me, I am going to take it.

SMU to the SEC is probably more likely than SMU dropping football. I do agree the small private school's have a huge problem going against the flagship public school's. In SMU's case, you also got texas school's like UTSA, Texas state and north texas creating a crowded market + SMU isn't hitched to texas.

If SMU wants to "move up" in CFB like TCU did, then their boosters are going to have to ante up and keep giving like the TCU boosters did.

Or look at USC, Stanford, Notre Dame where booster donations are off the charts. Private schools with small alumni bases (this doesn't apply so much to USC, which is larger) have to find a few very generous boosters who will regularly write six and seven figure checks.

(09-10-2014 09:59 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 09:50 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It would be incredibly sad for the state of Texas if schools like SMU and Rice who helped found the Texas College Football religion had to pack up their fb. Those two HAVE the resources to compete.

I don't really think so....Honestly, schools like SMU, Rice, and TCU have lived privileged football lives, being the small private schools they are. In most states, its the STATE schools that have become powers....Ohio State, LSU, FSU. I think Texas is an anomaly because of the SWC.

North Texas, Texas State, and UTSA are catching up though....THATS the future of football in Texas (besides UT and A&M of course).

UTSA has potential and is off to a great start but won't be anything until they get an on campus stadium because no urban school outside of perhaps UCLA has ever survived and prospered playing off campus (no, USC doesn't really count and Miami's crowds look horrid if they aren't winning big or playing one of the other Big 3).

Texas State is headed for a boom and UNT is having a good start to the year, nothing more.

As for Rice, they may at some point play non-scholarship football and focus on basketball. Alternatively, they are one of the few G5 schools that can become another Stanford or Northwestern.

When Jones had his little 'I'm leaving...no wait I'm staying' snafu you knew it was going to end poorly.

Geography is the big strike against Rice playing non-scholarship football. Not just an abundance of schools they want to peer with playing non-scholie football in the region.

This next hire and money paid will indicate where the program is going

How long will SMU stay in business?

A very long time.

(09-10-2014 11:17 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  This next hire and money paid will indicate where the program is going

Long way from the Mike Cavan hire when Ohio State OC Joe Hollis was being courted by AState and SMU and he took the AState job because we matched what SMU was throwing around as a potential salary. Think we both got we paid for, 35 wins over 5 years between the two combined.

My guess is SMU may not go for a wow name, but I bet the next one gets a fat check and has a resume to match.

(09-10-2014 11:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Geography is the big strike against Rice playing non-scholarship football. Not just an abundance of schools they want to peer with playing non-scholie football in the region.

Right. Not an abundance of schools playing FCS non-scholarship football, period. The Ivy League does, and of course they are not looking for new members.

The only other non-scholarship FCS conference is the Pioneer Football League. This map of PFL teams shows how much of an obstacle geography would be.

(09-10-2014 12:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 11:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Geography is the big strike against Rice playing non-scholarship football. Not just an abundance of schools they want to peer with playing non-scholie football in the region.

Right. Not an abundance of schools playing FCS non-scholarship football, period. The Ivy League does, and of course they are not looking for new members.

The only other non-scholarship FCS conference is the Pioneer Football League. This map of PFL teams shows how much of an obstacle geography would be.

SMU would not be a full member of the PFL, as it's a football-only league. Where their other sports go? No idea.

(09-10-2014 12:20 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 12:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 11:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Geography is the big strike against Rice playing non-scholarship football. Not just an abundance of schools they want to peer with playing non-scholie football in the region.

Right. Not an abundance of schools playing FCS non-scholarship football, period. The Ivy League does, and of course they are not looking for new members.

The only other non-scholarship FCS conference is the Pioneer Football League. This map of PFL teams shows how much of an obstacle geography would be.

SMU would not be a full member of the PFL, as it's a football-only league. Where their other sports go? No idea.

Right, that would be the biggest issue for SMU or Rice, much bigger than the PFL geography -- finding an acceptable D-I conference for their other sports. Maybe they would be ok with the Missouri Valley, if the MVC were inclined to invite them, but there's NFW they would join the Southland Conference.

The PFL is best-suited for schools that belong to a D-I conference that doesn't sponsor football. San Diego in the WCC is already a PFL member; maybe other WCC schools, or schools in the Big West or WAC, will someday be interested in the PFL.

I could see SMU dropping their football down to the level of the Ivy League.

But Rice used to be in the WAC, so it's not as if they aren't used to travelling (granted non-scholie is a different animal than FBS).