Realignment talk not going away

[Evil Bill Obrien 3297]

43 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

All you have to do to beat them is not put a dog shit team on the field.

Well up until this past Saturday thats been a rather challenging thing for Texas State to do most of the time...heres to hoping thats a thing of the past

[Evil Bill Obrien 3297]

53 minutes ago, TxEx84 said:

Obviously, it won't be Big12 then, but Texas has a game with Texas State in 2026.

Never actually been to DKR but have had that one circled since it got announced. Play Aggy again in College Station in 2027 and if TXST keeps this upswing going that long might actually go to that one loaded for bear with a cigar a la App State Fan:

 

[statsman 5486]

Immamac, is there a way to make “Farting Dreamer’s” neg reps actually count as positive?

[ztejas 43545]

51 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

ASU is a landmine of potential

They really aren't. They've never been a nationally relevant football program for more than basically one one-off season at a time and one four-year stretch in the early 70s. They have four top 5 AP finishes in program history (the last of which came almost 30 years ago), 15 bowl wins and 17 consensus AAs. Their culture is shit and they are within 500 miles of just one big-time recruiting region. 

Anyone that could get them to consistently finish in the top 25 would be doing a damn good job. 

Also pretty sure you meant "goldmine".

Unless you meant "landmine waiting for any coach to tank their career"

[Hurtlocker 2213]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

ASU may very well be an undertog to TXST next year. ASU is a big school with a good fanbase, but they haven't done anything of note in football in recent memory.

You mean besides hiring a big name friend as a coach who couldn't coach college and broke a lot of rules before they finally got rid of him for a solid amount of money, then slapped the penalties of his work on the kids who were trying to rebuild, irritating the players and the fanbase and making pariahs out of the president and AD?

[bullet 1599]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

TSU?

 

edit: Texas State, got it, I never see them listed as TSU (TX St)

TSU is Texas Southern, the HBCU in Houston.

[statsman 5486]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Yeah, BYU guy is annoying, I've been negged by him multiple times, doesn't change the fact that the extent of your hatred of the Big XII overall is bizarre. The comment you specifically mentioned was "The Big 12 will be just fine without TX and OU" which is true. We'll be paid what we're worth and it is pretty good under the circumstances. There's plenty of middle ground between BIG/SEC and complete irrelevance. We're below those two in prestige and well above the G5, and will be compensated accordingly. The networks aren't going to reneg because two traditionally middling Big XII teams shit the bed in Week 1.

Hatred? How about not joining in the circle jerk of how great the IR8 B12 will be?

 
(Edited- yeah, I do hate Baylor. Sorry you’re stuck with them; I guess someone has to be)

Edited September 5, 2023 by statsman

[TKthunder2 4997]

3 minutes ago, bullet said:

TSU is Texas Southern, the HBCU in Houston.

That’s where my brain went.

[FartingDreamer 138]

 

[berlinerbaer 678]

On 9/5/2023 at 1:07 PM, 'stache said:

Yeah, BYU guy is annoying, I've been negged by him multiple times, doesn't change the fact that the extent of your hatred of the Big XII overall is bizarre. The comment you specifically mentioned was "The Big 12 will be just fine without TX and OU" which is true. We'll be paid what we're worth and it is pretty good under the circumstances. There's plenty of middle ground between BIG/SEC and complete irrelevance. We're below those two in prestige and well above the G5, and will be compensated accordingly. The networks aren't going to reneg because two traditionally middling Big XII teams shit the bed in Week 1.

Maybe on page 687 people will realize that all this shit isn't really about on-field performance.

[bullet 1599]

Beavers still in limbo:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/oregon-state-ad-scott-barnes-says-he-s-frustrated-with-speed-of-clarity-over-pac-12-assets/ar-AA1gf9SS

Pac 12 can't even tell them what assets they have.

“"...When you look at potential assets that we hold, whether it’s autonomy and Power 5 status, the Pac-12 Network or whatever the balance sheet looks like in the end, that helps drive decisions,” Barnes said.

In the meantime, “we’re scenario planning. We’re not just waiting. But ultimately, to inform a final decision, it’s important we know about the Pac-12 assets,” he said.

Asked if Oct. 1 is a reasonable deadline for a decision on Pac-12 assets, Barnes said “yeah, that’s not unreasonable.”

What is delaying a decision?

“You’ll have to ask the Pac-12 that,” Barnes said. “I keep asking. It’s been a slow process, a frustrating process.”

What are the options? One is a straight merger with Mountain West. Another is a reverse merger where the Mountain West lands under the Pac-12 umbrella. A third is Oregon State and Washington State going the route of a “Pac-2″ for two years. NCAA by-laws allow a conference two years to rebuild to at least eight schools.

<<<my note:  NCAA rules require at least 6 members to keep the basketball autobid>>>

By waiting two years, the cost to acquire Pac-12 expansion schools falls dramatically. The Mountain West’s media rights contract ends after the 2025-26 year. American Athletic (AAC) schools must give 27 months notice before leaving.

Barnes said Oregon State could find a way to fill a 12-game football schedule for two years if necessary.

“Not easy, but if we had to fill a schedule, it would take comprehensive moves, but we could,” Barnes said. “We’ve vetted it with experts and we know there’s a potential path.”

Barnes added that this isn’t necessarily the preferred path, just an option.

Barnes confirmed that talks with the AAC have ceased. He said it was a mutual decision, largely because of extensive travel. But Barnes also said that “we’ll continue to pound on doors” regarding possible alliances, including Power 5 conferences."

 

[TKthunder2 4997]

I’ve wondered how much control OSU/WSU actually have. Could the other 10 vote to sell off assets, payout all reserves and dissolve the conference?

[gatormarc 915]

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I’ve wondered how much control OSU/WSU actually have. Could the other 10 vote to sell off assets, payout all reserves and dissolve the conference?

I haven't seen the P12 bylaws but it seems that most conferences have language that basically makes those who have already begun the process of leaving the conference as non-voting members for voting situations that involve future membership etc. as they are now "non interested" members.

[Ghost of LL 15544]

11 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

Maybe on page 687 people will realize that all this shit isn't really about on-field performance.

I guess I disagree with that a bit.

There are a handful of programs that are of national interest irrespective of on-the-field performance.  Texas falls into that group.  So does Notre Dame.  Michigan, Ohio State, USC, . . . I don't know--maybe Alabama.  But those programs are pretty limited in number.

And then there are a lot of programs that are of national interest when they're good enough to be challenging for a national championship.  I think Clemson is the archetype for this category.  Clemson is obviously of national interest right now.  Pretty much all of us watched them get their clocks cleaned by Duke Monday night.  But pretty much all of us remember pre-Dabo Clemson, when that program wasn't particularly good.  And when it's not challenging for a national championship, Clemson is of little interest outside the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson megalopolis.

 

 

. . . and actually that point is why I'm a bit skeptical when people act like its just a done deal that Florida State, Clemson, and UNC are all leaving the ACC in 7 or 12 or 14 years (depending on the GOR situation, which seems really murky).  I mean, Florida State--ok.  They may be in that top group of programs that are of national interest regardless.  But Clemson and UNC?

The SEC and B1G have enough members right now that they don't need expansion.  They can expand, but they don't need to.  So if they're going to expand, those new teams need to bring in more in additional revenue than their cut would be.  They need to expand the pie bigger than the slice they're taking.

And I really don't understand the argument for how UNC does that.  UNC football is of no real interest to anybody, even in North Carolina.  UNC is all about basketball.  But a lot of UNC's appeal in basketball is about its rivalries (particularly with Duke).  Take away those ACC rivalries, and does anybody care about UNC regular-season basketball?

Which brings us back to Clemson.  Yeah, Clemson is a property now.  But Clemson wasn't a property 15 years ago, when they went 7-6 and lost to Nebraska in the Gator Bowl--a result that was pretty par-for-the-course for Clemson pre-Dabo.  And one wonders whether Clemson will be a property 15 years from now, with every other program in college football paying players and Clemson's on-the-field results consequently flagging.

At least, that's what the SEC and the B1G will be wondering.

[ztejas 43545]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Which brings us back to Clemson.  Yeah, Clemson is a property now.  But Clemson wasn't a property 15 years ago, when they went 7-6 and lost to Nebraska in the Gator Bowl--a result that was pretty par-for-the-course for Clemson pre-Dabo.  And one wonders whether Clemson will be a property 15 years from now, with every other program in college football paying players and Clemson's on-the-field results consequently flagging.

Clemson is a pretty good historical program. From '48-'59 they finished in the AP top 20 six times and won 3 bowls. From '77-'07 (year before Dabo showed up) they finished ranked 16 times (5 times in the top 10), won 11 bowls and won a national championship.

They have a big fanbase, their school supports the program and geographically they are in a great spot for recruiting. Obviously they've enjoyed their greatest stretch of success under Dabo but other guys have shown that it isn't that difficult to build a winning program there. I'd expect them to continue to be a relevant program that has every program's typical ups and downs. They aren't Nebraska or Cal or one of the Arizona schools. 

[ztejas 43545]

And - UNC basketball is massive. They are the 2nd best program of all time. UNC will never have an issue garnering interest because their basketball program is that valuable. It bumps them up quite a few spots when comparing them to similar football programs. 

[Ghost of LL 15544]

2 minutes ago, ztejas said:

And - UNC basketball is massive. They are the 2nd best program of all time. UNC will never have an issue garnering interest because their basketball program is that valuable. It bumps them up quite a few spots when comparing them to similar football programs. 

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I think that's dead wrong.  I think all the media deals we've seen, and just the word that has leaked out over time, is that basketball really has little value.  In negotiating media deals, it has about a tenth the value of football.

If basketball were valuable, you'd have seen Kansas getting a lot more attention from the SEC and the B1G.  But there's a reason the SEC was eager to take Oklahoma and didn't give Kansas a first, much less a second, look.  Basketball just has no value.

And I stand by my initial take.  A lot of UNC's basketball value is wrapped up in its rivalry with Duke (and to a lesser extent with NC State and Virginia).  Take those away, and UNC basketball is similar to Kentucky or Louisville or Kansas.  Which is to say, "not very valuable at all."

 

 

 

As to Clemson, I'm not arguing that it's a "pretty good historical program."  But there are a lot of "pretty good historical programs."  Washington is a pretty good historical program.  

Washington got into the B1G with a lot of hesitation on the conference's part and, ultimately, with a reduced share.  Are we all so sure the SEC is going to do the same with Clemson in ten years?

For the record, I'm not saying the answer is "no."  I'm just saying that I'm not nearly as sure the answer is "yes" as everyone else seems to be.

[Lidig8r 1874]

On 9/5/2023 at 2:37 PM, ztejas said:

 15 bowl wins and 17 consensus AAs.

 That got me thinkin. So, I found a site listing most colleges  bowl records.  The following dearth of bowl wins jumped out at me:

Arizona    9

Baylor    14

Colorado   12

Notre Dame    19   (yes, they did have the voluntary no bowl ban for a number of years)

Oregon    16

Texas Tech   16

UCLA    16

The greatest number of bowl victories:

Bama      45

Georgia   37

USC      34

Penn State/Oklahoma (sux)/ and Texas    31

Tennessee 30

[redswingline 1067]

8 minutes ago, ztejas said:

And - UNC basketball is massive. They are the 2nd best program of all time.

What is the criteria?

If it's total championships it goes UCLA (11), Kentucky (8), UNC (6) and then UConn, Duke and Indiana have 5 each. Kansas has 4.

If it's total championships but recency is more important (last 24 years), I'd put UConn at #1 with 5 titles, Duke & UNC tied in second with 3 each.

[Al_4_ISU 12498]

42 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I guess I disagree with that a bit.

There are a handful of programs that are of national interest irrespective of on-the-field performance.  Texas falls into that group.  So does Notre Dame.  Michigan, Ohio State, USC, . . . I don't know--maybe Alabama.  But those programs are pretty limited in number.

And then there are a lot of programs that are of national interest when they're good enough to be challenging for a national championship.  I think Clemson is the archetype for this category.  Clemson is obviously of national interest right now.  Pretty much all of us watched them get their clocks cleaned by Duke Monday night.  But pretty much all of us remember pre-Dabo Clemson, when that program wasn't particularly good.  And when it's not challenging for a national championship, Clemson is of little interest outside the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson megalopolis.

 

 

. . . and actually that point is why I'm a bit skeptical when people act like its just a done deal that Florida State, Clemson, and UNC are all leaving the ACC in 7 or 12 or 14 years (depending on the GOR situation, which seems really murky).  I mean, Florida State--ok.  They may be in that top group of programs that are of national interest regardless.  But Clemson and UNC?

The SEC and B1G have enough members right now that they don't need expansion.  They can expand, but they don't need to.  So if they're going to expand, those new teams need to bring in more in additional revenue than their cut would be.  They need to expand the pie bigger than the slice they're taking.

And I really don't understand the argument for how UNC does that.  UNC football is of no real interest to anybody, even in North Carolina.  UNC is all about basketball.  But a lot of UNC's appeal in basketball is about its rivalries (particularly with Duke).  Take away those ACC rivalries, and does anybody care about UNC regular-season basketball?

Which brings us back to Clemson.  Yeah, Clemson is a property now.  But Clemson wasn't a property 15 years ago, when they went 7-6 and lost to Nebraska in the Gator Bowl--a result that was pretty par-for-the-course for Clemson pre-Dabo.  And one wonders whether Clemson will be a property 15 years from now, with every other program in college football paying players and Clemson's on-the-field results consequently flagging.

At least, that's what the SEC and the B1G will be wondering.

They've been in this boat for 20 years, but here we are.

I agree with you, BTW, but I just don't think any of their expansion has been on a "need to" basis.  The Big 12 and ACC needed to add the schools they did this year.  The Big 10 didn't.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[Don Johnson 4757]

https://sports.yahoo.com/inside-smus-pursuit-of-the-power-five--its-a-couple-hundred-million-dollars-im-not-losing-sleep-over-it-125139541.html

 

Quote

 

DALLAS — David Miller is tall enough not to hide among crowds, particularly this one.

At an impromptu celebration within SMU’s indoor football facility, there is no escape for Miller. He is, after all, the chairman of the school’s board of trustees.

On this day, for a party 40 years in the making, he is dressed the part. In a red-and-blue plaid sports coat and slacks, he stares down through eyeglasses from his 6-foot-8 perch as, one by one, members of the SMU family form a receiving line.

For a brief moment, the scene is reminiscent of the 1970s Hollywood hit “The Godfather.” Supporters stop shy of genuflecting at the 73-year-old’s feet, restraining themselves to handshakes and hugs.

“Thank you so, so much,” a woman tells a smiling Miller.

“We appreciate everything,” a young donor says to him.

Miller is an oil man, with a deep booming voice and an accent you’d find on any Lone Star ranch. He began as an oil banker, then was an oil operator and now, sitting on a cushion of hard-earned cash, he's an oil investor. He’s got five children and 13 grandchildren, all of whom he expects to attend his alma mater, the oak tree-lined private school nestled in the plush neighborhood of Highland Park.

Who else but a wealthy Texas oil tycoon would you expect to be behind SMU’s latest and most significant victory: a move into the Atlantic Coast Conference, their long-awaited return to major college athletics.

How this all happened, a Hollywood script of a story with Miller as the lead protagonist, is no longer shrouded in secrecy.

Miller spent the last 14 months on what some Texans might describe as a wildcatting adventure, not for unfounded oil wells but for a major conference home for the SMU Mustangs. In his eight-passenger Challenger 300 business jet, he criss-crossed the country on an orchestrated mission to convince influencers at one of three major conferences to invite into their league the school in Uptown Dallas.

Call it an amazing race: Twenty flights, two dozen clandestine meetings, hundreds of secret phone calls, a near-invitation to the Pac-12, an unprecedented revenue proposal and a commitment from a small group of oil executives and business moguls of more than $200 million — the price tag, as one put it, to get into the club.

It is a story straight out of Texas.

“When you really think about it,” Miller says, “this was a business transaction.”

 

SMU AD Rick Hart, president Gerald Turner, board chairman David Miller and VP Brad Cheves look on during SMU's celebration after joining the ACC. (Credit: SMU athletics)

Pulling out of 'dark period' with help from deep-pocketed friends

The Westin Hotel in Charlotte is not a place for discretion. The glass tower rises over most other buildings in the busy downtown of what’s known as The Queen City.

And yet, during one April morning, the commissioner of the ACC, Jim Phillips, and his deputy, Ben Tario, gathered here in a boardroom with two less recognizable men: David Miller, captaining SMU’s expansion expedition; and Oliver Luck, the former NCAA executive hired by the school as a consultant.

The four men spent roughly two hours exploring SMU’s candidacy as an expansion member. Talks grew serious. Financial arrangements were discussed.

“They were interested in trying to understand that, if we are willing to forgo media rights shares, then the commissioner wanted to know, ‘How are you going to compete?’” recalled Miller.

Before Miller answered that question, long before he arrived at this meeting, SMU’s expansion journey began.

The school has spent decades slowly crawling out of sports wilderness, a byproduct of the harshest NCAA decision on record: the infamous death penalty, which discontinued the football program for two seasons in 1987-88 over impermissible benefits to players — actions now legal through name, image and likeness (NIL) rules.

For nearly 80 years, SMU competed in a power league and won. The old Southwest Conference featured the likes of Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor and Arkansas. The Mustangs claimed 11 conference football titles.

But the NCAA’s decision rocked the university, so much that officials radically de-emphasized sports.

“It was a very dark period,” said Clark Hunt, now the owner of the Kansas City Chiefs who played soccer at SMU when the NCAA delivered its blow. “At the time, we didn’t know how hard it was going to be for the university to bounce back. It took 30-plus years.”

The climb first began academically. In his 27th year as school president, Gerald Turner oversees a university bursting with academic success. Student applications have tripled under his leadership, and a bevy of on-campus buildings have either been renovated or rebuilt.

SMU, a top-75 institution in the U.S. News rankings, is on the cusp of attaining the prestigious status as a Research 1 (R1) school.

But one of Turner’s greatest gifts is cultivating the school’s league of wealthy donors.

SMU boasts some of the most deep-pocketed boosters in America, many of them alums whose business success and riches they trace back to their education — itself steep and exclusive. Tuition is $62,000, enrollment hovers around 7,000 and the acceptance rate is about 53%.

One of the chiefs among the donors is Miller, whose net worth begins with the letter ‘B.’ He’s donated more than $100 million to the school, at least $75 million of it to academic buildings, and his name graces the floor of SMU’s basketball court.

In 2012, Turner hired as his athletic director Rick Hart, then at Tennessee-Chattanooga. Hart aligned school officials and donors with a mission to improve the quality of coaches and facilities.

Many of the most recent investments are tangible. The school’s new $110 million south end zone project should be completed by next season. One donor, Garry Weber, footed half the bill. Another donor, Bill Armstrong, was lead giver on the $25 million Armstrong Fieldhouse, the school’s indoor football facility.

A few years ago, Armstrong helped create the Vision 2025 Fund, a more than $10 million pot meant to hire and retain coaches with an important overall goal: attain membership in a Power Five conference by 2025.

More than a decade ago, the school began the Circle of Champions, a campaign of major donors that led to the hiring of football coach June Jones and basketball coach Larry Brown. The cost of entry to the Circle of Champions: an annual $100,000 pledge.

“Our donors and alums differentiate us from others,” Hart acknowledged.

 

SMU is headed to the ACC, which marks the school's long-awaited return to big-time college football. (Photo by John Rivera/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

The Mustang Club, the athletic department’s booster group, normally generates about $15-20 million in annual giving, Turner said. That figure is on par with donations reported last year from schools like North Carolina, Arizona, Arkansas and Purdue.

In 2021, the university launched a $1.5 billion capital campaign that two years later, despite pandemic effects and a teetering economy, has generated $1 billion in donations.

Many of the country’s powerhouse athletic programs lean on a small group of millionaires for investments. SMU has billionaires.

Most of them sit on the school’s board of trustees.

“It’s amazing,” said Steve Orsini, who helped lay a foundation as SMU’s athletic director in 2006-2012. “I was awestruck when I’d go into a board of trustees meeting. I’ve been at a lot of universities, but that’s as good of a room of committed and successful people as I’ve seen anywhere.”

All of this is why Miller figuratively shrugged at Phillips' question on that April morning in the downtown Charlotte Westin.

How, if SMU were to take such a reduced share of television money, would they compete?

Miller smiled from across the table.

“It’s a couple hundred million dollars,” Miller said. “I’m not losing sleep over it.”

Inside SMU's cross-country pursuit of Power Five status

David Miller does not consider himself a wildcatter.

In Texas, that term is reserved only for the brave and curious men and women who scour the globe in search of unfounded oil wells. The original wildcatters are now long gone, but they are not lost to history. Columbus Marion Joiner, known in the late-19th century as “Dad,” was the father of the east Texas oil strike. Glenn McCarthy struck so much oil near Houston in the 1930s that newspapers dubbed him “King of the Wildcatters.”

Miller is a wildcatter of a different kind.

His expedition began in the summer of 2022 after SMU leaders, donors and consultants settled on a plan to pursue membership in the Big 12, Pac-12 or ACC. The Big 12 made sense geographically. The Pac-12 made sense realistically. And the ACC? It made sense culturally.

It was also a complete long shot.

“The ACC was not our original intention,” said Turner, the school president. “The Pac-12 was moving a lot quicker.”

Roughly a year before Miller’s expedition began, university leaders created what they called the Athletic Task Force, a group of about 12-15 influential, high-level donors with a mission of finding the Mustangs a new home. Amid a wave of conference realignment moves, a sense of urgency grew, much of it sparked by the Big 12’s decision to pass on SMU in 2021, instead adding UCF, BYU, Cincinnati and, the one that most boiled blood in Dallas, the University of Houston.

Losing football coach Sonny Dykes to chief rival TCU, once in the Group of Five itself, served as another harsh reminder of SMU’s place in the college football hierarchy. The Horned Frogs’ run to the national championship game in 2022 intensified the realignment desire.

The “Power Five Task Force,” as donor Bill Armstrong refers to it, met occasionally on calls and in-person for the last 18 months. From his private jet or some distant college town, Miller delivered realignment updates to the task force.

To help in the search, the school hired consultants such as Luck, the former West Virginia athletic director who has deep connections in the industry. Luck is responsible for connecting SMU administrators with about two-thirds of the powerbrokers in each conference, Miller said. Those included key board members, university presidents and provosts, major donors and other athletic administrators.

SMU AD Rick Hart, Turner and Miller were the point men. Hart handled athletic directors and Turner took school presidents — both mostly by phone or Zoom. Flying in his private jet, Miller focused on in-person meetings with board members and boosters — in many ways, the most influential decision-makers.

Hart described the endeavor as a “campaign.”

Miller flew to at least 20 different cities, including Los Angeles, Charlotte, Scottsdale, Winston-Salem, New York, Charlottesville, Seattle and Miami. In one of his first trips last summer, he took a five-hour flight from his summer home in Montana to Charleston, South Carolina, to meet with an influential Clemson board member, only to learn once he landed that the person tested positive for COVID-19.

The meeting was off and Miller returned home.

“It got off to a bad start,” he remembered.

Things got better, mostly because of his corporate connections.

Miller is the co-founder and managing partner of EnCap Investments, a leading provider of private equity to the energy industry. EnCap has managed over $37 billion of institutional capital since its inception in 1988 and ranks as one of the 20 largest private equity firms in the world.

“A lot of universities have bought his company’s funds,” said Turner. “As a result, he knew some trustees already who are on the investment committees of their university boards.”

At one point last fall, SMU officials were engrossed in serious conversations with all three conferences. In fact, on Feb. 7, photographers snapped photos of Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff watching a Mustangs basketball game from a suite, flanked by Turner, Miller and Hart.

While their flirtation with the Pac-12 and Big 12 was public, the dance with the ACC remained somewhat veiled.

Miller and Turner held their first Zoom call with ACC commissioner Jim Phillips last November. Two months later, Miller flew to Los Angeles the weekend of the CFP title game, coincidentally featuring TCU. He wasn’t there for the game. Miller and Luck held back-to-back meetings in a downtown LA restaurant with two conference commissioners: Phillips and Kliavkoff.

By that time, chances of SMU entering the Big 12 were dwindling. Miller’s trips to Waco and Lubbock went nowhere, and his communication with Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark slowed to a crawl. “Brett told me they had other priorities,” Miller said.

Turner believes he knows why. The Mustangs were blocked by TCU, Baylor, Houston and Texas Tech. “We give the Big 12 schools in Texas competition now in the American,” he said, “and so if we had equal billing in a power league, we could make it even more competitive.”

It was another disappointment in the school’s years-long chase for a power league.

The heartbreak stretches back to 2011, when the Mustangs accepted an invitation from the Big East before the league evolved into a basketball-only operation. The Big 12 has now twice denied them entrance.

And then came the latest blow. On Aug. 4, Pac-12 presidents were scheduled to meet on an early morning call to agree to a streaming-only media deal with Apple, as well as add two schools: San Diego State and SMU.

Armstrong, attending an SMU football camp practice that day, celebrated when reports surfaced that morning of the meeting. Flashing his phone to supporters and staff members around him, the Mustangs’ practice turned into a jubilant celebration.

Two hours later, the 108-year-old Pac-12 conference crumbled when Washington and Oregon left for the Big Ten.

Miller’s phone buzzed with a text message that afternoon. It was from the Pac-12 commissioner.

“You can’t imagine how close we were to signing the grant of rights,” Kliavkoff wrote to him. “You guys were our first call.”

'Are you in?'

In a spacious board room adjacent to Gerald Turner’s presidential suite, some of the most powerful and wealthy men in Dallas gathered.

Rick Hart, SMU’s athletic director, and David Miller, the expansion captain, moved to the front of the room and proceeded to present a financial model for the school’s entrance into the Pac-12 and ACC. Close to receiving an invite to either, the proposal required the school to forego the league’s television revenue for seven to nine years.

“We needed a significant commitment from each person in the room to make it happen,” Miller told them. “It’s all about the money.”

Hart and Miller hadn’t completed the presentation when the first hand went up. And then another. And another.

The 12-person group didn’t need any more convincing.

“It was, ‘OK, we know what we have to do,’” recalled Bill Armstrong. “It wasn’t, ‘Bill, are you good for a million a year?’ Nothing like that. It was, ‘Are you in?’ And everybody was like, ‘We’re in.’”

Armstrong, one of the country’s last real oil wildcatters, made the largest oil discovery in decades on Alaska’s northern slopes in 2013. The company sold its stake in the discovery for an initial price of $400 million, a figure that could rise to $850 million.

He’s not often surrounded by people with more wealth. He was that day.

“It was a hitter’s room,” he said. “A lot of dough.”

Attendees included Ray Hunt, a second generation oil man with a net worth of $7.2 billion; Rich Templeton, the chairman of Texas instruments and a man that Forbes once named in the top 50 of American Innovative Leaders; Chiefs owner Clark Hunt; Marty Flanagan, recently retired as CEO of Invesco; Texas automotive magnate Carl Sewell; Gerry Ford, a banking executive worth $2.4 billion; and Bob Dedmon, another billionaire and heir to the largest golf course and country club operating company in the country.

The combined net worth of the room was more than $15 billion.

 

SMU athletic director Rick Hart played a big role in getting the school into the ACC. (AP)

What this room of power brokers committed to that day was unprecedented in college sports history. To understand its significance, one must understand the finances of a college athletic department.

Most departments are kept afloat by four primary revenue-generators: student athletic fees and institutional support, football ticket sales, football-tethered donations and conference distribution, most of which is from the league’s television package, which in most cases is at least 90% derived from football.

At the Power Five level, television contracts have become so lucrative that they are often the leading revenue producer for an athletic department. In the SEC last year, TV money accounted for 37% of the average department’s budget.

Conference television packages range drastically in value — a reason for the latest realignment as programs jockey to join leagues with the richest TV deals. Over the next five years, SEC and Big Ten schools are expected to reach $70 million in annual distribution. ACC and Big 12 schools are projected around $40-45 million.

There is a significant dropoff to the ranks of the Group of Five. Last year, SMU received $9 million in total conference distribution from the American Athletic Conference, about 80% from the television deal.

Through the course of negotiations with the ACC, the school committed to accepting no conference television revenue in its first nine years in the ACC. While other ACC teams get upwards of $45 million, SMU will receive nothing?

Not exactly.

“People say we are going over without any money,” Turner said. “Well, no. We’re going over with what we’ve got now.”

While SMU will not receive the largest portion of the distribution — TV money — the Mustangs get everything else. Administrators expect to receive about 25% of an ACC distribution share, or roughly $10-12 million annually in cash from NCAA tournament, bowl games, the CFP and the conference’s new incentive-success pool.

That still leaves a gap of $30 million annually between the Mustangs and the original 14 ACC programs — a whopping difference that could impact resources such as coaching salaries, recruiting budgets, staff size, etc.

That’s where the millionaire and billionaire boosters enter the picture. Completely closing the gap isn’t necessary, Turner said. But he did not rule it out.

“We have nine or 10 of them who will unanimously go after it,” Turner said. “That allowed us to do this.”

How it all came together

In 1987, when the NCAA slammed SMU with the death penalty, David Miller was a 40-year-old banker living in Denver making a low enough salary that his annual donation to the school was $100.

This now makes him chuckle. Twenty years prior, he starred on the SMU basketball team during a student-athlete experience in which he paid zero tuition as a scholarship player. Always hoping to return the investment, he showered the school with those millions over the last decade.

But deep inside, well before he even became board chairman last year, Miller held another goal: get the Mustangs into a power league.

“I envisioned this,” he smiles.

Well, maybe not exactly this.

SMU’s offer — nine years and zero TV money — is an unusual way to enter a conference. In an interview with Yahoo Sports, one Power Five athletic director says it sets a “concerning” precedent moving forward, creating such a low bar to gain entrance into a league.

But this was an extraordinary circumstance. The ACC spent the last two years searching for additional revenue to appease a select group of schools — mostly football powers — over the gap in TV revenue between it and the SEC and Big Ten. In a further sign of fragmentation, the conference’s vote to expand was not unanimous — a rarity in conference decisions.

Three of the league’s historic football powers — Florida State, Clemson and North Carolina — voted against the move.

Miller knows why.

“It was really about their dissatisfaction with the formula around the success-initiative,” he said. “They wanted more.”

Until 2033, SMU is annually forgoing $24 million, the amount of an ESPN share that the network is required to distribute to the conference for each new team. Cal and Stanford, accepting a 30% share, are forgoing about $16 million each in the first seven years. That’s a total of $56 million annually.

Roughly half is expected to be distributed to original league members and the other half — $25-30 million, Miller estimated — will be placed in a success-initiative pool awarded mostly by football success.

Even though three of the league’s four historic football powers voted against expansion, the success-initiative pool was a critical piece to striking the deal. During that April meeting in Charlotte, Miller laid it out for the commissioner.

“We can take nothing and help you solve a problem,” Miller told Phillips. “The arrangement is a huge score of capital to flow into the pool for the football schools. Am I connecting the dots?”

Across the room, Phillips nodded his head.

In an interview with Yahoo Sports, Phillips declined to discuss financial figures, except to say that SMU was “aggressive in how they could fit into the ACC.”

The last month of Miller’s expedition was the most intense. A week after the Pac-12 collapse, an expansion straw poll from ACC presidents failed, by one vote, to gain the requisite 12 votes for passage.

While SMU was in serious consideration as an expansion candidate, the straw poll primarily focused on the additions of only Cal and Stanford, SMU president Gerald Turner said. In the three weeks between the straw poll and the final expansion vote on Sept. 1, the Mustangs’ candidacy grew stronger.

Not only did SMU’s addition bring the additional revenue from the TV shares, the Dallas market and a strong fit as a private, academic institution, the school introduced an interesting travel concept. In conversations between Turner and Stanford ambassador Condoleezza Rice, the SMU president presented a plan for the two West Coast schools and the original ACC schools to meet in Dallas to hold Olympic sports competition at SMU’s venues.

In the future, Turner hopes to even broaden the plan to incorporate other events.

“I know in talking to the mayor of Dallas, there is great interest in making Dallas an ACC city,” Turner said. “It would be great if the ACC tournament one day was at the American Airlines Center.”

The final week of the expedition was a roller coaster. An ACC presidents call planned for Monday was postponed because of a shooting on North Carolina’s campus. The next day, a hurricane roared ashore near Tallahassee and angled up the East Coast.

What was next, Turner thought. Locusts?

Days before the vote, Miller made one last phone call to an important person at NC State, seen as the potential swing vote. He phoned the school’s board chairman, Ed Weisiger.

This wasn’t the first time the two talked. About a month prior, around the time of the straw poll, Miller and Weisiger spoke in a conversation that produced surprising news: Weisiger and NC State had not, at that point, been made aware of SMU’s financial proposal from the league office. “On the second call, he didn’t say they would flip,” Miller said, “but they were aware of the financial arrangement and it was compelling.”

About 12 minutes into the 7 a.m. presidents meeting on Sept. 1, the vote unfolded. Hart’s phone buzzed at about 7:15 a.m. It was an ACC athletic director.

“NC State flipped,” the message said. “Welcome to the ACC!”

Hart is an ACC guy. He grew up in North Carolina and graduated from UNC. He’s fulfilling a wish to be an ACC athletic director. Did he think this is how it would happen?

“No,” he chuckles in an interview just hours after the news broke.

Hart shakes off any criticism of SMU’s expansion campaign. If some want to say that the school bought its way into a conference, well, fine. But that’s not how they see it.

“You can’t forgo anything that you don’t have,” he says, sitting in his spacious office overlooking Gerald Ford Stadium.

“There’s something special with doing more with less,” he continues. “I’m not worried one bit. Every league has its high-resourced and low-resourced schools. Just because you’re a high-resource school doesn’t mean you win.”

Back inside the Armstrong Fieldhouse, SMU’s celebration is winding down. Miller stands tall among a couple dozen people who remain. His receiving line is dwindling. Behind him on the building’s jumbotron is the school’s iconic red Mustang figure paired with the ACC logo against a blue backdrop.

A man slowly walks toward Miller, his white SMU hat pulled low.

It’s Paul Loyd, another mega-booster and a member of the small group of donors on the expansion task force. Loyd captained the Mustangs to the Cotton Bowl in 1967 and eventually served as chairman and chief executive officer of the world's largest offshore drilling company.

He’s given millions to the school, most recently as part of a group of donors who are pooling $1 million annually to SMU’s efforts with name, image and likeness (NIL).

It’s an ironic twist.

A member of the Mustang Club when the NCAA delivered its death penalty, Loyd stands here in what feels like a full-circle moment. He is now legally able to distribute funds to SMU players. And the Mustangs, after nearly four decades searching for an elite home, have returned to the major college ranks.

“That’s what makes today cool for me,” Hart says. “No one else can relate to those people who saw the death penalty here. And there was nothing really going to heal that wound — except for membership in a Power Five.”

 

 

[ztejas 43545]

21 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I think that's dead wrong.  I think all the media deals we've seen, and just the word that has leaked out over time, is that basketball really has little value.  In negotiating media deals, it has about a tenth the value of football.

If basketball were valuable, you'd have seen Kansas getting a lot more attention from the SEC and the B1G.  But there's a reason the SEC was eager to take Oklahoma and didn't give Kansas a first, much less a second, look.  Basketball just has no value.

And I stand by my initial take.  A lot of UNC's basketball value is wrapped up in its rivalry with Duke (and to a lesser extent with NC State and Virginia).  Take those away, and UNC basketball is similar to Kentucky or Louisville or Kansas.  Which is to say, "not very valuable at all."

No shit the SEC took OU over Kansas. The point is that schools like Kansas and UNC will always have a seat at the table because of their basketball programs. If you're the SEC and you're debating between Miami and UNC, UNC's basketball revenue absolutely garners a mention. Just because, for the most part, basketball doesn't matter doesn't mean that it doesn't move the needle a bit for a very select handful of schools. UNC is one of them. 

24 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

As to Clemson, I'm not arguing that it's a "pretty good historical program."  But there are a lot of "pretty good historical programs."  Washington is a pretty good historical program.  

Washington didn't just win 2 national titles. I'm failing to understand your point on Clemson. You think it's as easy to win at UW as Clemson? Okay. 

[ztejas 43545]

22 minutes ago, redswingline said:

What is the criteria?

If it's total championships it goes UCLA (11), Kentucky (8), UNC (6) and then UConn, Duke and Indiana have 5 each. Kansas has 4.

If it's total championships but recency is more important (last 24 years), I'd put UConn at #1 with 5 titles, Duke & UNC tied in second with 3 each.

Total FFs

UNC - 21 

UCLA - 18

Kentucky - 17

 

Titles + runner ups 

UNC - 12

UK - 12

UCLA - 11

 

I give the edge to UK and UNC because they've had success across every era of the sport. Sure UCLA has the most titles but outside of Wooden they really aren't that comparable to the other top 4 (adding KU and Duke). 

Either way UNC is 3rd at worst. I don't have a huge issue with any ordering of the top 3.

Edited September 7, 2023 by ztejas

[statsman 5486]

Basketball-the big money maker is the NCAA tournament. The NCAA controls that and distributes money. 
Football- the conferences make and distribute the money. 
 

Does t hat help explain?

[Ghost of LL 15544]

35 minutes ago, ztejas said:

No shit the SEC took OU over Kansas. The point is that schools like Kansas and UNC will always have a seat at the table because of their basketball programs. If you're the SEC and you're debating between Miami and UNC, UNC's basketball revenue absolutely garners a mention. Just because, for the most part, basketball doesn't matter doesn't mean that it doesn't move the needle a bit for a very select handful of schools. UNC is one of them. 

Washington didn't just win 2 national titles. I'm failing to understand your point on Clemson. You think it's as easy to win at UW as Clemson? Okay. 

So is your point that UNC and Clemson are slam dunks to be admitted to the SEC or the B1G in 2034 (or whenever)?

[jTower 238]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

So is your point that UNC and Clemson are slam dunks to be admitted to the SEC or the B1G in 2034 (or whenever)?

Maybe not, but the SEC wanted UNC and settled for aggy.  Perhaps that was based on the old paradigm of households for the conference network, but they really wanted UNC. 

[Horn of Gabriel 1807]

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/inside-smus-pursuit-of-the-power-five--its-a-couple-hundred-million-dollars-im-not-losing-sleep-over-it-125139541.html

 

 

Good article with some fun background info.  Thanks

[ztejas 43545]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

So is your point that UNC and Clemson are slam dunks to be admitted to the SEC or the B1G in 2034 (or whenever)?

No. But I doubt they'd be voting against adding conference members if they weren't fairly confident in their chances. 

34 minutes ago, statsman said:

Basketball-the big money maker is the NCAA tournament. The NCAA controls that and distributes money. 
Football- the conferences make and distribute the money. 
 

Does t hat help explain?

Don't conferences get bigger payouts from MM in relation to how far their teams advance?

[Ghost of LL 15544]

13 minutes ago, jTower said:

Maybe not, but the SEC wanted UNC and settled for aggy.  Perhaps that was based on the old paradigm of households for the conference network, but they really wanted UNC. 

But things change over the course of 20 years.

Shit--ten years ago, the Big XII wouldn't touch BYU.  But look at where BYU is today.

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

No. But I doubt they'd be voting against adding conference members if they weren't fairly confident in their chances. 

Don't conferences get bigger payouts from MM in relation to how far their teams advance?

Yes, but . . . the payout from March Madness is pretty trivial compared to television revenue.  

As I said, to be an expansion candidate for either the SEC or the B1G, UNC would have to show that it will bring in more revenue to the conference than it would take out through conference distribution.  For the SEC, the television distribution alone was $50M/school.

In the basketball tournament, participants get a "unit."  Each unit was worth about $350K last year (it goes up 3% every year).  The champion gets five units--$1.75M.

So yeah--UNC's performance in March Madness is not going to turn it into a net contributor to the SEC or B1G when it doesn't draw any attention for football.

[billfromlaketravis 11529]

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/inside-smus-pursuit-of-the-power-five--its-a-couple-hundred-million-dollars-im-not-losing-sleep-over-it-125139541.html

 

 

I think some of their alumni’s fortunes are bullet proof. The Hunts for sure. NFL ownership has the best rate of return of almost any investment.

The money should be there, but some shit will happen between now and 2036. I think SMU is too dismissive of the money they’re forgoing. 

[ztejas 43545]

42 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

UNC would have to show that it will bring in more revenue to the conference than it would take out through conference distribution.

It doesn't need to show that at all. You think the recent ACC adds are bringing more per school than each school is already getting? Is UW bringing more to the B10 than what the average share already was? 

[ztejas 43545]

47 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

UNC would have to show that it will bring in more revenue to the conference than it would take out through conference distribution.

It doesn't need to show that at all. You think the recent ACC adds are bringing more per school than each school is already getting? Is UCLA* bringing more to the B10 than what the average share already was? 

 

[statsman 5486]

That SMU article-

Basically, SMU approached it like a US tourist trying to beat a ticket in Costa Rica- “Look, clearly there is a way. How much will it take?”

 

[Vertigo 20336]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

No shit the SEC took OU over Kansas. The point is that schools like Kansas and UNC will always have a seat at the table because of their basketball programs. If you're the SEC and you're debating between Miami and UNC, UNC's basketball revenue absolutely garners a mention. Just because, for the most part, basketball doesn't matter doesn't mean that it doesn't move the needle a bit for a very select handful of schools. UNC is one of them. 

Washington didn't just win 2 national titles. I'm failing to understand your point on Clemson. You think it's as easy to win at UW as Clemson? Okay. 

I think we are nearing a point of the super league in pretty much any scenario. You might see one more round of realignment in 2030s before it happens, but there will only be a select few who benefit. Clemson, FSU, UNC, and maybe Miami or Va Tech are the likely winners in the next game of thrones. There will be some traditional SEC and B1G schools left out in that super league scenario as well. If you were going to create a league based on revenues and fan bases etc, it would likely look something like:

Assuming a 40 team super league, you would have 32 pretty easy choices followed by 8 bubble teams.

B12 Schools - BYU, Colorado, Utah, Ok State, Texas Tech

ACC Schools - UNC, Clemson, FSU, Miami, Va Tech

SEC Schools - Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky

B1G Schools - USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa

Independent - Notre Dame

 

More likely Bubble Teams - Minnesota, Indiana, Maryland, Illinois, Purdue, Virginia, Pitt, Louisville, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, Syracuse, Arizona, Arizona State, Central Florida, Iowa State, Kansas, Ole Miss, Miss State, 

Long Shot Bubble Teams - Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Stanford, Cal, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rutgers, Boston College, K-State,

If I am making the decision, then my final 8 would be -  Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, Duke, Kansas, Central Florida, Ole Miss, and NC State
 

[statsman 5486]

That SMU article-

Basically, SMU approached it like a US tourist trying to beat a ticket in Costa Rica- “Look, clearly there is a way. How much will it take?”

 

[redswingline 1067]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I think some of their alumni’s fortunes are bullet proof. The Hunts for sure. NFL ownership has the best rate of return of almost any investment.

The money should be there, but some shit will happen between now and 2036. I think SMU is too dismissive of the money they’re forgoing. 

Right. As soon as it's financially viable to pay the exit fees, 3-4 schools are going to bounce and that is going to be well before 2036.

[thunderlounge 7947]

15 minutes ago, redswingline said:

Right. As soon as it's financially viable to pay the exit fees, 3-4 schools are going to bounce and that is going to be well before 2036.

Only if they have somewhere to go.

That might not be the case unless SEC/B1G start kicking out the bottom feeder for slightly better bottom feeders. 

[ztejas 43545]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

That SMU article-

Basically, SMU approached it like a US tourist trying to beat a ticket in Costa Rica- “Look, clearly there is a way. How much will it take?”

 

They write tickets in Costa Rica?

[TKthunder2 4997]

6 hours ago, gatormarc said:

I haven't seen the P12 bylaws but it seems that most conferences have language that basically makes those who have already begun the process of leaving the conference as non-voting members for voting situations that involve future membership etc. as they are now "non interested" members.

Yes, I agree that would stop them from breaking TV contracts, GORs or possibly disbanding the conference, but what’s unknown is whether selling assets or disbursing emergency funds would fall under the same restrictions.

[Ghost of LL 15544]

2 hours ago, ztejas said:

It doesn't need to show that at all. You think the recent ACC adds are bringing more per school than each school is already getting? Is UW bringing more to the B10 than what the average share already was? 

And I would say that those are pretty unique circumstances.  With UW and Oregon, you had a dying league that made the schools so desperate that they are willing to take reduced conference distributions.  The ACC is not a dying league.  And would UNC and Clemson be willing to take reduced shares?

The far closer analogy is to USC and UCLA.  Had they not left, the Pac-12 would be a perfectly viable league (much as the ACC is today with Clemson and UNC in it).  And you bet that the B1G took them because they could demonstrate that they would be net contributors to the conference.

[TKthunder2 4997]

7 hours ago, gatormarc said:

I haven't seen the P12 bylaws but it seems that most conferences have language that basically makes those who have already begun the process of leaving the conference as non-voting members for voting situations that involve future membership etc. as they are now "non interested" members.

1234

Edited September 7, 2023 by TKthunder2

[bullet 1599]

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

But things change over the course of 20 years.

Shit--ten years ago, the Big XII wouldn't touch BYU.  But look at where BYU is today.

Yes, but . . . the payout from March Madness is pretty trivial compared to television revenue.  

As I said, to be an expansion candidate for either the SEC or the B1G, UNC would have to show that it will bring in more revenue to the conference than it would take out through conference distribution.  For the SEC, the television distribution alone was $50M/school.

In the basketball tournament, participants get a "unit."  Each unit was worth about $350K last year (it goes up 3% every year).  The champion gets five units--$1.75M.

So yeah--UNC's performance in March Madness is not going to turn it into a net contributor to the SEC or B1G when it doesn't draw any attention for football.

I think UNC is overrated in realignment.  Their basketball is top 5 (UK, KU, Duke, UCLA, UNC)  They are in the largest state without at least an SEC or Big 10 school in a metro (Rutgers is NYC metro).  Those are big pluses.  But in football, which is 80% of the value, they don't add anything.  They are an even number addition.  You add someone else and get the even number with UNC.  You don't add just for UNC if you are the Big 10 or SEC.

I think Clemson is underrated.  They fill an 80k seat stadium.  They have 3 MNCs.  They are clearly one of the top 15-20 football programs of the last 50-60 years.  They have even more value in the CFP era than they did before.  They will be a relatively regular participant.

Notre Dame and FSU are sure things.  But Clemson is every bit as valuable as Washington and Oregon.

[Ghost of LL 15544]

5 minutes ago, bullet said:

Notre Dame and FSU are sure things.  But Clemson is every bit as valuable as Washington and Oregon.

And I think that is all consistent with my assessment.

Clemson = Washington or Oregon.  And Washington and Oregon, as we know, were not at all sure things to join the B1G.  So I think people are wildly overstating the likelihood of Clemson and UNC being able to bolt the ACC in ten years to join the SEC or B1G.  It could happen, but it's not a certainty.

[mdmost 43056]

UNC might be really motivated to help blow up the NCAA when the time comes.

And hell yes, go after them. It's ridiculous that we all just watched JT Daniels playing with his 4th school and this kid can't play this year.

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by mdmost

[bullet 1599]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And I think that is all consistent with my assessment.

Clemson = Washington or Oregon.  And Washington and Oregon, as we know, were not at all sure things to join the B1G.  So I think people are wildly overstating the likelihood of Clemson and UNC being able to bolt the ACC in ten years to join the SEC or B1G.  It could happen, but it's not a certainty.

I think Washington and Oregon were always sure things.  The only question was timing.  This contract or the next.

['stache 21887]

How was JT Daniels able to play for four different schools in 6 years without having a transfer denied? Also, LOL at UNC crying about the NCAA when they got off scot free for literal academic fraud. I'll hold back my own personal grievance with the NCAA since I've complained dozens of times and it just makes me ragey.

[notre dame joe 196]

4 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Good article with some fun background info.  Thanks

Additions made at a 7am conference call.  ACC to amend bylaws requiring in person meetings with coffee?

[Texas Wahoo 3420]

13 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

How was JT Daniels able to play for four different schools in 6 years without having a transfer denied? Also, LOL at UNC crying about the NCAA when they got off scot free for literal academic fraud. I'll hold back my own personal grievance with the NCAA since I've complained dozens of times and it just makes me ragey.

I am assuming that JT Daniels did not need a waiver for his last two transfers because he was a graduate transfer - twice.  He graduated from Georgia and then transferred to WVU and then he graduated from WVU and then transferred to Rice.

[NCMountaineer 100]

29 minutes ago, bullet said:

I think Washington and Oregon were always sure things.  The only question was timing.  This contract or the next.

yep, that was the obvious move for the longest time and I honestly think all the last minute talk was more about getting the B1G to come forward and make something work.

as for UNC, as much as I hate those pricks, they're going to get an invite from one of the two big boys eventually. Might not be full value initially if it's the B1G, but a lot of these decisions aren't made by the ADs but by the University presidents with some input from the TV execs. It's also the reason I don't think UVA will be left out to dry when, if actual interest in the program was taken into account, my reaction if I were a conference exec would be "new phone, who this?" 

[camel at sea 589]

3 hours ago, redswingline said:

Right. As soon as it's financially viable to pay the exit fees, 3-4 schools are going to bounce and that is going to be well before 2036.

Yeah.  There seems to be some smoke around the idea that the ACC contract provides that they won't lose per-team payout during the life of their current contract, provided they stay at 15 members.  They now have 18 members.  FSU, Clemson, and UNC are the three squeaky wheels.  I'd guess they're SEC bound.  ESPN can smooth the exit since they're the primary rights holder on both sides.  There's no reason for ESPN to smooth an exit toward a FOX backed conference.  That move also probably protects and stabilizes the ACC because I'm not sure how motivated the B1G would be to add schools like UVA, Duke, Miami, or Georgia Tech on their own. 

If it plays out that way, I think there's a pretty good chance that SEC #20 is Kansas.  The Jayhawks would fill out the map in the west, give the SEC a 3rd crown jewel in men's basketball, and they'd give Mizzou back its primary rival.