(07-08-2019 11:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 10:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 09:10 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  Now, UConn made their upgrade assuming that Big East football would be stable. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect. If UConn did not have that Big East invite, I do not believe they would have ever made the jump to 1-A.

Strictly speaking, UConn made the move because there was an expectation of a split coming and UConn wanted to go wherever Cuse, Pitt, and BC were going. The concern was that a non-football sponsoring conference couldn't maintain themselves above an A-10 level long-term, and football was upgraded as a way to (theoretically) protect basketball. Obviously it didn't go that way. The real question is whether UConn would have made that jump if they knew the Big East would stabilize the way it has post-split.

Their mistake was not making it in the early 90s when they first had the chance. They would have been in a better position when the ACC raids started happening.

You mean, when the Big East started sponsoring football.

IIRC the concern expressed by Tranghese at the time was that the major football indies were getting absorbed by major conferences (Penn State to the Big Ten and Florida State to the ACC had been announced) and that the Big East would eventually lose 'Cuse, Pitt, and BC if the conference didn't have football.

Given that those three eventually left anyway, wonder how it would have went if, instead of getting into the football business, the Big East would have just added a few more no-football members in the early 1990s so that they would have more than enough to keep going if/when the three football members left.

When they founded the 8 team football conference they gave UConn and Villanova the opportunity to join. They both passed at that time. It was a dozen years later when UConn moved up. Had they 20 years in FBS instead of 6 when the big realignment occurred, they would have had a better chance.

I suspect the Big East would have had the same result in the end, but UConn might have beaten out Louisville or Rutgers for the ACC or Big 10 slots.

Excellent point. UCONN situation is mostly due to their own choice/questionable decisions--- starting many years ago.

(07-08-2019 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 11:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 10:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 09:10 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  Now, UConn made their upgrade assuming that Big East football would be stable. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect. If UConn did not have that Big East invite, I do not believe they would have ever made the jump to 1-A.

Strictly speaking, UConn made the move because there was an expectation of a split coming and UConn wanted to go wherever Cuse, Pitt, and BC were going. The concern was that a non-football sponsoring conference couldn't maintain themselves above an A-10 level long-term, and football was upgraded as a way to (theoretically) protect basketball. Obviously it didn't go that way. The real question is whether UConn would have made that jump if they knew the Big East would stabilize the way it has post-split.

Their mistake was not making it in the early 90s when they first had the chance. They would have been in a better position when the ACC raids started happening.

You mean, when the Big East started sponsoring football.

IIRC the concern expressed by Tranghese at the time was that the major football indies were getting absorbed by major conferences (Penn State to the Big Ten and Florida State to the ACC had been announced) and that the Big East would eventually lose 'Cuse, Pitt, and BC if the conference didn't have football.

Given that those three eventually left anyway, wonder how it would have went if, instead of getting into the football business, the Big East would have just added a few more no-football members in the early 1990s so that they would have more than enough to keep going if/when the three football members left.

When they founded the 8 team football conference they gave UConn and Villanova the opportunity to join. They both passed at that time. It was a dozen years later when UConn moved up. Had they 20 years in FBS instead of 6 when the big realignment occurred, they would have had a better chance.

I suspect the Big East would have had the same result in the end, but UConn might have beaten out Louisville or Rutgers for the ACC or Big 10 slots.

UConn could also have done what Villanova did, and never moved football to FBS. Then UConn would have remained with the C7 in the Big East to begin with. Maybe they would have been better served either way -- moving to FBS early, or not moving at all.

(07-08-2019 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 11:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 10:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  Strictly speaking, UConn made the move because there was an expectation of a split coming and UConn wanted to go wherever Cuse, Pitt, and BC were going. The concern was that a non-football sponsoring conference couldn't maintain themselves above an A-10 level long-term, and football was upgraded as a way to (theoretically) protect basketball. Obviously it didn't go that way. The real question is whether UConn would have made that jump if they knew the Big East would stabilize the way it has post-split.

Their mistake was not making it in the early 90s when they first had the chance. They would have been in a better position when the ACC raids started happening.

You mean, when the Big East started sponsoring football.

IIRC the concern expressed by Tranghese at the time was that the major football indies were getting absorbed by major conferences (Penn State to the Big Ten and Florida State to the ACC had been announced) and that the Big East would eventually lose 'Cuse, Pitt, and BC if the conference didn't have football.

Given that those three eventually left anyway, wonder how it would have went if, instead of getting into the football business, the Big East would have just added a few more no-football members in the early 1990s so that they would have more than enough to keep going if/when the three football members left.

When they founded the 8 team football conference they gave UConn and Villanova the opportunity to join. They both passed at that time. It was a dozen years later when UConn moved up. Had they 20 years in FBS instead of 6 when the big realignment occurred, they would have had a better chance.

I suspect the Big East would have had the same result in the end, but UConn might have beaten out Louisville or Rutgers for the ACC or Big 10 slots.

UConn could also have done what Villanova did, and never moved football to FBS. Then UConn would have remained with the C7 in the Big East to begin with. Maybe they would have been better served either way -- moving to FBS early, or not moving at all.

I'm a little bit skeptical that an additional couple of years of football would have increased the appetite of the southern football-focused schools for additional New England programs. For all the noise made about various factors, the two biggest impediments to UConn are geography and demographics, neither of which you can do too much about. It probably still comes down to an either/or between UConn and BC, and BC has a leg up simply in terms of market and history (a two-and-a-half billion dollar endowment doesn't hurt either) that'd be hard for UConn to eclipse in their first ten years after moving up.

At the end of the day, I'm pretty convinced Villanova read the situation correctly from the beginning.

(07-07-2019 06:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 02:54 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

I wouldn't count on a lot of the G5 privates making it in the long haul. As selective as they have to be, it doesn't pay very much to drop a lot of money on exposing your brand to new students.

I think you make a great point. We have seen recently the financial issues at Tulsa. Being the smallest school in D1 you would expect Tulsa might be the first school to give up on the arms race. However, I would imagine Tulane, SMU and many others may soon follow suit.

Personally, I would like to see private schools lead the way in returning some sanity to college sports.

Possibly. However, one thing to consider----Its often just a small group of very well heeled donors that even the playing field financially for many of these smaller private schools.

Maybe, in some cases, but that would be a very few. SMU might have a slim chance, however I don't think Tulsa and Tulane have
that luxury.

Ticket sales have to carry a school. If that does not happen, then a school will sooner or later probably not make it. It looks like sooner for some schools.

(07-08-2019 11:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 10:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 09:10 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  Now, UConn made their upgrade assuming that Big East football would be stable. Unfortunately, that assumption was incorrect. If UConn did not have that Big East invite, I do not believe they would have ever made the jump to 1-A.

Strictly speaking, UConn made the move because there was an expectation of a split coming and UConn wanted to go wherever Cuse, Pitt, and BC were going. The concern was that a non-football sponsoring conference couldn't maintain themselves above an A-10 level long-term, and football was upgraded as a way to (theoretically) protect basketball. Obviously it didn't go that way. The real question is whether UConn would have made that jump if they knew the Big East would stabilize the way it has post-split.

Their mistake was not making it in the early 90s when they first had the chance. They would have been in a better position when the ACC raids started happening.

You mean, when the Big East started sponsoring football.

IIRC the concern expressed by Tranghese at the time was that the major football indies were getting absorbed by major conferences (Penn State to the Big Ten and Florida State to the ACC had been announced) and that the Big East would eventually lose 'Cuse, Pitt, and BC if the conference didn't have football.

Given that those three eventually left anyway, wonder how it would have went if, instead of getting into the football business, the Big East would have just added a few more no-football members in the early 1990s so that they would have more than enough to keep going if/when the three football members left.

I don't think there's any doubt that the Big East adding football in 1991 helped save the conference, as distasteful as it was to do so. This was something Trained Geese was actually right about - if the BE had not added football, I think that Pitt, Cuse, BC would have left a lot sooner than they did.

As it turned out, that move kept the Big East around as a big time conference for 20 more years, a lifetime in college athletics, and when the split finally came, the C7 were well enough positioned to keep going without missing much of a beat.

I think another reason why UConn was never invited to the ACC and the Big 10 in recent years because the downward trend of fans going to football games with schools like Hofstra and Northeastern dropping football, and other lower D1 schools also dropped football. There seems to be not enough fans interested in football. Boston College is the latest starting to feel the effects. The question is how long BC gonna keep football?

(07-08-2019 04:36 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 11:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 10:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  Their mistake was not making it in the early 90s when they first had the chance. They would have been in a better position when the ACC raids started happening.

You mean, when the Big East started sponsoring football.

IIRC the concern expressed by Tranghese at the time was that the major football indies were getting absorbed by major conferences (Penn State to the Big Ten and Florida State to the ACC had been announced) and that the Big East would eventually lose 'Cuse, Pitt, and BC if the conference didn't have football.

Given that those three eventually left anyway, wonder how it would have went if, instead of getting into the football business, the Big East would have just added a few more no-football members in the early 1990s so that they would have more than enough to keep going if/when the three football members left.

When they founded the 8 team football conference they gave UConn and Villanova the opportunity to join. They both passed at that time. It was a dozen years later when UConn moved up. Had they 20 years in FBS instead of 6 when the big realignment occurred, they would have had a better chance.

I suspect the Big East would have had the same result in the end, but UConn might have beaten out Louisville or Rutgers for the ACC or Big 10 slots.

UConn could also have done what Villanova did, and never moved football to FBS. Then UConn would have remained with the C7 in the Big East to begin with. Maybe they would have been better served either way -- moving to FBS early, or not moving at all.

I'm a little bit skeptical that an additional couple of years of football would have increased the appetite of the southern football-focused schools for additional New England programs. For all the noise made about various factors, the two biggest impediments to UConn are geography and demographics, neither of which you can do too much about. It probably still comes down to an either/or between UConn and BC, and BC has a leg up simply in terms of market and history (a two-and-a-half billion dollar endowment doesn't hurt either) that'd be hard for UConn to eclipse in their first ten years after moving up.

At the end of the day, I'm pretty convinced Villanova read the situation correctly from the beginning.

It would have been an even higher hill to climb for Villanova, considering the only Catholic FBS programs are Boston College and Notre Dame; UConn took a big gamble to attempt to ensure a maintained conference relationship with schools like Boston College, Syracuse and Rutgers. It then took an even greater risk accepting a relegated (non-AQ/G5) spot in the AAC, hoping it could weather the storm until another shift occurs.

If there was even the slightest chance of hope that UConn was going to be considered for a spot in the B1G or ACC, I don't think they accept this move to the Big East. That says that the B1G/ACC aren't losing members any time soon (and if they did acquire anyone, it would have to be from the Big 12 - but even that appears less and less likely as time passes by). The next "optimal" situation would have been a scavenged Big 12 (without Texas/Oklahoma), but that still would not have put UConn at the big table - and likely another decade in another unfavorable conference affiliation with a substantial geographic footprint.

(07-08-2019 04:36 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 03:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 11:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 10:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  Their mistake was not making it in the early 90s when they first had the chance. They would have been in a better position when the ACC raids started happening.

You mean, when the Big East started sponsoring football.

IIRC the concern expressed by Tranghese at the time was that the major football indies were getting absorbed by major conferences (Penn State to the Big Ten and Florida State to the ACC had been announced) and that the Big East would eventually lose 'Cuse, Pitt, and BC if the conference didn't have football.

Given that those three eventually left anyway, wonder how it would have went if, instead of getting into the football business, the Big East would have just added a few more no-football members in the early 1990s so that they would have more than enough to keep going if/when the three football members left.

When they founded the 8 team football conference they gave UConn and Villanova the opportunity to join. They both passed at that time. It was a dozen years later when UConn moved up. Had they 20 years in FBS instead of 6 when the big realignment occurred, they would have had a better chance.

I suspect the Big East would have had the same result in the end, but UConn might have beaten out Louisville or Rutgers for the ACC or Big 10 slots.

UConn could also have done what Villanova did, and never moved football to FBS. Then UConn would have remained with the C7 in the Big East to begin with. Maybe they would have been better served either way -- moving to FBS early, or not moving at all.

I'm a little bit skeptical that an additional couple of years of football would have increased the appetite of the southern football-focused schools for additional New England programs. For all the noise made about various factors, the two biggest impediments to UConn are geography and demographics, neither of which you can do too much about. It probably still comes down to an either/or between UConn and BC, and BC has a leg up simply in terms of market and history (a two-and-a-half billion dollar endowment doesn't hurt either) that'd be hard for UConn to eclipse in their first ten years after moving up.

At the end of the day, I'm pretty convinced Villanova read the situation correctly from the beginning.

Villanova tried to move up even later using an off campus soccer stadium seating 20k. Big East told them that wasn't good enough.

It was a UConn vs. Louisville vs. Rutgers. And if they had 12 more years to build their program, perhaps they have a strong enough football program they win one of those two contests.

Villanova actually should have dropped football instead of adding scholarships to get to 63. FCS is a money drain. Nobody mishandled it worse than Villanova.

UConn saw that football was dominating and took the gamble to move up too late. Also didn't do a good enough job picking coaches. Took a big gamble settling on a Hartford stadium off campus.

(07-08-2019 05:34 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 06:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 02:54 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

I wouldn't count on a lot of the G5 privates making it in the long haul. As selective as they have to be, it doesn't pay very much to drop a lot of money on exposing your brand to new students.

I think you make a great point. We have seen recently the financial issues at Tulsa. Being the smallest school in D1 you would expect Tulsa might be the first school to give up on the arms race. However, I would imagine Tulane, SMU and many others may soon follow suit.

Personally, I would like to see private schools lead the way in returning some sanity to college sports.

Possibly. However, one thing to consider----Its often just a small group of very well heeled donors that even the playing field financially for many of these smaller private schools.

Maybe, in some cases, but that would be a very few. SMU might have a slim chance, however I don't think Tulsa and Tulane have
that luxury.

Ticket sales have to carry a school. If that does not happen, then a school will sooner or later probably not make it. It looks like sooner for some schools.

SMU is in a packed sports market, which includes that Cowboys, still a very rabid fanbase despite almost a quarter century of mediocrity. SMU is not as religious of a school as the name makes it sound but the name does scare off some prospective fans and students, so for better or worse, their fanbase has a ceiling.

SMU's only chance is to increase enrollment and produce lots of alums. I doubt that is in the offing and the rich (not fully but sometimes) snobs of the Park Cities where they are located would hate and fight, directly or indirectly, if SMU became a bigger school.

DFW already has a CFP conference school that is gonna struggle as it is as well as UNT to an extent, so SMU will struggle to stay relevant imo. D-I probably for certain but perhaps mid-major in the future.

(07-08-2019 07:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Villanova actually should have dropped football instead of adding scholarships to get to 63. FCS is a money drain. Nobody mishandled it worse than Villanova.

UConn saw that football was dominating and took the gamble to move up too late. Also didn't do a good enough job picking coaches. Took a big gamble settling on a Hartford stadium off campus.

Could be worse, they could be Charlotte, who should be no lower than the AAC. I mention Southern Miss having earned a spot in the AAC but so did Charlotte, which was one of the better programs in the original-ish C-USA setup. If they have football in 2003, there's a chance the Big East adds them (they wanted to stay in Florida, so I can't say that they make it over USF). But they had no football, so as things have worked out, they're back in C-USA, which is a notch below the AAC which is the legacy of original C-USA and now behind most of the programs they used to whoop on the basketball court (yes, including Houston, there, you happy?)

(07-08-2019 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  Villanova tried to move up even later using an off campus soccer stadium seating 20k. Big East told them that wasn't good enough.

Villanova was never serious about moving up and presented a plan they knew would be rejected to be done with it because the Big East wanted them to move up in order to get to 8. There's no real desire there.

(07-08-2019 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  It was a UConn vs. Louisville vs. Rutgers. And if they had 12 more years to build their program, perhaps they have a strong enough football program they win one of those two contests.

The Big East started sponsoring football in 1991, and Lew Perkins (who pushed the whole football move-up) was hired in 1990 when they were putting it all together. UConn moved up in 2000. Even if they had gotten the momentum to move up football right away, the logistics of it mean you're not accomplishing that until 93 or 94, so it's like an extra 6 or 7 years you're talking about. The last round of expansion had UConn coming off a series of bowl games, including a Fiesta Bowl - what more are they realistically going to do out of the state of Connecticut with an extra 6 years? Win a BCS title?

(07-08-2019 07:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Villanova actually should have dropped football instead of adding scholarships to get to 63. FCS is a money drain. Nobody mishandled it worse than Villanova.

Their FCS team is stashed in a football-only conference at that level and doesn't impact the rest of the athletic department's positioning. The team's actually not bad either, winning an FCS championship 10 years ago. They just won two national championships in three years in their headliner sport and their national profile in basketball is currently about as high as it's ever been. If the school wants to keep a football team around as an on-campus student amenity/alumni outreach opportunity and it's not negatively impacting their overall athletic department, it's hard to credibly call that mismanagement.

(07-08-2019 08:41 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  Villanova tried to move up even later using an off campus soccer stadium seating 20k. Big East told them that wasn't good enough.

Villanova was never serious about moving up and presented a plan they knew would be rejected to be done with it because the Big East wanted them to move up in order to get to 8. There's no real desire there.

(07-08-2019 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  It was a UConn vs. Louisville vs. Rutgers. And if they had 12 more years to build their program, perhaps they have a strong enough football program they win one of those two contests.

The Big East started sponsoring football in 1991, and Lew Perkins (who pushed the whole football move-up) was hired in 1990 when they were putting it all together. UConn moved up in 2000. Even if they had gotten the momentum to move up football right away, the logistics of it mean you're not accomplishing that until 93 or 94, so it's like an extra 6 or 7 years you're talking about. The last round of expansion had UConn coming off a series of bowl games, including a Fiesta Bowl - what more are they realistically going to do out of the state of Connecticut with an extra 6 years? Win a BCS title?

(07-08-2019 07:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  Villanova actually should have dropped football instead of adding scholarships to get to 63. FCS is a money drain. Nobody mishandled it worse than Villanova.

Their FCS team is stashed in a football-only conference at that level and doesn't impact the rest of the athletic department's positioning. The team's actually not bad either, winning an FCS championship 10 years ago. They just won two national championships in three years in their headliner sport and their national profile in basketball is currently about as high as it's ever been. If the school wants to keep a football team around as an on-campus student amenity/alumni outreach opportunity and it's not negatively impacting their overall athletic department, it's hard to credibly call that mismanagement.

Agree with this fully.

UConn's budget (outlay) was 79 million last year.

Total Salaries: 14.3 mil
Total Operating Expenses 14.4 mil

They are spending just over 20 million more on salaries and operating expenses than EMU.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

(07-08-2019 03:15 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Excellent point. UCONN situation is mostly due to their own choice/questionable decisions--- starting many years ago.

RING THE BELL, WE HAVE A WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!!! The AAC had nothing to do with UCONN failing. No matter how some message boarders try to paint it, nobody else at any level of the game was running their type of "debt" 40 effing million a year and they were still terrible on top of that. UCONN was a conference made program,and as long as they were comfortably in the fold,,,,they were ok. They got exposed for having a stupid arrogant administration, and fans that never realized that they were blessed to have had a couple of great coaches (Calhoun/Geno) and a great run. There's a reason that they were continually passed over and it had not a dang thing to do with the American. GOODLUCK to them and the NBE. However after all of the made up $#!+ about Fox giving everyone in the NBE a 2mil raise for CUSA ratings because of the nostalgia of getting UCONN back, and UCONN 2 million dollar paychecks for literally one of the worst fbs programs in history and the such,,,,and the fact that wbb means nothing to anyone other than them. I'll just say that the American says thanks for the 10 million dollars + exit fees, and extra cut of their 7 million dollar per year tv bucks, and 20 million dollars+ cfp money, and bowl money and NCAA credit monies. Thanks NBE and you to UCONN LOLOL.

Tigersmoke4 confirmed not mad and actually laughing

(07-09-2019 01:41 AM)scoscox Wrote:  Tigersmoke4 confirmed not mad and actually laughing

Sorry that doesn't work on me guy. If you've been paying attention, you'll notice a lot of WTF stares at this illogical (from a business sense) circle jerk, but hey I was absolutely correct about the cash blessings that UCONN is about to bestow upon the AAC. So it's a win-win,,,,right.

Comparing UConn to Memphis in spending.

Salaries
UConn 14.3 mil
Memphis 10.7 mil

Operating Expenses
UConn 14.4 mil
Memphis 9.8 mil

Budget
UConn 79 mil
Memphis 55 mil

We know that Memphis likes to spend on FB/BB coaches but they were still outspent by UConn 4 million on salaries and almost 5 million on operating expenses.

The data says its largely a UConn problem. But I think the winning percentage of UConn in the AAC says its a FB problem as a reason for dropping out of a major FB conference with the hope they can subsist at the MAC level.

(07-08-2019 07:48 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(07-08-2019 05:34 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 06:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2019 02:54 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(07-06-2019 06:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would argue the numbers are relative.

If you have a student body of 10K and you're running a $20M deficit then that's a serious issue. If you've got a student body of 30K or greater and you're running the same deficit then it's not as big an issue because you're spreading the cost over more students and you're more likely to have a larger donor base in the future to cover long term costs.

I wouldn't count on a lot of the G5 privates making it in the long haul. As selective as they have to be, it doesn't pay very much to drop a lot of money on exposing your brand to new students.

I think you make a great point. We have seen recently the financial issues at Tulsa. Being the smallest school in D1 you would expect Tulsa might be the first school to give up on the arms race. However, I would imagine Tulane, SMU and many others may soon follow suit.

Personally, I would like to see private schools lead the way in returning some sanity to college sports.

Possibly. However, one thing to consider----Its often just a small group of very well heeled donors that even the playing field financially for many of these smaller private schools.

Maybe, in some cases, but that would be a very few. SMU might have a slim chance, however I don't think Tulsa and Tulane have
that luxury.

Ticket sales have to carry a school. If that does not happen, then a school will sooner or later probably not make it. It looks like sooner for some schools.

SMU is in a packed sports market, which includes that Cowboys, still a very rabid fanbase despite almost a quarter century of mediocrity. SMU is not as religious of a school as the name makes it sound but the name does scare off some prospective fans and students, so for better or worse, their fanbase has a ceiling.

SMU's only chance is to increase enrollment and produce lots of alums. I doubt that is in the offing and the rich (not fully but sometimes) snobs of the Park Cities where they are located would hate and fight, directly or indirectly, if SMU became a bigger school.

DFW already has a CFP conference school that is gonna struggle as it is as well as UNT to an extent, so SMU will struggle to stay relevant imo. D-I probably for certain but perhaps mid-major in the future.

Isn't SMU a mid-major currently? You make good points. However,
I believe I said, SMU has a slim chance. Many small private schools probably have no chance.