SMU's Gerald Turner on Big East

[Harry]

One big reason SMU decided to leave Conference USA for the Big East was the bigger TV payout. With the defections of Rutgers and Louisville in football and the loss of the seven basketball schools, the Big Easts TV deal will be significantly less.

But Turner still believes the move makes sense financially as well as competitively.

I dont know what will happen, but obviously its a very competitive world and there is a lot of programming out there, Turner said. But I think as this greater sense of stability emerges, the networks are much more willing to talk and are calling rather than just receiving calls. I think thats a big change.

San Diego State officials participated in the meeting. They have until February to decide on honoring their commitment to the Big East or staying in the Mountain West.

Although SMU has been mentioned as a potential candidate for Mountain West expansion, Turner discounted that as rumor.

Ive told everybody that were committed to the Big East, and people still talk about the Mountain West, he said. Has the commissioner of the Mountain West called? No. Have people talked about it? Yes. Were in the Big East going forward, and Ive tried to make that as clear as I possibly can.

Read more:http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/headlines/20130112-nichols-for-big-east-theme-is-unity.ece

[PlummMeanGreen]

One big reason SMU decided to leave Conference USA for the Big East was the bigger TV payout. With the defections of Rutgers and Louisville in football and the loss of the seven basketball schools, the Big Easts TV deal will be significantly less.

But Turner still believes the move makes sense financially as well as competitively.

I dont know what will happen, but obviously its a very competitive world and there is a lot of programming out there, Turner said. But I think as this greater sense of stability emerges, the networks are much more willing to talk and are calling rather than just receiving calls. I think thats a big change.

San Diego State officials participated in the meeting. They have until February to decide on honoring their commitment to the Big East or staying in the Mountain West.

Although SMU has been mentioned as a potential candidate for Mountain West expansion, Turner discounted that as rumor.

Ive told everybody that were committed to the Big East, and people still talk about the Mountain West, he said. Has the commissioner of the Mountain West called? No. Have people talked about it? Yes. Were in the Big East going forward, and Ive tried to make that as clear as I possibly can.

Read more:http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/headlines/20130112-nichols-for-big-east-theme-is-unity.ece

Turner said: "But I think as this greater sense of stability emerges, the networks are much more willing to talk and are calling rather than just receiving calls. I think thats a big change"

Let those TV conference advertisers come to the first SMU-UCONN B.E. "classic" at Ford Stadium and see how much that will make them want to dig much deeper in their pockets for a real nice TV package. SMU officials could tell them all 32,000 fans (actually 5K reported as 32K) were actually behind the dark tinted windows and inside Ford's luxury suites and they just wanted to impress the TV execs with how purdy' all those red and blue seats were without butts in seats blocking their view.

JUST CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF THAT PERUNA!

GMG!

Edited January 13, 2013 by PlummMeanGreen

[ragpicker]

Good post PLUMM.I am not as anti-SMU as some on this board, but I cannot understand their decisions. Their number one priority should be fan support which, as you point out, is not going to improve around here with a Big East schedule.

SMU football is looking more and more like a small private club with a few wealthy donors rather than an intercollegiate program. Surely it can't continue this way forever.

[GrayEagle]

Good post PLUMM.I am not as anti-SMU as some on this board, but I cannot understand their decisions. Their number one priority should be fan support which, as you point out, is not going to improve around here with a Big East schedule.

SMU football is looking more and more like a small private club with a few wealthy donors rather than an intercollegiate program. Surely it can't continue this way forever.

Well, I owe Plumm an answer on the subject that he and I agree to disagree on.

I think that you do understand SMU's decisions because you just reitterated it a couple of sentences later. A few wealthy donors have controlled SMU since maybe the beginning of time. They believe that they are protecting their home turf by refusing to be in a conference with North Texas. They do that primarily in athletics because it is the most visible but that also do that in academics as well. They view themselves as superior in both. They actually were superior when we were a poor struggling teacher's college and they were in the Southwest Conference. It's different now but in the eyes of big donors they lose face if they allow us to their level. Hang the cost...they've got deep pockets.

They are still superior in academics as well because they can set their own standards and North Texas is not for the elite. We have far more quality programs but few that can match SMU apples to apples. No, SMU is not ivy league quality (only Rice is at that level in Texas) but they are well above average.

Where Jim Plummer and I differ is that he thinks that SMU controls all private schools. While I have no doubt that SMU would never vote for us to be in a conference with them (as long as big donors are dictating posture) it doesn't always follow that they control all of the other private universities. I'm pretty sure that SMU cannot control Baylor and probably not Rice. The others I'm not sure of but they haven't made a ton of friends along the way with their cheating tactics.

Gerald Turner serves at the behest of the money people that actually run SMU. I use to think that he was a reason for the animosity toward us but now I'm concluding that he's just a talking head. Most of the rank and file that I've known over the years are good people and are not snobbish. My daughter is on the staff there and she has no problem with SMU's administration. But,I'll admit that some of their bigwigs and especiallty their posters can get under the skin.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Well, I owe Plumm an answer on the subject that he and I agree to disagree on.

I think that you do understand SMU's decisions because you just reitterated it a couple of sentences later. A few wealthy donors have controlled SMU since maybe the beginning of time. They believe that they are protecting their home turf by refusing to be in a conference with North Texas. They do that primarily in athletics because it is the most visible but that also do that in academics as well. They view themselves as superior in both. They actually were superior when we were a poor struggling teacher's college and they were in the Southwest Conference. It's different now but in the eyes of big donors they lose face if they allow us to their level. Hang the cost...they've got deep pockets.

They are still superior in academics as well because they can set their own standards and North Texas is not for the elite. We have far more quality programs but few that can match SMU apples to apples. No, SMU is not ivy league quality (only Rice is at that level in Texas) but they are well above average.

Where Jim Plummer and I differ is that he thinks that SMU controls all private schools. While I have no doubt that SMU would never vote for us to be in a conference with them (as long as big donors are dictating posture) it doesn't always follow that they control all of the other private universities. I'm pretty sure that SMU cannot control Baylor and probably not Rice. The others I'm not sure of but they haven't made a ton of friends along the way with their cheating tactics.

Gerald Turner serves at the behest of the money people that actually run SMU. I use to think that he was a reason for the animosity toward us but now I'm concluding that he's just a talking head. Most of the rank and file that I've known over the years are good people and are not snobbish. My daughter is on the staff there and she has no problem with SMU's administration. But,I'll admit that some of their bigwigs and especiallty their posters can get under the skin.

Fair enough, Jack....

I have known SMU grads thru the decades, even hired a few when I was in the tech school recruiting (and hiring authority) business for about 2 1/2 decades. Those SMU'ers were almost to the person fun to kid around with and we were all good natured toward each other (I mean we are not talking the Taliban wears red, blue and sings V-A-R-S-I-T-Y in arabic here);

Even at the business water cooler symposiums (so to speak) they knew how I felt about their elite crowd but they also knew that that would not affect my attitude with them or their job performance in a boor'ish bullying sort of way. I found this group of SMU alums fun to joust about and they knew my feelings about what is still many of our personal toy departments of life to just not be taken as serious as I know I can make it sound on college message boards (which I even admit can get almost silly on my behalf at times). Even part of all that from me is "lets give the poor little rich kid a little of his own medicine" while knowing in my heart of hearts (and from real life experience) that not all SMU'ers are that way.

You Nailed It.............It's just that it is those very, very few elite on the Hilltop you speak of, Jack, who seem to have made the athletic part (or the toy dept. of life) of quite an already huge DFW Metroplex army of UNT'ers quite frustrating; especially when one observes that other public universities among our Gang of 5 and even at our level who seem to receive respect from the SMU Elite because I presume its that their campuses are not less than 45 minutes from SMU's with system campuses in almost every direction of the school on Mockingbird Lane.

It does seem in the past when North Texas really had that special and most unique time in our athletic history when we could have advanced (and possibly for good) past SMU, we would invariably go back to dormant stage and slide back into the cocoon. Jack, you are and have always been a great (and most patient) alum and I wish you all the greatest of health you deserve--wish the same for your lovely wife Jessica, too. (I have a most valued pic of you, John (where is he today) Reeder, John McDowell and myself at at UNT Homecoming in the early 80's among my collection). It's quite the classic keepsake.

GMG!.

[Arkstfan]

The market is inefficient right now outside of the west and midwest because of the belief (hope) that ACC, Big 10, Big XII, SEC are going to lose members (which won't happen to SEC or Big 10) or add members creating an entry point to the elite.

SMU's hope that they can land in one of those openings as a route to help say the ACC have access to the DFW market means they don't want UNT who can also offer such access. UNT being in a different "perceived" lower league grants them an advantage. The same story plays out across the Big East footprint.

MWC has reached market equilibruim they have no place to go. Pac-12 is the only viable option and in most MWC cases the issues are more academic than athletic.

That hope of a place up the ladder drives the decision to forego the benefits of regionalism, creating local rivalries, driving attendance, lowering overhead with reduced travel costs, because the idea isn't to build a maximum value program via ticket sales and regional interest but by attaching to a wealthier host.

Of course if you look back to 1998 when the BCS formed, it covered 64 schools. The new BCS of 2014 will cover 65 schools. The probability is there won't be such a spot or if there is one it will be as fleeting as the one Cincinnati and USF enjoyed.

[untjim1995]

We feel bad about the pecking order place we find ourselves at in this state, but I think about SMU and it really is a major fall. They went from playing in one of the premier conferences of college football, with a strong mix of very wealthy private schools and huge state schools, to getting its football program killed--rightfully so--by the NCAA, thus causing them to eventually lose their status as a major player in college football. Imagine being a SMU alum in 1984. You've seen your team almost win a national championship, compete for many SWC titles in the last 5 years, and you are getting to live in Dallas and watch your team play Texas, A&M, Tech, Arkansas, etc.. every year. Then, 10 years later in 1994, you don't get those guys anymore as conference mates, plus you lose Baylor, and eventually TCU as well. It takes you until 2009 to actually get back to being a winner again, while playing teams that most of your fanbase doesn't care about, even as you win again. Now, they try to move up to a new conference that would have benefitted its teams if the Big East had held form, but instead it falls backwards, in part because teams like SMU and Tulane got admitted based on history and location, neither of which compels most fans from caring one bit about going to watch those teams play other non-AQ teams.

Here at UNT, we've never had anything like that. Sure, we dropped down to i-aa and it will probably prove to be too much to overcome, since it has set us so far back from a fanbase, media coverage, and conference affiliation standpoint. But we never even got one home game in Denton against those big SWC public schools (Texas, A&M, Tech, or Arkansas). Imagine how much disappointment you would feel if we went from playing annual home games against the Longhorns and Aggies to games at home against Tulane and Tulsa? That would suck, no matter how much you love your university.