collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

2024 Transfer Portal by Uncle Rico
[Today at 04:59:27 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Frenns Liquor Depot
[Today at 04:57:21 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by MuMark
[Today at 04:40:13 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by BrewCity83
[Today at 04:40:04 PM]


Where is Marquette? by Dr. Blackheart
[Today at 04:38:52 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by THRILLHO
[Today at 04:05:24 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:51 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: SMU Penalties  (Read 13364 times)

GoldenWarrior11

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2015, 10:32:34 AM »
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25323860/observations-landing-miles-bridges-would-be-big-for-michigan-state

SMU MUSTANGS
SMU's postseason ban is a significant blow to the AAC
This conference has gotten one less team in the NCAA Tournament than its deserved in each of the last two years and looked primed for a breakout season in 15-16. That will be hard to achieve now. Following the NCAA's decision to slap a postseason ban on SMU for the upcoming season along with a 9-or-10 game suspension for head coach Larry Brown, the AAC will now again likely be forced to push a boulder up a hill in its efforts to gain national credibility as a league.

The NCAA selection committee will still potentially view the Mustangs as a quality victory for in-conference opponents just as it viewed UConn as one when the Huskies missed the 2013 postseason due to APR issues, but these sanctions severely hurt the conference because it means a proven team with a proven coach won't be playing for an NCAA bid. SMU was viewed as potential Top-25 team entering this season along with UConn and Cincinnati. Now they're going to likely be an afterthought. That's not good for a new conference struggling to carve out its place in the college basketball landscape.


Entering year three, the AAC is still trying to fight perceptions that it is not a power basketball conference.  Having one of its top (recently) basketball programs banned from postseason won't do anything to fight that perception.  At what point does the number of bids the league receives become the norm?

ecompt

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3339
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2015, 10:47:54 AM »
Is that what happened with Syracuse? They are #1 in attendance every year and they didn't get a slap on the wrist. I think UNC will get hit and hit hard

Syracuse didn't even get a postseason ban.

buckchuckler

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2015, 10:55:05 AM »
I thought they did.  Weren't they banned last season?  Not that it mattered all that much. 

Golden Avalanche

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3163
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2015, 11:35:58 AM »
I thought they did.  Weren't they banned last season?  Not that it mattered all that much.

Self imposed a ban during the season when it was clear they weren't good enough to qualify for the NCAAs.

ChitownSpaceForRent

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6315
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2015, 01:40:48 PM »
SMU making the Big East look better and better each day. I actually feel bad for UConn. Not so much Cincinnati or Memphis. The Big East will welcome you with open arms UConn, just drop that tire fire of a football program.

willie warrior

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9472
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2015, 07:35:45 AM »


This is why I could never figure out why they sucked at sports.  Tons of wealthy alums...right in the middle of Dallas.  They really should be the Methodist equivalent of Notre Dame.
How dare you compare No Dick to any other program! ND fans know that no other program can compare to theirs. Ask them, they will tell you in no uncertain terms. Remember the Gipper and Knute!
I thought you were dead. Willie lives rent free in Reekers mind.

GoldenWarrior11

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2015, 10:27:00 AM »
SMU making the Big East look better and better each day. I actually feel bad for UConn. Not so much Cincinnati or Memphis. The Big East will welcome you with open arms UConn, just drop that tire fire of a football program.

UConn tied its athletic future to football, right or wrong.  Until their football situation improves, to the point where they are not celebrating victories over the likes of Villanova and Army, the B1G and ACC will not come knocking on the door asking them to join.  Until that day, however, UConn students, student-athletes, and alumni can look forward to facing off against conference foes like Tulane, Tulsa, East Carolina, Houston, SMU, UCF, USF and Memphis for sports.

In other words, college athletics purgatory.   ;D

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2015, 11:16:20 AM »
UConn tied its athletic future to football, right or wrong.  Until their football situation improves, to the point where they are not celebrating victories over the likes of Villanova and Army, the B1G and ACC will not come knocking on the door asking them to join.  Until that day, however, UConn students, student-athletes, and alumni can look forward to facing off against conference foes like Tulane, Tulsa, East Carolina, Houston, SMU, UCF, USF and Memphis for sports.

In other words, college athletics purgatory.   ;D


And yet they won a national championship just over a year ago.

GoldenWarrior11

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2015, 11:42:36 AM »

And yet they won a national championship just over a year ago.

Very true, and without question a great accomplishment, but, disregarding that the championship was won with Calhoun's (not Ollie's) recruits and players, and that the AAC still had Louisville at the time, how many schools win national championships and have their entire fan bases (students, coaches, alumni, administrators) openly complain about their conference membership and their current standing in the landscape of college athletics?

Make no mistake, UConn desperately wants out of the AAC.  In a couple of years, the NCAA tournament credits that UConn/Cincinnati/USF received from the Big East separation agreement will have run out and dried out.  Their (AAC) TV deal is absolutely atrocious - $1.5 per school per year.  The Big East schools, who don't even play football, are receiving $5 million per year (over 3x the annual value).   Many UConn supporters are sweating hard because, if they don't get a call-up to a P5 conference (either the B1G or ACC), they will be stuck in the G5 long term. 

UConn's attendance since joining the AAC has gone down, as no respectable basketball fan wants to see Tulane, East Carolina, Tulsa, Houston, SMU, UCF and USF on the home conference schedule.  Calhoun, Geno and Manuel have all been on record stating how imperative it is for UConn to move out of the AAC and into a power conference, and it's not hard to see why.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2015, 11:54:48 AM »
I understand all of that.  But they have two choices.

1. Stay dedicated to football, try to improve their overall athletic program, and get more attractive to a P5 conference for the next expansion go around.  In the meantime, remain relevant nationally as a college basketball program.

2.  Drop football and join the Big East.  Remain relevant nationally as a college basketball program. 

There is no reason to assume that staying relevant nationally will be easier in the BE.  There is also no reason to assume attendance will be significantly better in the BE.  So why not stick with football?

GoldenWarrior11

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2015, 12:15:37 PM »
I personally believe there is an option #3 - moving all sports to Big East, while going independent in football.  As an independent, they can schedule more regionally compelling games (UMass, Boston College, Buffalo, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Maryland, Penn State, Cincinnati and Temple), games with other independents (BYU, Notre Dame, UMass), and/or even create unofficial scheduling alliance with certain AAC schools for both football and basketball (offering OOC basketball games for OOC football games).

Fox Sports could easily make an offer worth more than what UConn is currently receiving.  UConn would then have all of its non-football sports competing against not just former conference competition in Providence, Seton Hall, St. Johns, Georgetown, and Villanova but, and more importantly, closer competition for those sports as well.

Playing more games against Georgetown, Villanova, St. Johns, Marquette and Providence would absolutely be worth more to UConn, long and near term, than Tulane, East Carolina, Tulsa, UCF, USF and the rest of the Conference USA call-ups. 

Bottom line, I view UConn's membership in the AAC, long-term, as unsustainable.  Something will happen, either UConn gets called up, or UConn voluntarily leaves the conference.  UConn has very little, to anything, in common with those schools - academically, location-wise and athletically. 

Dawson Rental

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • I prefer a team that's eligible, not paid for
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2015, 06:50:54 PM »

And yet they won a national championship just over a year ago.

Actually, they won one this year.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 06:53:39 PM by Crean to Ann Arbor »
You actually have a degree from Marquette?

Quote from: muguru
No...and after reading many many psosts from people on this board that do...I have to say I'm MUCH better off, if this is the type of "intelligence" a degree from MU gets you. It sure is on full display I will say that.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2015, 06:54:34 PM »
I personally believe there is an option #3 - moving all sports to Big East, while going independent in football.  As an independent, they can schedule more regionally compelling games (UMass, Boston College, Buffalo, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Maryland, Penn State, Cincinnati and Temple), games with other independents (BYU, Notre Dame, UMass), and/or even create unofficial scheduling alliance with certain AAC schools for both football and basketball (offering OOC basketball games for OOC football games).

Fox Sports could easily make an offer worth more than what UConn is currently receiving.  UConn would then have all of its non-football sports competing against not just former conference competition in Providence, Seton Hall, St. Johns, Georgetown, and Villanova but, and more importantly, closer competition for those sports as well.

Playing more games against Georgetown, Villanova, St. Johns, Marquette and Providence would absolutely be worth more to UConn, long and near term, than Tulane, East Carolina, Tulsa, UCF, USF and the rest of the Conference USA call-ups. 

Bottom line, I view UConn's membership in the AAC, long-term, as unsustrightble.  Something will happen, either UConn gets called up, or UConn voluntarily leaves the conference.  UConn has very little, to anything, in common with those schools - academically, location-wise and athletically. 



UConn going independent in football would be bad.  Very bad.  There is no relevance to being independent unless you are Notre Dame.  They have no access to either P5 or Group of 5 bowl games.  It would be a long term disaster for their football program.

Dawson Rental

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • I prefer a team that's eligible, not paid for
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2015, 06:56:46 PM »


UConn going independent in football would be bad.  Very bad.  There is no relevance to being independent unless you are Notre Dame.  They have no access to either P5 or Group of 5 bowl games.  It would be a long term disaster for their football program.

Isn't splitting just 1.5 million of TV revenue between football and basketball while trying to build up your football program to be P5 ready also a disaster?
You actually have a degree from Marquette?

Quote from: muguru
No...and after reading many many psosts from people on this board that do...I have to say I'm MUCH better off, if this is the type of "intelligence" a degree from MU gets you. It sure is on full display I will say that.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2015, 07:22:48 PM »


UConn going independent in football would be bad.  Very bad.  There is no relevance to being independent unless you are Notre Dame.  They have no access to either P5 or Group of 5 bowl games.  It would be a long term disaster for their football program.

They are already screwed.  Their continuation of football shows poor logic and is pissing away good money after bad.  No conference wants them.  They are not going to be able to recruit and build a team to their current conference. 

They should simply quit doctoring the attendance numbers so they get kicked out of the big boy club and they can save face that it wasn't their choice.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2015, 07:47:56 PM »
They are already screwed.  Their continuation of football shows poor logic and is pissing away good money after bad.  No conference wants them.  They are not going to be able to recruit and build a team to their current conference. 

They should simply quit doctoring the attendance numbers so they get kicked out of the big boy club and they can save face that it wasn't their choice.


Why do you think that no public university has dropped football in recent memory?  Even the UAB decision was a political one that was reversed.  And everyone rejoiced despite being in an arguably worse position than UConn.

Are all these university administrators showing "poor logic?"  Or could it be that you don't really understand that the importance of football to a school like UConn is more than the bottom line.  Athletics is way more a PR expense than it is a profit driven exercise. 

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2015, 09:40:14 PM »

Why do you think that no public university has dropped football in recent memory?  Even the UAB decision was a political one that was reversed.  And everyone rejoiced despite being in an arguably worse position than UConn.

Are all these university administrators showing "poor logic?"  Or could it be that you don't really understand that the importance of football to a school like UConn is more than the bottom line.  Athletics is way more a PR expense than it is a profit driven exercise.

I know the University system, funding, and PR very very well.  No public University has dropped football, because they will just bilk the tax payer for more money (and don't tell me it isn't coming out of tax payer dollars, I said I understand University funding very well, meaning I know how the accounting is done). 

The Universities are showing poor logic.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2015, 09:57:04 PM »
So tell me, why are they making illogical decisions?  Why are they all surveying the current landscape of largely decreasing state support and coming to the same conclusion that investing in football is a good idea?  And why are we to believe a message board guy instead of those decision makers?


keefe

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
  • "Death From Above"
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2015, 10:30:42 PM »

Why do you think that no public university has dropped football in recent memory? 

Western Washington did just that in 2009

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/sad-day-as-western-drops-football-for-money-reasons/


Death on call

Herman Cain

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12799
  • 9-9-9
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2015, 10:53:39 PM »
I personally believe there is an option #3 - moving all sports to Big East, while going independent in football.  As an independent, they can schedule more regionally compelling games (UMass, Boston College, Buffalo, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Maryland, Penn State, Cincinnati and Temple), games with other independents (BYU, Notre Dame, UMass), and/or even create unofficial scheduling alliance with certain AAC schools for both football and basketball (offering OOC basketball games for OOC football games).

Fox Sports could easily make an offer worth more than what UConn is currently receiving.  UConn would then have all of its non-football sports competing against not just former conference competition in Providence, Seton Hall, St. Johns, Georgetown, and Villanova but, and more importantly, closer competition for those sports as well.

Playing more games against Georgetown, Villanova, St. Johns, Marquette and Providence would absolutely be worth more to UConn, long and near term, than Tulane, East Carolina, Tulsa, UCF, USF and the rest of the Conference USA call-ups. 

Bottom line, I view UConn's membership in the AAC, long-term, as unsustrightble.  Something will happen, either UConn gets called up, or UConn voluntarily leaves the conference.  UConn has very little, to anything, in common with those schools - academically, location-wise and athletically.
U Conn will eventually go to the ACC on their next expansion. They were out maneuvered by the political connections in Washington  of Louisville.
 Just a matter of time before the expansion happens. With all their national championships in mens and womans basketball the ACC would be delighted to have them.

U Conn made a fundamental mistake of having their football stadium in Hartford. An on campus facility would have been much better.  Would have captured the campus spirit more and great environment for a fall tailgate.

I don't feel sorry for them though as their President was constantly throwing the old Big East under the bus in her desperate attempt to get into the ACC.
Winning is overrated. The only time it is really important is in surgery and war.
                       ---Al McGuire

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #45 on: October 04, 2015, 01:04:03 AM »
So tell me, why are they making illogical decisions?  Why are they all surveying the current landscape of largely decreasing state support and coming to the same conclusion that investing in football is a good idea?  And why are we to believe a message board guy instead of those decision makers?

They all are subscribing to the idea that their alumni and donors will cease to be large donors without football; and that if they sink enough money into a football program they may be able to leverage that investment to move up into the big conferences where about 30-40 teams make a serious profit.

Third, they believe that the students want that football game experience.

On the first count, it is difficult to overcome the losses at many of these schools, through donations.  Proper management of alumni relations can replace the football contact hours.

On the second count, they will not be successful.  There will be further isolation of the non-BCS leagues now in regards to football. 

On the third count, this generation of students don't care about football.  They want the tailgate/party experience, football is just a vector for its delivery. One can easily replace the tailgate atmosphere with alternatives (aka concert series) at a profit instead of an expense. 

Why should you believe me instead of the decision makers.  There is nothing I can say to convince you that I am a more reliable source, so that question is impossible to answer.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #46 on: October 04, 2015, 02:28:48 AM »

Why do you think that no public university has dropped football in recent memory?

Fear. It's scary to be the first one to do something. We live in such a football focused world that its hard for a university to swallow the idea that dropping football might actually be better for the institution in the long run. It's what all the kids are into nowadays, how could having football be bad. Since no one has done it in years (was the Ives dropping to FCS the last time it happened?) no one knows how it will go over. I think once one fbs program has the guts to do it and it turns out okay or even good for them, I think we may see a few more programs follow suit. Assuming it does turn out well for that one. If it goes poorly, then we may need to wait years for it.

UConn's situation is interesting. If the choice is between the AAC and Big East, it seems like the Big East would be the more lucrative option. Its hard for me to imagine football making up the 3.5 million gap in Television revenue between the two television contracts. But then again, I have little to no understanding of the economics of college athletics. I could be completely off base.

Wait until 2020. The AAC's television contract will be up. If the ACC hasn't expanded by then (or has expanded and skipped over UConn...again) then maybe the Huskies will be more interested to the idea of rejoining the Big East. Again, no idea if it will happen, just making an observation.
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2015, 06:44:06 PM »
No it isn't fear or groupthink.  Its that many leaders at many institutions realize it is the cheapest way to provide PR for your institution and pride among a student and alumni group.  That is why you can't look at it is a profit and loss.  It is almost always going to be a loss.  But there are perceived side benefits. 

Really when you see literally dozens of people make the same decision in the same circumstances, it usually means they are being logical.  It doesn't mean that time will show that Western Washington made the wrong decision.  Who knows?  They may be trend-setters.  But I doubt it.

Dawson Rental

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • I prefer a team that's eligible, not paid for
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #48 on: October 07, 2015, 05:32:54 PM »
No it isn't fear or groupthink.  Its that many leaders at many institutions realize it is the cheapest way to provide PR for your institution and pride among a student and alumni group.  That is why you can't look at it is a profit and loss.  It is almost always going to be a loss.  But there are perceived side benefits. 

Really when you see literally dozens of people make the same decision in the same circumstances, it usually means they are being logical.  It doesn't mean that time will show that Western Washington made the wrong decision.  Who knows?  They may be trend-setters.  But I doubt it.

So, the administrators of the Ivy League schools were the illogical ones when they dropped football to FCS?
You actually have a degree from Marquette?

Quote from: muguru
No...and after reading many many psosts from people on this board that do...I have to say I'm MUCH better off, if this is the type of "intelligence" a degree from MU gets you. It sure is on full display I will say that.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: SMU Penalties
« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2015, 07:32:14 PM »
So, the administrators of the Ivy League schools were the illogical ones when they dropped football to FCS?


They all have football and likely all lose money on athletics.  So they really didn't choose a different path.