(01-24-2022 11:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:31 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:20 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  SMU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, and Texas Tech have shared a conference before. Why not now? Especially with no UT or TAMU.

Because 5 Texas teams is too much and SMU brings nothing to the table.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Hmm - Let’s see, academics, great facilities, pay for play, great staff, great location - middle of 6 million people all of which are not Cowboys fans. If the Big 12 doesn’t want them, the PAC 12 or someone else will snatch them up. Good basketball, soccer and other sports. Too much value to pass up.

That’s funny that you think academics are going to be a major factor. None of the stuff you listed in fact is a major factor in re-alignment, in fact the only thing you did list was location and your location doesn’t offer anything to the big 12 that they don’t already have.

The only major factors in realignment are football, basketball, location, TV market, recruiting grounds, and growth potential. SMU so far hasn’t been able to achieve any sustained success in the Dallas market. TCU and OSU already cover the TV, location, and recruiting factors. And USF is lightyears ahead of SMU in the growth potential even without an OCS. SMU football is starting to show potential but even that is still questionable.

You’re only hope is the PAC 12 poaches the big 12 and makes room in the Big 12 for more Texas schools.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

(01-24-2022 12:10 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:05 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:31 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:20 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  SMU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, and Texas Tech have shared a conference before. Why not now? Especially with no UT or TAMU.

Because 5 Texas teams is too much and SMU brings nothing to the table.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

That's a bit harsh, SMU has a more prestigious football history than UH, they just had the misfortunate of being the only school to ever receive the death penalty, which seems like a cruel joke with what is occurring today.

SMU was done dirty and deserves a spot if they are going to make the investment.

Actually SMU having a more prestigious football history isn’t close to being true. UH has had way more success than SMU ever did. They may be more infamous, but they have not been more successful by any measure.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Bro, they have national titles, the award for best running back named after one of their players and were in the SWC since 1918. UH has zero titles and was in the SWC for what, 20 years? UH barely has the history of UCF let alone SMU.

(01-24-2022 12:27 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:10 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:05 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:31 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:20 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  SMU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, and Texas Tech have shared a conference before. Why not now? Especially with no UT or TAMU.

Because 5 Texas teams is too much and SMU brings nothing to the table.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

That's a bit harsh, SMU has a more prestigious football history than UH, they just had the misfortunate of being the only school to ever receive the death penalty, which seems like a cruel joke with what is occurring today.

SMU was done dirty and deserves a spot if they are going to make the investment.

Actually SMU having a more prestigious football history isn’t close to being true. UH has had way more success than SMU ever did. They may be more infamous, but they have not been more successful by any measure.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Bro, they have national titles, the award for best running back named after one of their players and were in the SWC since 1918. UH has zero titles and was in the SWC for what, 20 years? UH barely has the history of UCF let alone SMU.

When compared to head to head UH actually and SMU actually is almost even in every category.

http://www.winsipedia.com/smu/vs/houston

Then when you investigate SMU’s national championships you find that they in fact pulled a UCF and declared themselves national champions in 1935 despite having lost their bowl game

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMU_Mustangs#Football

In fact the 1935 title is the only one that was actually given any recognition by an actual poll. And even then it was not a major poll.

When you look into the other 2 “titles” it’s even worse.
They base their claims to national titles on the opinions of two foundations. Not a single major poll declared them national champions.

https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom....s_football

So no SMU has exactly 0 national championships.

Next time research your argument before making false claims.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

(01-24-2022 12:15 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:31 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:20 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  SMU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, and Texas Tech have shared a conference before. Why not now? Especially with no UT or TAMU.

Because 5 Texas teams is too much and SMU brings nothing to the table.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Hmm - Let’s see, academics, great facilities, pay for play, great staff, great location - middle of 6 million people all of which are not Cowboys fans. If the Big 12 doesn’t want them, the PAC 12 or someone else will snatch them up. Good basketball, soccer and other sports. Too much value to pass up.

That’s funny that you think academics are going to be a major factor. None of the stuff you listed in fact is a major factor in re-alignment, in fact the only thing you did list was location and your location doesn’t offer anything to the big 12 that they don’t already have.

The only major factors in realignment are football, basketball, location, TV market, recruiting grounds, and growth potential. SMU so far hasn’t been able to achieve any sustained success in the Dallas market. TCU and OSU already cover the TV, location, and recruiting factors. And USF is lightyears ahead of SMU in the growth potential even without an OCS. SMU football is starting to show potential but even that is still questionable.

You’re only hope is the PAC 12 poaches the big 12 and makes room in the Big 12 for more Texas schools.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

It’s funny you mentioned football, basketball, location, TV market, recruiting grounds, and growth potential. SMU was light years ahead of TCU in all of these things pre-dp. They well could be again if they were on an equal footing. Nobody in Dallas gives a flip about TCU or OSU. Sorry but you are wrong.

(01-24-2022 12:43 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:15 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:31 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:20 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  SMU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, and Texas Tech have shared a conference before. Why not now? Especially with no UT or TAMU.

Because 5 Texas teams is too much and SMU brings nothing to the table.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Hmm - Let’s see, academics, great facilities, pay for play, great staff, great location - middle of 6 million people all of which are not Cowboys fans. If the Big 12 doesn’t want them, the PAC 12 or someone else will snatch them up. Good basketball, soccer and other sports. Too much value to pass up.

That’s funny that you think academics are going to be a major factor. None of the stuff you listed in fact is a major factor in re-alignment, in fact the only thing you did list was location and your location doesn’t offer anything to the big 12 that they don’t already have.

The only major factors in realignment are football, basketball, location, TV market, recruiting grounds, and growth potential. SMU so far hasn’t been able to achieve any sustained success in the Dallas market. TCU and OSU already cover the TV, location, and recruiting factors. And USF is lightyears ahead of SMU in the growth potential even without an OCS. SMU football is starting to show potential but even that is still questionable.

You’re only hope is the PAC 12 poaches the big 12 and makes room in the Big 12 for more Texas schools.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

It’s funny you mentioned football, basketball, location, TV market, recruiting grounds, and growth potential. SMU was light years ahead of TCU in all of these things pre-dp. They well could be again if they were on an equal footing. Nobody in Dallas gives a flip about TCU or OSU. Sorry but you are wrong.

If, if, if, and no one in Dallas gives a flip about SMU. They definitely were ahead back then. But that was 40+ years ago. And there is nothing to indicate that SMU still has that potential or is worth the risk right now.

At the end of the day SMU offers nothing to the Big 12. Sorry that you as a homer can’t accept that.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

(01-24-2022 12:45 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:43 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:15 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:31 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Because 5 Texas teams is too much and SMU brings nothing to the table.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Hmm - Let’s see, academics, great facilities, pay for play, great staff, great location - middle of 6 million people all of which are not Cowboys fans. If the Big 12 doesn’t want them, the PAC 12 or someone else will snatch them up. Good basketball, soccer and other sports. Too much value to pass up.

That’s funny that you think academics are going to be a major factor. None of the stuff you listed in fact is a major factor in re-alignment, in fact the only thing you did list was location and your location doesn’t offer anything to the big 12 that they don’t already have.

The only major factors in realignment are football, basketball, location, TV market, recruiting grounds, and growth potential. SMU so far hasn’t been able to achieve any sustained success in the Dallas market. TCU and OSU already cover the TV, location, and recruiting factors. And USF is lightyears ahead of SMU in the growth potential even without an OCS. SMU football is starting to show potential but even that is still questionable.

You’re only hope is the PAC 12 poaches the big 12 and makes room in the Big 12 for more Texas schools.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

It’s funny you mentioned football, basketball, location, TV market, recruiting grounds, and growth potential. SMU was light years ahead of TCU in all of these things pre-dp. They well could be again if they were on an equal footing. Nobody in Dallas gives a flip about TCU or OSU. Sorry but you are wrong.

If, if, if, and no one in Dallas gives a flip about SMU. They definitely were ahead back then. But that was 40+ years ago. And there is nothing to indicate that SMU still has that potential or is worth the risk right now.

At the end of the day SMU offers nothing to the Big 12. Sorry that you as a homer can’t accept that.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Dallas is a pro sports town now. It hasn’t always been. SMU has its boosters, just not a lot of fans. After all they have a small alumni base, and many of the ones they have don’t live in Dallas. Most people in Dallas do not identify with SMU because of the high tuition and fees.

(01-24-2022 01:03 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:45 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:43 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:15 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Hmm - Let’s see, academics, great facilities, pay for play, great staff, great location - middle of 6 million people all of which are not Cowboys fans. If the Big 12 doesn’t want them, the PAC 12 or someone else will snatch them up. Good basketball, soccer and other sports. Too much value to pass up.

That’s funny that you think academics are going to be a major factor. None of the stuff you listed in fact is a major factor in re-alignment, in fact the only thing you did list was location and your location doesn’t offer anything to the big 12 that they don’t already have.

The only major factors in realignment are football, basketball, location, TV market, recruiting grounds, and growth potential. SMU so far hasn’t been able to achieve any sustained success in the Dallas market. TCU and OSU already cover the TV, location, and recruiting factors. And USF is lightyears ahead of SMU in the growth potential even without an OCS. SMU football is starting to show potential but even that is still questionable.

You’re only hope is the PAC 12 poaches the big 12 and makes room in the Big 12 for more Texas schools.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

It’s funny you mentioned football, basketball, location, TV market, recruiting grounds, and growth potential. SMU was light years ahead of TCU in all of these things pre-dp. They well could be again if they were on an equal footing. Nobody in Dallas gives a flip about TCU or OSU. Sorry but you are wrong.

If, if, if, and no one in Dallas gives a flip about SMU. They definitely were ahead back then. But that was 40+ years ago. And there is nothing to indicate that SMU still has that potential or is worth the risk right now.

At the end of the day SMU offers nothing to the Big 12. Sorry that you as a homer can’t accept that.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Dallas is a pro sports town now. It hasn’t always been. SMU has its boosters, just not a lot of fans. After all they have a small alumni base, and many of the ones they have don’t live in Dallas. Most people in Dallas do not identify with SMU because of the high tuition and fees.

And that’s a completely valid point. Unfortunately it works against SMU. The best thing for SMU is to focus on getting better in football and basketball and building up their facilities. But SMU should not be burning money with the assumption that it will get them to the big conference. They need to have the mentality that they won’t get the invite unless they force them to give them the invite.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

(01-24-2022 12:38 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:27 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:10 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:05 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:31 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Because 5 Texas teams is too much and SMU brings nothing to the table.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

That's a bit harsh, SMU has a more prestigious football history than UH, they just had the misfortunate of being the only school to ever receive the death penalty, which seems like a cruel joke with what is occurring today.

SMU was done dirty and deserves a spot if they are going to make the investment.

Actually SMU having a more prestigious football history isn’t close to being true. UH has had way more success than SMU ever did. They may be more infamous, but they have not been more successful by any measure.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Bro, they have national titles, the award for best running back named after one of their players and were in the SWC since 1918. UH has zero titles and was in the SWC for what, 20 years? UH barely has the history of UCF let alone SMU.

When compared to head to head UH actually and SMU actually is almost even in every category.

http://www.winsipedia.com/smu/vs/houston

Then when you investigate SMU’s national championships you find that they in fact pulled a UCF and declared themselves national champions in 1935 despite having lost their bowl game

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMU_Mustangs#Football

In fact the 1935 title is the only one that was actually given any recognition by an actual poll. And even then it was not a major poll.

When you look into the other 2 “titles” it’s even worse.
They base their claims to national titles on the opinions of two foundations. Not a single major poll declared them national champions.

https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom....s_football

So no SMU has exactly 0 national championships.

Next time research your argument before making false claims.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

"Next time research your argument before making false claims"?

WTF?

Listen here lil coog high commuter, next time you want to get snarky regarding NCAA football history don't be such a dunce that you don't even know that final rankings used to go out before bowl games. Talk about doing research, 'Whoops' somebody doesn't know their NCAA football history. Your own linked source, Winsipedia lists SMU with 3 National Titles. Again, your source states SMU has 3 National Titles, lol.

(01-24-2022 01:23 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:38 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:27 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:10 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:05 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  That's a bit harsh, SMU has a more prestigious football history than UH, they just had the misfortunate of being the only school to ever receive the death penalty, which seems like a cruel joke with what is occurring today.

SMU was done dirty and deserves a spot if they are going to make the investment.

Actually SMU having a more prestigious football history isn’t close to being true. UH has had way more success than SMU ever did. They may be more infamous, but they have not been more successful by any measure.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Bro, they have national titles, the award for best running back named after one of their players and were in the SWC since 1918. UH has zero titles and was in the SWC for what, 20 years? UH barely has the history of UCF let alone SMU.

When compared to head to head UH actually and SMU actually is almost even in every category.

http://www.winsipedia.com/smu/vs/houston

Then when you investigate SMU’s national championships you find that they in fact pulled a UCF and declared themselves national champions in 1935 despite having lost their bowl game

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMU_Mustangs#Football

In fact the 1935 title is the only one that was actually given any recognition by an actual poll. And even then it was not a major poll.

When you look into the other 2 “titles” it’s even worse.
They base their claims to national titles on the opinions of two foundations. Not a single major poll declared them national champions.

https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom....s_football

So no SMU has exactly 0 national championships.

Next time research your argument before making false claims.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Next time research your argument before making false claims?

WTF?

Listen here lil cool high commuter, next time you want to get snarky regarding NCAA football history don't be such a dunce that you don't even know that final rankings used to go out before bowl games. Talk about doing research, 'Whoops' somebody doesn't know their NCAA football history. Your own linked source, Winsipedia lists SMU with 3 National Titles. Again, your source states SMU has 3 National Titles, lol. Next you'll be telling me that all of Tennessee's title are legit.

Did you not read any of the other links or did you just admit you’re too lazy to do research?

Winsipedia lists national titles pre-bcs / playoff wether they were disputed or not. This is because the system was so flawed that generally there was no good way to disprove a schools claim. They are not a solid end all be all source to determine who has and hasn’t won a national championship.

And only and idiot claims to recognize a national championship when the lost the big bowl game. That’s exactly what UCF did except they actually won their bowl game. That would be like USC claiming the national title over Texas even though they lost. Last I checked Tennessee won a legitimate BCS title with Payton Manning.

And your final rankings comment doesn’t matter anyway. There is two reasons for this:

1. The other links I provided explain that SMU fudged the math to declare themselves national champions DESPITE the rankings. If you had actually taken the time to read them you would have known this.

2. No one fan recognizes a national championship in which you LOST the big bowl.

Maybe next time instead of being bitter that you got called out you should be an adult and admit when your wrong.

But lets be real, your false “cool” high comment proves you don’t care about facts. You just cared more about dissing UH.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

(01-24-2022 01:39 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:23 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:38 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:27 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:10 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Actually SMU having a more prestigious football history isn’t close to being true. UH has had way more success than SMU ever did. They may be more infamous, but they have not been more successful by any measure.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Bro, they have national titles, the award for best running back named after one of their players and were in the SWC since 1918. UH has zero titles and was in the SWC for what, 20 years? UH barely has the history of UCF let alone SMU.

When compared to head to head UH actually and SMU actually is almost even in every category.

http://www.winsipedia.com/smu/vs/houston

Then when you investigate SMU’s national championships you find that they in fact pulled a UCF and declared themselves national champions in 1935 despite having lost their bowl game

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMU_Mustangs#Football

In fact the 1935 title is the only one that was actually given any recognition by an actual poll. And even then it was not a major poll.

When you look into the other 2 “titles” it’s even worse.
They base their claims to national titles on the opinions of two foundations. Not a single major poll declared them national champions.

https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom....s_football

So no SMU has exactly 0 national championships.

Next time research your argument before making false claims.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Next time research your argument before making false claims?

WTF?

Listen here lil cool high commuter, next time you want to get snarky regarding NCAA football history don't be such a dunce that you don't even know that final rankings used to go out before bowl games. Talk about doing research, 'Whoops' somebody doesn't know their NCAA football history. Your own linked source, Winsipedia lists SMU with 3 National Titles. Again, your source states SMU has 3 National Titles, lol. Next you'll be telling me that all of Tennessee's title are legit.

Did you not read any of the other links or did you just admit you’re too lazy to do research?

Winsipedia list national titles pre-bcs / playoff wether they were disputed or not. This is because the system was so flawed that generally there was no good way to disprove a schools claim. They are not a solid end all be all source to determine who has and hasn’t won a national championship.

And only and idiot claims to recognize a national championship when the lost the big bowl game. That’s exactly what UCF did except they actually won their bowl game. That would be like USC claiming the national title over Texas even though they lost.

And last I checked Tennessee won a legitimate BCS title with Payton Manning.

Maybe next time instead of being bitter that you got called out you should be an adult and admit when your wrong.

But lets be real, your false “cool” high comment proves you don’t care about facts. You just cared more about dissing UH.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Not at all, but you started throwing shade so I'm happy to oblige.

I can't take you seriously when you post links that prove my point and discredit yours.

SMU has more history than UH, sorry that hurts your feelings.

Welcome to the Big 12.

(01-24-2022 01:46 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:39 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:23 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:38 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:27 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  Bro, they have national titles, the award for best running back named after one of their players and were in the SWC since 1918. UH has zero titles and was in the SWC for what, 20 years? UH barely has the history of UCF let alone SMU.

When compared to head to head UH actually and SMU actually is almost even in every category.

http://www.winsipedia.com/smu/vs/houston

Then when you investigate SMU’s national championships you find that they in fact pulled a UCF and declared themselves national champions in 1935 despite having lost their bowl game

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMU_Mustangs#Football

In fact the 1935 title is the only one that was actually given any recognition by an actual poll. And even then it was not a major poll.

When you look into the other 2 “titles” it’s even worse.
They base their claims to national titles on the opinions of two foundations. Not a single major poll declared them national champions.

https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom....s_football

So no SMU has exactly 0 national championships.

Next time research your argument before making false claims.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Next time research your argument before making false claims?

WTF?

Listen here lil cool high commuter, next time you want to get snarky regarding NCAA football history don't be such a dunce that you don't even know that final rankings used to go out before bowl games. Talk about doing research, 'Whoops' somebody doesn't know their NCAA football history. Your own linked source, Winsipedia lists SMU with 3 National Titles. Again, your source states SMU has 3 National Titles, lol. Next you'll be telling me that all of Tennessee's title are legit.

Did you not read any of the other links or did you just admit you’re too lazy to do research?

Winsipedia list national titles pre-bcs / playoff wether they were disputed or not. This is because the system was so flawed that generally there was no good way to disprove a schools claim. They are not a solid end all be all source to determine who has and hasn’t won a national championship.

And only and idiot claims to recognize a national championship when the lost the big bowl game. That’s exactly what UCF did except they actually won their bowl game. That would be like USC claiming the national title over Texas even though they lost.

And last I checked Tennessee won a legitimate BCS title with Payton Manning.

Maybe next time instead of being bitter that you got called out you should be an adult and admit when your wrong.

But lets be real, your false “cool” high comment proves you don’t care about facts. You just cared more about dissing UH.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Not at all, but you started throwing shade so I'm happy to oblige.

I can't take you seriously when you post links that prove my point and discredit yours.

SMU has more history than UH, sorry that hurts your feelings.

Welcome to the Big 12.

LMAO!! So you’re literally admitting that you’re just going to ignore the facts and claim what you determine to be true. You’re about as legitimate as SMU’s 3 “titles”.

Yes I posted ONE link that supports your claim at first. But my other two links thoroughly disprove your point. But of course you refuse to read those because that doesn’t fit your narrative.

Post ONE link that shows SMU is better WITHOUT using fake national titles. I’ll wait because you don’t have evidence of such. The fact is without the FALSE national titles UH is tied or better than SMU in all the major categories.

(01-24-2022 01:56 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:46 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:39 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:23 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 12:38 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  When compared to head to head UH actually and SMU actually is almost even in every category.

http://www.winsipedia.com/smu/vs/houston

Then when you investigate SMU’s national championships you find that they in fact pulled a UCF and declared themselves national champions in 1935 despite having lost their bowl game

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMU_Mustangs#Football

In fact the 1935 title is the only one that was actually given any recognition by an actual poll. And even then it was not a major poll.

When you look into the other 2 “titles” it’s even worse.
They base their claims to national titles on the opinions of two foundations. Not a single major poll declared them national champions.

https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom....s_football

So no SMU has exactly 0 national championships.

Next time research your argument before making false claims.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Next time research your argument before making false claims?

WTF?

Listen here lil cool high commuter, next time you want to get snarky regarding NCAA football history don't be such a dunce that you don't even know that final rankings used to go out before bowl games. Talk about doing research, 'Whoops' somebody doesn't know their NCAA football history. Your own linked source, Winsipedia lists SMU with 3 National Titles. Again, your source states SMU has 3 National Titles, lol. Next you'll be telling me that all of Tennessee's title are legit.

Did you not read any of the other links or did you just admit you’re too lazy to do research?

Winsipedia list national titles pre-bcs / playoff wether they were disputed or not. This is because the system was so flawed that generally there was no good way to disprove a schools claim. They are not a solid end all be all source to determine who has and hasn’t won a national championship.

And only and idiot claims to recognize a national championship when the lost the big bowl game. That’s exactly what UCF did except they actually won their bowl game. That would be like USC claiming the national title over Texas even though they lost.

And last I checked Tennessee won a legitimate BCS title with Payton Manning.

Maybe next time instead of being bitter that you got called out you should be an adult and admit when your wrong.

But lets be real, your false “cool” high comment proves you don’t care about facts. You just cared more about dissing UH.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Not at all, but you started throwing shade so I'm happy to oblige.

I can't take you seriously when you post links that prove my point and discredit yours.

SMU has more history than UH, sorry that hurts your feelings.

Welcome to the Big 12.

LMAO!! So you’re literally admitting that you’re just going to ignore the facts and claim what you determine to be true. You’re about as legitimate as SMU’s 3 “titles”.

Yes I posted ONE link that supports your claim at first. But my other two links thoroughly disprove your point. But of course you refuse to read those because that doesn’t fit your narrative.

Post ONE link that shows SMU is better WITHOUT using fake national titles. I’ll wait because you don’t have evidence of such. The fact is without the FALSE national titles UH is tied or better than SMU in all the major categories.

SWC titles

SMU-10
UH-4

(01-24-2022 02:06 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:56 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:46 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:39 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:23 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  Next time research your argument before making false claims?

WTF?

Listen here lil cool high commuter, next time you want to get snarky regarding NCAA football history don't be such a dunce that you don't even know that final rankings used to go out before bowl games. Talk about doing research, 'Whoops' somebody doesn't know their NCAA football history. Your own linked source, Winsipedia lists SMU with 3 National Titles. Again, your source states SMU has 3 National Titles, lol. Next you'll be telling me that all of Tennessee's title are legit.

Did you not read any of the other links or did you just admit you’re too lazy to do research?

Winsipedia list national titles pre-bcs / playoff wether they were disputed or not. This is because the system was so flawed that generally there was no good way to disprove a schools claim. They are not a solid end all be all source to determine who has and hasn’t won a national championship.

And only and idiot claims to recognize a national championship when the lost the big bowl game. That’s exactly what UCF did except they actually won their bowl game. That would be like USC claiming the national title over Texas even though they lost.

And last I checked Tennessee won a legitimate BCS title with Payton Manning.

Maybe next time instead of being bitter that you got called out you should be an adult and admit when your wrong.

But lets be real, your false “cool” high comment proves you don’t care about facts. You just cared more about dissing UH.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Not at all, but you started throwing shade so I'm happy to oblige.

I can't take you seriously when you post links that prove my point and discredit yours.

SMU has more history than UH, sorry that hurts your feelings.

Welcome to the Big 12.

LMAO!! So you’re literally admitting that you’re just going to ignore the facts and claim what you determine to be true. You’re about as legitimate as SMU’s 3 “titles”.

Yes I posted ONE link that supports your claim at first. But my other two links thoroughly disprove your point. But of course you refuse to read those because that doesn’t fit your narrative.

Post ONE link that shows SMU is better WITHOUT using fake national titles. I’ll wait because you don’t have evidence of such. The fact is without the FALSE national titles UH is tied or better than SMU in all the major categories.

SWC titles

SMU-10
UH-4

Once again a bad argument relying on a lack of context.

SMU first season of football 1915
UH first season of football 1946

difference of 31 years

——————————————————-


SMU affiliation SWC 1918-1995

UH affiliation SWC 1976-1995

difference 58 years.

———————————————————————————


UH and SMU conference SWC championships 1976-1995

UH 4
SMU 3

——————————————————-

Once again you prove that you can’t make your point without skewing facts and ignoring context.

Any other “facts” you want to use?

————————————————————————-

Edit: If you want to take it further conference championships UH - 11 SMU - 11

104 years of football for SMU

76 for UH.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

(01-24-2022 02:19 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 02:06 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:56 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:46 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:39 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Did you not read any of the other links or did you just admit you’re too lazy to do research?

Winsipedia list national titles pre-bcs / playoff wether they were disputed or not. This is because the system was so flawed that generally there was no good way to disprove a schools claim. They are not a solid end all be all source to determine who has and hasn’t won a national championship.

And only and idiot claims to recognize a national championship when the lost the big bowl game. That’s exactly what UCF did except they actually won their bowl game. That would be like USC claiming the national title over Texas even though they lost.

And last I checked Tennessee won a legitimate BCS title with Payton Manning.

Maybe next time instead of being bitter that you got called out you should be an adult and admit when your wrong.

But lets be real, your false “cool” high comment proves you don’t care about facts. You just cared more about dissing UH.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Not at all, but you started throwing shade so I'm happy to oblige.

I can't take you seriously when you post links that prove my point and discredit yours.

SMU has more history than UH, sorry that hurts your feelings.

Welcome to the Big 12.

LMAO!! So you’re literally admitting that you’re just going to ignore the facts and claim what you determine to be true. You’re about as legitimate as SMU’s 3 “titles”.

Yes I posted ONE link that supports your claim at first. But my other two links thoroughly disprove your point. But of course you refuse to read those because that doesn’t fit your narrative.

Post ONE link that shows SMU is better WITHOUT using fake national titles. I’ll wait because you don’t have evidence of such. The fact is without the FALSE national titles UH is tied or better than SMU in all the major categories.

SWC titles

SMU-10
UH-4

Once again a bad argument relying on a lack of context.

SMU first season of football 1915
UH first season of football 1946

difference of 31 years

——————————————————-


SMU affiliation SWC 1918-1995

UH affiliation SWC 1976-1995

difference 58 years.

———————————————————————————


UH and SMU conference championships 1976-1995

UH 4
SMU 3

——————————————————-

Once again you prove that you can’t make your point without skewing facts and ignoring context.

Any other “facts” you want to use?


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Yea, more years means more history, which is exactly what I said SMU has more of than UH. Thanks again. Welcome to the Big 12.

(01-24-2022 02:21 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 02:19 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 02:06 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:56 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:46 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  Not at all, but you started throwing shade so I'm happy to oblige.

I can't take you seriously when you post links that prove my point and discredit yours.

SMU has more history than UH, sorry that hurts your feelings.

Welcome to the Big 12.

LMAO!! So you’re literally admitting that you’re just going to ignore the facts and claim what you determine to be true. You’re about as legitimate as SMU’s 3 “titles”.

Yes I posted ONE link that supports your claim at first. But my other two links thoroughly disprove your point. But of course you refuse to read those because that doesn’t fit your narrative.

Post ONE link that shows SMU is better WITHOUT using fake national titles. I’ll wait because you don’t have evidence of such. The fact is without the FALSE national titles UH is tied or better than SMU in all the major categories.

SWC titles

SMU-10
UH-4

Once again a bad argument relying on a lack of context.

SMU first season of football 1915
UH first season of football 1946

difference of 31 years

——————————————————-


SMU affiliation SWC 1918-1995

UH affiliation SWC 1976-1995

difference 58 years.

———————————————————————————


UH and SMU conference championships 1976-1995

UH 4
SMU 3

——————————————————-

Once again you prove that you can’t make your point without skewing facts and ignoring context.

Any other “facts” you want to use?


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Yea, more years means more history, which is exactly what I said SMU has more of than UH. Thanks again. Welcome to the Big 12.

Hey now don't start lying just because you can't admit you were wrong like an adult.

This is your exact quote, no where were you purely trying to argue that SMU has more history than UH

(01-24-2022 12:05 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  That's a bit harsh, SMU has a more prestigious football history than UH, they just had the misfortunate of being the only school to ever receive the death penalty, which seems like a cruel joke with what is occurring today.

SMU was done dirty and deserves a spot if they are going to make the investment.

You argued their history was more prestigious and then tried to support it with your flawed national championship argument.

(01-24-2022 12:27 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  Bro, they have national titles, the award for best running back named after one of their players and were in the SWC since 1918. UH has zero titles and was in the SWC for what, 20 years? UH barely has the history of UCF let alone SMU.

Now you're mad that you have been proven wrong an are trying to lie about what you said which is hilarious.

(01-24-2022 12:05 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:31 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 11:20 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  SMU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, and Texas Tech have shared a conference before. Why not now? Especially with no UT or TAMU.

Because 5 Texas teams is too much and SMU brings nothing to the table.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

That's a bit harsh, SMU has a more prestigious football history than UH, they just had the misfortunate of being the only school to ever receive the death penalty, which seems like a cruel joke with what is occurring today.

SMU was done dirty and deserves a spot if they are going to make the investment.

My only issue with SMU is that their fans simply will not support their programs.

I respect what they've done in both football and men's basketball recently and appreciate the commitment their athletic administration has made to fielding and supporting competitive/sustainable programs. But the elephant in the room remains a disengaged fanbase that doesn't seem as grateful as they should be for those things.

The crowds at SMU sporting events are frankly embarrassing for how competitive their programs are.

In an effort to get this thread back on topic, I like 12 or 16 teams. I'm not crazy about 14. Twelve is great for scheduling and 16 opens up the possibility of four regional pods, which has some appeal to me. Fourteen is just a mess.

I'd probably stay at 12 until the PAC-12 finalizes its next TV deal and then strongly consider expanding to 16 after. I think there's strength in numbers in our conference's case. Without any notable brand names, I think the "new" Big 12's calling card will be its ability to compete on the field. And the more quality programs you have in your league, the better your odds are of having some teams at the end that can compete with other top league's best (with the elite of the elite likely excluded).

If I were going to expand, I'd add Memphis to the east and go west with all further expansion, picking up Boise State, San Diego State and probably Colorado State.

That leaves you with four pods of:

East: Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, West Virginia
Midwest: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State
Southwest: Baylor, Houston, TCU, Texas Tech
West: Boise State, BYU, Colorado State, San Diego State

This format would preserve traditional rivalries and make the vast geographical span of this league a little less of an issue. And you could manipulate the schedule to manage travel if needed, especially for non-revenue sports.

I also love the idea of having a four-team conference playoff for the title at the end, but that's more a pipe dream than a realistic expectation. But it would be unique, lucrative IMO and relatively easy to handle logistically.

No more Texas teams please, no disrespect to smu.

(01-24-2022 03:32 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  No more Texas teams please, no disrespect to smu.

Texas is a big state with a lot of schools and a lot of athletes and fans. If SMU does not compete in the Big 12 they will compete somewhere else. But they will take their share of the athletes. So it makes no difference to SMU what P5 conference they’re in, but they would draw bigger crowds in the Big 12 than some far flung P5 conference. The footprint fits.

(01-24-2022 02:35 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 02:21 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 02:19 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 02:06 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:56 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  LMAO!! So you’re literally admitting that you’re just going to ignore the facts and claim what you determine to be true. You’re about as legitimate as SMU’s 3 “titles”.

Yes I posted ONE link that supports your claim at first. But my other two links thoroughly disprove your point. But of course you refuse to read those because that doesn’t fit your narrative.

Post ONE link that shows SMU is better WITHOUT using fake national titles. I’ll wait because you don’t have evidence of such. The fact is without the FALSE national titles UH is tied or better than SMU in all the major categories.

SWC titles

SMU-10
UH-4

Once again a bad argument relying on a lack of context.

SMU first season of football 1915
UH first season of football 1946

difference of 31 years

——————————————————-


SMU affiliation SWC 1918-1995

UH affiliation SWC 1976-1995

difference 58 years.

———————————————————————————


UH and SMU conference championships 1976-1995

UH 4
SMU 3

——————————————————-

Once again you prove that you can’t make your point without skewing facts and ignoring context.

Any other “facts” you want to use?


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

Yea, more years means more history, which is exactly what I said SMU has more of than UH. Thanks again. Welcome to the Big 12.

Hey now don't start lying just because you can't admit you were wrong like an adult.

This is your exact quote, no where were you purely trying to argue that SMU has more history than UH

(01-24-2022 12:05 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  That's a bit harsh, SMU has a more prestigious football history than UH, they just had the misfortunate of being the only school to ever receive the death penalty, which seems like a cruel joke with what is occurring today.

SMU was done dirty and deserves a spot if they are going to make the investment.

You argued their history was more prestigious and then tried to support it with your flawed national championship argument.

(01-24-2022 12:27 PM)hiphopfroggy Wrote:  Bro, they have national titles, the award for best running back named after one of their players and were in the SWC since 1918. UH has zero titles and was in the SWC for what, 20 years? UH barely has the history of UCF let alone SMU.

Now you're mad that you have been proven wrong an are trying to lie about what you said which is hilarious.

I'm just glad the SMU-UH rivalry appears strong and well. Another sign that they belong. Pretty funny that the last Texas school through the door would be adamant about slamming the door shut on any other would be Texas infiltrators.