over other better schools that are out there for the taking? Memphis and Tulsa would be a better choices. Colorado State and UNLV are out there too since they wanna go after Boise St.

Yes. It's SO HILARIOUS.

No. SMU has been in a power conference before, and (like Houston) never deserved to be left out in the first place.

No. It's the BE, everything they do is funny......even hilarious!!!

(11-05-2011 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  No. SMU has been in a power conference before, and (like Houston) never deserved to be left out in the first place.

They also cheated there asses off to get as good as they were. ^point invalid not to mention that was well over 20 years ago.

(11-05-2011 09:49 AM)10miners Wrote:  over other better schools that are out there for the taking? Memphis and Tulsa would be a better choices. Colorado State and UNLV are out there too since they wanna go after Boise St.

I think the succession of events worked in favor of SMU.

1.) It took the Big East making the decision to invite TCU, for them to look at a second team in Texas for a travel partner.

2.) Once TCU left, the Big East already had it in their mind that a BE w/a Texas presence was manageable, but that it'd work best with two programs.

3.) CUSA just so happened to have two programs in the two largest markets in Texas. Since the BE just made a Florida pair (UCF-USF) it seemed like a good compliment to have a strong presence in two of the biggest football states.

Of course, it didn't hurt that SMU had June Jones and had just made a splash by beating the school (TCU) that had just left. I also think Steve Orsini's Notre Dame roots may have given him the ear of some influential people.

4.) Once Boise State entered the fray, it became a perfect storm.

(11-05-2011 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  No. SMU has been in a power conference before, and (like Houston) never deserved to be left out in the first place.

And this.

(11-05-2011 10:03 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  No. SMU has been in a power conference before, and (like Houston) never deserved to be left out in the first place.

And this.

No that is total BS and you know it.....The reason they were included was due to TV market and their academics probably helped as well as they had to add someone to offset the academics of Boise St.

(11-05-2011 10:03 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  No. SMU has been in a power conference before, and (like Houston) never deserved to be left out in the first place.

And this.

Well, Tulane was in the SEC, and Temple was in the Big East, so I guess they're next....

(11-05-2011 09:49 AM)10miners Wrote:  over other better schools that are out there for the taking? Memphis and Tulsa would be a better choices. Colorado State and UNLV are out there too since they wanna go after Boise St.

SMU has strong academics and is in a very good market. CSU and UNLV aren't better choices than SMU, I don't know what you are talking about. As for why they didn't take Memphis, who knows, but that is a benefit to all of us who are staying in C-USA.

(11-05-2011 10:08 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  their academics probably helped as well as they had to add someone to offset the academics of Boise St.

Yep, that's it.

(11-05-2011 09:49 AM)10miners Wrote:  over other better schools that are out there for the taking? Memphis and Tulsa would be a better choices. Colorado State and UNLV are out there too since they wanna go after Boise St.

Yeah, SMU is on the verge of turning it around but they haven't proved much in either of the major sports. Must be good being in Dallas.

(11-05-2011 10:00 AM)ECU4LIFE Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  No. SMU has been in a power conference before, and (like Houston) never deserved to be left out in the first place.

They also cheated there asses off to get as good as they were. ^point invalid not to mention that was well over 20 years ago.

The SWC was 15 years ago and SMU has a great heritage in football and to a lesser extent basketball (Jon Koncak anyone? Especially the 1980's-90's NBA fans).

(11-05-2011 10:08 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 10:03 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  No. SMU has been in a power conference before, and (like Houston) never deserved to be left out in the first place.

And this.

No that is total BS and you know it.....The reason they were included was due to TV market and their academics probably helped as well as they had to add someone to offset the academics of Boise St.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that since Syracuse, WV, and Pitt left the Big East is also looking to restore a lot of the tradition they lost with those departures.
Outside of getting the death penalty, SMU restores a lot of the tradition they've lost. Houston does too. On a national level both programs infuse the league with a lot of old school cred that they can put in their highlight reels for years to come. That's because they've both been in power conferences and have racked up the national acclaims from their years of competing on that level. It's a component that was needed to add luster to the league.

It is all market and money. The Dallas media market is very important. Sure, SMU barely makes a blip on it, but the Big East will. Even when TCU was on their run last year, they were just a footnote on Dallas TV and print, the lion's share of the coverage still went to SMU and C-USA.

There are a ton of Big East alums in the Dallas area and this will open up recruiting for both football and basketball programs of the other Big East schools.

Also, money played a big part in it. SMU has the largest athletic budget of any non BCS school (even TCU) and they have almost limitless funds to do what is needed. This gives SMU the nod over other schools who struggle with budgets.

Obviously, on field success and butts in the seats have very little to do with this. That is why SMU makes sense to a BCS conference. We have the market and the money to keep moving forward and grow.

Thanks for asking though.

/cheers

(11-05-2011 10:31 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 10:08 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 10:03 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 09:56 AM)Kronke Wrote:  No. SMU has been in a power conference before, and (like Houston) never deserved to be left out in the first place.

And this.

No that is total BS and you know it.....The reason they were included was due to TV market and their academics probably helped as well as they had to add someone to offset the academics of Boise St.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that since Syracuse, WV, and Pitt left the Big East is also looking to restore a lot of the tradition they lost with those departures.
Outside of getting the death penalty, SMU restores a lot of the tradition they've lost. Houston does too. On a national level both programs infuse the league with a lot of old school cred that they can put in their highlight reels for years to come. That's because they've both been in power conferences and have racked up the national acclaims from their years of competing on that level. It's a component that was needed to add luster to the league.

Old school cred???? When people think of SMU a successful football program is not the 1st thing that comes to mind....The days of Houston and SMU being relevant on a national stage is so long ago that the average college football fans these days have no idea what these schools accomplished in the past. It is not hard to figure why SMU and Houston were added.....The number one reason is TV markets to assist in elevating the value of their TV contract. Second is they needed to some "western" schools to help entice Boise State to come on board. It has very little to do with success or lack there of on the field. It has little to do with Academics. The bottom line for this expansion for the Big East is to increase TV markets and secure Boise St....Adding Houston and SMU helps in both of those areas. The bottom line is everything in the current realignment is money driven, to think otherwise is just nonsense.

(11-05-2011 10:23 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 10:08 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  their academics probably helped as well as they had to add someone to offset the academics of Boise St.

Yep, that's it.

Well it certainly was not due to any kind of success on the field...So what else could it be besides market and academic reputation, that is all they have to hang their hat on at this point....I guess you could also say being a very wealthy University helps as well but that does not appear to be a factor if you look at the financial status of some of the other schools they are adding.

If any of our schools could take SMU's place we'd all do it yet...

...even when SMU was asked to join CUSA they were in the midst of about a decade and a half football season losing streak. Their first few years in CUSA I don't recall being raging successes, either. As a citizen of the North Texas Metroplex there is part of me that feels sorry for SMU, but I quickly regain my senses on that part. LOL!

A Cliff Notes Chronology of SMU Football As I Recall It (From A Non-SMU Perspective):

(1) SMU was truly Big Time during the Doak Walker of the late 40's and was able to coast on that fame for years (and even today still draw attention from that era with many media types outside Texas, especially those in the East like in the Big East?);

(2) Then the Dallas Cowboys (NFL) and Dallas Texans (AFL) opened for business in "Big D" the same year, circa 1960, and that is where many from our area feel the downward spiral began for SMU fan interest;

(3) Then SMU drew 5,000 fans (some back then said that was even an inflated number) in the Cotton Bowl in the mid 1970's in a "Southwest Conference Classic" against the Rice Owls and that game's attendance got quite a bit of attention locally among the DFW media. That game alone caused SMU to do an introspective at just how far down fan interest in Dallas had dramatically dwindled for the Pony's post 1960 when pro football came to town;

(4) Then SMU hired Russ Potts from Maryland as their AD and he hired Brad Thomas as their Promotion Director and MustangMania was soon born; SMU moved from the Cotton Bowl to Texas Stadium and were giving tickets away like candy to create fan interest. That part of MustangMania was successful. They were said to have given away as many as 200,000 tickets per SMU home game. One Fall an SMU/Baylor game filled Texas Stadium yet with many upset fans who found other fans were sitting in their tickets allotted seat number (and that by way of the mass give-away duplication of tickets).

(5) Also, SMU Coach Ron Meyer was the coach during MustangMania. Meyers who was a slick river-boat gambler/businessmann type who wore the most expensive suits from Neiman Marcus and it was under his watch that most of the NCAA infractions that led to the SMU Death Penalty a few years later took place. It starts getting hot in the kitchen, so exit Ron Meyer to become HFC of the New England Patriots and soon after exit AD Russ Potts who also obviously felt the heat in that kitchen getting even hotter as to what was going on around him with wealthy SMU alums starting with SMU booster Sherwood Blount.

(6) Enter USM Coach Bobby Collins who came into a wasp nest of NCAA infractions at every turn and a period of which I don't think his own career ever rebounded. Bob Hitch was the AD at that time and those under his watch were lying left and right to NCAA officials about possible infractions. (Watch the SMU DP story on ESPN's 30/30 as it covers all this in detail).

(7) Enter Dallas ABC-Channel 8 affiliate sportscaster Dale Hansen who had received a hot tip that Angleton, Texas, SMU recruit David Stanley was spilling all the beans on SMU's pay out scandal to football players. A scandal that then Governor of Texas and SMU alum/letterman Bill Clements who was trying to get control as to end the payments but it was too late as Sportscaster Dale Hanson in a sportscast rattled the teethh of most all Metroplex sports fans with his SMU scandal allegations. (As I recall, the SMU scandal was even the lead story that began that particular 30 minute newscast on WFAA Channel 8.

(8) SMU receives Death Penalty, players transfer out like their was a campus plague and SMU did not play football in 1987 and 1988 per the NCAA sentence. SMU would hire NFL Hall of Famer and SMU great Forrest Gregg for the impossible task of reviving a program from the NCAA's first Death Penalty. SMU in 1989 would win 1 game against UConn at their old campus stadium Ownby Stadium where they had moved from Texas Stadium. The Mustangs would spend the next 25 years trying to recover from the NCAA's first and probably last Death Penalty.

(9) Arkansas AD Frank Broyles in a Dallas Times Herald feature told of his despair with the Southwest Conference saying that there were only really 2 rivalrys in the SWC; that is UT versus everyone else and Texas A & M versus everyone else. Broyles said many schools in the SWC were not doing their part especially in attendance when he said at some away SWC games there would be more Razorback fans inside the stadium than the home team's fans.

That Dallas Times Herald feature story was the first shot fired of what would cause Arkansas to leave for the SEC and it wasn't that much later that the entire Southwest Conference would fall apart. It was a terrible day for many of us Texans even among those of us whose schools were not in the SWC because most of us still grew watching or listening on the Humble (later Exxon) Radio Network SWC games with lead play by play man Kern Tips doing the SWC Game of the Week.

The Cause of the SWC Demise? One reason other than bad attendance at some SWC outposts was that cheating was rampant at most all the SWC schools back then, but it was SMU that would become the fall guy and the one that would pay the price with their DP; although, SMU may have taken their pay for play infractions to a much higher level than their (then) fellow SWC conference brothers had ever done.

(11-05-2011 10:31 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I don't think it's a stretch to say that since Syracuse, WV, and Pitt left the Big East is also looking to restore a lot of the tradition they lost with those departures.
Outside of getting the death penalty, SMU restores a lot of the tradition they've lost. Houston does too. On a national level both programs infuse the league with a lot of old school cred that they can put in their highlight reels for years to come. That's because they've both been in power conferences and have racked up the national acclaims from their years of competing on that level. It's a component that was needed to add luster to the league.

Can you please downsize your graphic so we don't have to scroll back and forth to read your posts?

One can see the hopes and dreams of each RBE invitee--it is perceived that both recruiting and fan interest will jump substantially. That might be true. We shall see. If the RBE can get BYU to come in with Boise, the RBE probably protects its BCS status and creates a league that will retain/boost fan interest and tv monies.

But, then too, any conference is a 50/50 thing. There are going to be winners and losers. If I were Navy and AFA, I wouldn't joint. Their current programs and scheduling strategy allow winning records and nice bowls and a postive perception among the public. This may all be at risk in the RBE where AFA can no longer feast on NM, CSU, WY, and UNLV. And where Navy was lit up by two RBE rejects, Southern Miss and ECU.

I don't blame SMU for jumping to RBE; any existing CUSA school would do the same. But for SMU, there is an equation at work. Does the RBE close the perception gap between SMU or TCU....or does TCU's B12 membership widen the gap? The worst result for RBE is that SMU becomes an annual contender and consistently gets beat by TCU.

The other issue for SMU is how UNT's prgram progresses, once the Mean Green are in CUSA? There will be increased competition from a new source.

I am not trying to badmouth SMU here. But, with any business decision, there are positives and negatives with any business decision. SMU fans have criticized CUSA for their poor teams. Well, SMU hasn't exactly burned up the college football world and what success SMU has enjoyed has been feasting off the CUSA's poor teams. What is the old saying, don't wish for something too much or you might get what you want?

In a sense, RBE is betting on SMU's POTENTIAL. When I talk about the potential of UNT and UTSA, I get criticized by CUSA posters, especially one SMU poster in particular, because naysayers say "actual results" rather than "potential" should be the guiding concept in considering selecting teams for CUSA. But, without question, potential rather than results, was the guideline in RBE selecting SMU.

Adding schools like UCF, Houston, Boise, and UCF are based on results, not potential.

I will be glad when this realignment thing is over. I would like to get on with the Alliance, which I think will be a positive direction.