• The KillerFrogs

Big 12 in position to poach Pac 12 schools?

ECM

Active Member
That's the thing, though - its just investments. It hasn't translated to on field success anywhere.

SMU has a long way to go to be relevant in football in the AAC, let alone a larger conference. It reminds me of TCU Basketball, we never had a winning record in the Mountain West, then had to go join the best basketball league in the country where it took us many years just to not be a total joke let alone win.

SMU has no top 25 finishes, no conference titles, no major bowl wins, nothing since the death penalty... plus they have in my opinion a terrible head coach. Hiring a head coach who got fired as OC from a terrible Miami team? Yikes. When we joined the Big 12 we were coming off a MWC title 3-peat, BCS bowl wins, 4 straight 11+ win seasons, and had a head coach at the time considered to be one of the best in the country, and it still took us a couple seasons to find our footing.
Rhett Lashlee got fired from Miami? I must've missed that. I believe they were 19th in total offense nationally in his final season as OC there.

Don't really care what we've done in the past. The portal and NIL have changed the game. If we get a Pac-12 invite there's no reason we can't outrecruit anyone in the conference other than perhaps Oregon.
 
Could it be SMU posturing for a Big 12 invite? I don’t have the disdain many have for SMU. I’m not saying they bring anything to the Big 12. The best reason to add them would be to build a fortress around TX to try to stop out of state recruiting.

If the PAC takes SMU I would think the other Texas school they would target is Rice. It’s the best fit for the PAC though I would not put it past Aggie to pull an Aggie and leave the SEC for the PAC. They do seem to hate Texas that much.

I think the ACC is the better fit by far for SMU. If Notre Lame leaves the ACC I’m not sure the Big 12 is safe from poaching. The schools I think would leave are the eastern ones which are probably looking to avoid the western travel.

The Big Ten is the big fish. They will always dictate what happens. There are a few SEC schools that would love to join the Big Ten.

Cocaine is a helluva drug
 

82 Frog Fever

Active Member
Don't really care what we've done in the past. The portal and NIL have changed the game. If we get a Pac-12 invite there's no reason we can't outrecruit anyone in the conference other than perhaps Oregon.
Pac12 = Dead Man Walkin’
There are not enough geographically viable schools with decent academics and athletics to keep the conference competitive.
When P12 tries to move from 10 to 12 teams, which eventually will be a must, the choices to pick from are a JOKE (Fresno/UNLV are being considered now). ….and moving to 14 would be GARBAGE.

As soon as one of the legacy teams leaves for B10 or 12, the whole thing will crumble.
The PAC10, 12, 14…??? is not gonna make it more than 2-3 years at the most.
 

Froglaw

Full Member
Rhett Lashlee got fired from Miami? I must've missed that. I believe they were 19th in total offense nationally in his final season as OC there.

Don't really care what we've done in the past. The portal and NIL have changed the game. If we get a Pac-12 invite there's no reason we can't outrecruit anyone in the conference other than perhaps Oregon.

One reason + SMU suks!
 

Limey Frog

Full Member
why would anyone outside the metroplex who weren't tied to the schools care if both schools aren't any good?

haven't watched fsu -florida in years, same w miami and fsu because they don't garner that much interest because they haven't been that relevant in just a few seasons

don't care about paul bunyan's axe, the wooden bucket, the floyd trophy, the civil war, and not sure the last time i watched all of usc-ucla or usc-nd

way too many games available, way too much content which is why i don't understand how if people aren't watching pac 12 games and you are losing two of your biggest brands adding a group of lesser profile programs does anything for the conference

seriously, i wouldn't watch smu vs fresno or unlv now so putting a pac brand on them doesn't raise the interest unless they are good teams
I love a good rivalry game, personally.
 

Limey Frog

Full Member
don't hate smu, just don't find the attraction of the game outside of the regularity of it has made it "traditional" similar to meeting at the same crappy dinner for breakfast with friends because it is convenient and we always meet there instead of the quality of the food

in regards to colluded against by the big 8, exactly why did any of tcu, smu rice, and houston merit inclusion into the big 12 and don't point to other schools that got in. what had any of those 4 done in terms of in sports success or commitment of resources?
I understand the argument, and I think it's valid. If you accept the premise, the conclusion is sound. Since I'm using formal logic... you've basically got two contrasting syllogisms:

1. Tradition matters/is what makes college football special; TCU-SMU series = tradition; therefore, TCU-SMU series matters/is special.

2. High-profile games between good programs matter in modern college football; SMU football = rubbish; therefore, TCU-SMU series doesn't matter and TCU would be better served strategically scheduling short series vs. more noteworthy programs.

I am by temperament and habit a traditionalist. I adhere to the first premise of syllogism 1. I understand why others don't, and (unlike some of our more important rivalries e.g., Baylor) I could live with the other outcome. I will add, though, that no one fundamentally disagrees with the premise that traditional rivalries matter, they only differ by degrees of adherence. Surely there is no one who wouldn't care if TCU played none of our traditional rivals? Suppose we were invited alone into the old Pac 12 including USC and UCLA. Basically you'd have to be in SMU's current position of desperation to want that, wouldn't you? They're going to end up like WVU but with worse kickoff times: playing no one they care about and being cared about by no one (only less fun than WVU and without the possibility of occasionally being really good).
 

Eight

Member
I understand the argument, and I think it's valid. If you accept the premise, the conclusion is sound. Since I'm using formal logic... you've basically got two contrasting syllogisms:

1. Tradition matters/is what makes college football special; TCU-SMU series = tradition; therefore, TCU-SMU series matters/is special.

2. High-profile games between good programs matter in modern college football; SMU football = rubbish; therefore, TCU-SMU series doesn't matter and TCU would be better served strategically scheduling short series vs. more noteworthy programs.

I am by temperament and habit a traditionalist. I adhere to the first premise of syllogism 1. I understand why others don't, and (unlike some of our more important rivalries e.g., Baylor) I could live with the other outcome. I will add, though, that no one fundamentally disagrees with the premise that traditional rivalries matter, they only differ by degrees of adherence. Surely there is no one who wouldn't care if TCU played none of our traditional rivals? Suppose we were invited alone into the old Pac 12 including USC and UCLA. Basically you'd have to be in SMU's current position of desperation to want that, wouldn't you? They're going to end up like WVU but with worse kickoff times: playing no one they care about and being cared about by no one (only less fun than WVU and without the possibility of occasionally being really good).

didn't bother me one bit when tcu wasn't playing tech or baylor while the program sojourned through the other conferences, didn't miss those games at the time and feel the "rivalry" between tcu and baylor moved foward only recently when tcu and baylor were both re-establishing themselves under patterson and briles. same with tech, simply playing them doesn't do much for me if both programs are down.

wouldn't miss the smu game one bit and have laid out my case as well, basically it is over 6 decades that the game had something at stake in terms of the standings or the rankings.
 

Eight

Member
Yes but it’s required for the tv rights, the league has to have the license to the rights they are selling.

thoughts on the announcement by iger that disney is going to break espn off again on its "own" as well as split parks / entertainment and products?

we know they aren't going away and neither is the disney streaming platform so any thoughts on potential changes? they still will need content and live and rebroadcast of sports is cheaper than trying to create content or am i way off base in my thoughts.
 

Hoosierfrog

Tier 1
.

Don't really care what we've done in the past. The portal and NIL have changed the game. If we get a Pac-12 invite there's no reason we can't outrecruit anyone in the conference other than perhaps Oregon.
Imagination Kazoo Kid GIF by Dark Igloo
3D Smile GIF by Joel Cares
Smoke Get High GIF by LiL Renzo
sister sister smoking GIF
 

HG73

Active Member
No doubt a PAC invite would be great for smu. Academic prestige, better opponents, better home attendance. NAH on the attendance. If Klavokoff wanted to see the truth about smu football he needs to attend a home game. "Where is everybody?"
 

Planks

Active Member
Colorado and Colorado State moved from an annual rivalry to a couple times every few years rivalry. Rather than playing every year, they play about two times every six years or so

I think TCU and SMU would benefit from that type of arrangement. Playing SMU every year just feels like a chore. If we instead played SMU every once in a while it would make the game feel a little more special.
 
Top