Realignment talk not going away

[Al_4_ISU 12665]

https://x.com/cyclonelarry69/status/1697624763550609553?s=46

[DanTheHorn 5092]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Midweek home games for Standford and Cal should be at SMU for Volleyball and Baseball and weekend games can be at home. Does SMU have the real estate to build a HUB athletic building full of dorms? Maybe the money can come from there over the next 9 years.

[gatormarc 938]

1 hour ago, Napoleon said:

Equestrian team at SMU is the second largest in the entire athletic department behind football.

TITLE IX

That is why schools in the south have added equestrian teams. Plus, if you are rich enough to compete, you are probably bringing your own horse to school and you are used to paying for the horse’s upkeep yourself, so the scholarships just cover tuition, room, & board.

That and the ability to rack up titles because there are only a dozen schools to compete with.

Though that's nothing new, just new in the south.

The B1G and Pac12 lived off of winning titles in sports where only 20 other schools compete.

['stache 22147]

The PAC name has no cache anymore, at all. ORST and WSU should join the MWC. The name makes more sense too since the old Pac 12 had 8 schools in states bordering the Pacific and will how have 4, with more representation in the mountain region. 

[Al_4_ISU 12665]

The PAC name has no cache anymore, at all. ORST and WSU should join the MWC. The name makes more sense too since the old Pac 12 had 8 schools in states bordering the Pacific and will how have 4, with more representation in the mountain region. 

The MWC with those two is a pretty geographically sound league of schools with similar facilities and fanbases.

[gatormarc 938]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The PAC name has no cache anymore, at all. ORST and WSU should join the MWC. The name makes more sense too since the old Pac 12 had 8 schools in states bordering the Pacific and will how have 4, with more representation in the mountain region. 

What happens to stuff like NCAA Tournament credits when a conference folds? 

['stache 22147]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

As an SMU Law alumnus and someone who is generally sympathetic to the Ponies' cause, I am pretty fucking gruntled this morning.

You could conceive of a scenario in which SMU, with all its NIL money, recruits Dallas the way Miami recruits South Florida and builds a similar program.  Not a program that is going to contend for national championships.  And not really a program that anybody in its home city gives a shit about.  But something that is still very competitive and fun to watch.

And yeah--SMU's situation is now far better than TCU's.  

I think the point is that it's great for Dallas even if nobody in the city cares much about SMU.  First, it's going to have conference games that are meaningful in the national college-football picture.  And second, hosting a bunch of Olympic sports brings both money and exposure.

Same boat re gruntled that my law school gets to move up. Totally disagree thought that they are better situated than TCU. Financially obviously, TCU never had to give up that much revenue. And the only thing arguably better about the ACC is FSU and Clemson as far as on the field competition. Academics I guess are better but I really don't think anyone would perceive SMU any better because of the ACC, or would any worse if Big XII. But ultimately, FSU, Clemson, and UNC have signaled that they aren't long for the conference, and when they leave, the ACC will be well below Big XII in prestige. I think a valid argument exists that the Big XII is already better, but Clemson/FSU in the ACC makes it not so clear.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2901]

Just now, gatormarc said:

What happens to stuff like NCAA Tournament credits when a conference folds?

I think you can transfer them to SkyMiles with no fee.

[DanTheHorn 5092]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

Power 5?

['stache 22147]

2 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

What happens to stuff like NCAA Tournament credits when a conference folds? 

Not sure what you mean by credits, but it means one more at-large spot since a conference champion auto qualifier is eliminated. 

[redswingline 1124]

2 hours ago, ztejas said:

Yeah you're right we should have stayed in the fucking American with UNT and Charlotte. 

That's right - playing against schools similar to SMU: crap on-the-field-play with no fans in the stands.

[gatormarc 938]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Not sure what you mean by credits, but it means one more at-large spot since a conference champion auto qualifier is eliminated. 

I don't even fully understand it. It had something to do with NCAA tournament payouts to the conference and who gets it if/when teams leave.

Not sure what the gap/delay is between tournaments and the payout.

[gatormarc 938]

1 minute ago, gatormarc said:

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Not sure what you mean by credits, but it means one more at-large spot since a conference champion auto qualifier is eliminated. 

I don't even fully understand it. It had something to do with NCAA tournament payouts to the conference and who gets it if/when teams leave.

Not sure what the gap/delay is between tournaments and the payout.

Found a piece about it by Mr. Wilner.

https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-finances-estimating-the-ncaa-tournament-cash-available-for-the-remaining-schools/

Quote

Each game played by a conference in March Madness equals one unit. Those units translate to dollars and are paid out over a rolling six-year cycle through the NCAA Basketball Fund.

For now, let’s assume the NCAA distributions to the Pac-12 in the spring of 2024 will be split 12 ways, with the outgoing schools receiving equal shares. (Clarity on financial and administrative issues should come in the next few weeks.)

But the units earned won’t follow them out the door. All that cash will be left to the four remaining members, if they stick together. (At this point, it’s unclear what would happen to the units if the conference disbands.)

 

[DanTheHorn 5092]

14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The PAC name has no cache anymore, at all. ORST and WSU should join the MWC. The name makes more sense too since the old Pac 12 had 8 schools in states bordering the Pacific and will how have 4, with more representation in the mountain region. 

I read somewhere the PAC still owns (maybe has an agreement) the Rosebowl so a merger may be the better deal to keep the rights and still play someone from the BIG 10.

Edited September 1, 2023 by DanTheHorn

[bullet 1631]

7 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

What happens to stuff like NCAA Tournament credits when a conference folds? 

They go to the team that earned them.

5 or 6 years ago, if you lost half your members it went to the team that earned them, but apparently they changed that rule (at least I've seen it stated lots of times that WSU/OSU can keep them).  Seems like as long as you have a member, reload members and don't dissolve, you keep the credits.  With the Big East they had to reach an agreement on where the credits went (to the remaining 3).  At that point I remember the rule would have sent it back to the schools that earned them without that agreement.

The NCAA bb money gets distributed over 6 years, so you've got a good chunk still due the conference.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2901]

Holy shit.  SMU is back! We should be gruntled.

It's like the Han Dynasty is getting back together.

 

[ztejas 44286]

7 minutes ago, redswingline said:

That's right - playing against schools similar to SMU: crap on-the-field-play with no fans in the stands.

SMU has a higher 247 talent composite going into this season than 9/14 current ACC schools. 11/16 if you add Calford.

What other riveting takes do you wish to bless us with?

[oSuJeff97 3439]

1 hour ago, Napoleon said:

Money is not an issue with SMU.

It never has been.

Still -

Footing what they would have received in media rights for *7 years*, along with forking out NIL $ for "big time" players seems like a pretty risky gamble.

Like what level of recruiting are the expected to elevate themselves to now? 

At the end of the day they are still competing with OU, Texas, Texas A&M and the rest of the SEC for the elite recruits in Texas.  And they are competing with Ok State, TCU, Baylor, etc., for the next-tier down recruits... only those teams are all playing the vast majority of their games in Texas or at least in the region vs. playing half of their games on the east coast.

So is the plan to beat out OU/Texas/SEC for the top elite recruits in Texas? Is that realistic?

Because otherwise if they just raise their level of recruiting to what OSU, TCU, Baylor, etc., are doing that is no guarantee of success. You need great coaching that can develop players and have great schemes as well. You can easily have a top 20-25 recruiting class year after year and be a losing program.

Will the big cigar donors continue to be happy about shelling out big $ year after year for a handful of 8-4 or 7-5 type seasons? And then especially what happens when the top ACC brands bolt for the B1G and SEC?  You're right back where you were before, except you've paid like $100mm (or whatever the number is) out of pocket that you could have gotten by staying put.

The whole thing seems risky AF to me.

[bullet 1631]

https://sports.yahoo.com/it-is-insane--how-the-accs-contentious-back-and-forth-expansion-deal-ultimately-got-done-170122627.html

ACC was trying to go full Big 10, negotiating with AU, ASU, UU as well as Cal and Stanford when AU/ASU/UU lost patience.

['stache 22147]

4 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

I read somewhere the PAC still owns the Rosebowl so a merger may be the better deal to keep the rights and still play someone from the BIG 10.

I thought I read that when the CFP goes to 12 the Rosebowl conference affiliations would officially end. I also assume that if there is a contract it has an out if there is significant change in circumstance, like neither the Rose Bowl nor the BIG ever agreed to a matchup with the MWC even if they operate under the PAC name going forward.

[DanTheHorn 5092]

5 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Still -

Footing what they would have received in media rights for *7 years*, along with forking out NIL $ for "big time" players seems like a pretty risky gamble.

Like what level of recruiting are the expected to elevate themselves to now? 

At the end of the day they are still competing with OU, Texas, Texas A&M and the rest of the SEC for the elite recruits in Texas.  And they are competing with Ok State, TCU, Baylor, etc., for the next-tier down recruits... only those teams are all playing the vast majority of their games in Texas or at least in the region vs. playing half of their games on the east coast.

So is the plan to beat out OU/Texas/SEC for the top elite recruits in Texas? Is that realistic?

Because otherwise if they just raise their level of recruiting to what OSU, TCU, Baylor, etc., are doing that is no guarantee of success. You need great coaching that can develop players and have great schemes as well. You can easily have a top 20-25 recruiting class year after year and be a losing program.

Will the big cigar donors continue to be happy about shelling out big $ year after year for a handful of 8-4 or 7-5 type seasons? And then especially what happens when the top ACC brands bolt for the B1G and SEC?  You're right back where you were before, except you've paid like $100mm (or whatever the number is) out of pocket that you could have gotten by staying put.

The whole thing seems risky AF to me.

Were you around in the early 80's to see that SMU does not struggle for money or influence when it thinks it can actually win something.

[statsman 5698]

21 minutes ago, 'stache said:

and when they leave, the ACC will be well below Big XII in prestige. 

I guess I’m curious as to why you believe this

[redswingline 1124]

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

SMU has a higher 247 talent composite going into this season than 9/14 current ACC schools. 11/16 if you add Calford.

What other riveting takes do you wish to bless us with?

You always get so snippy around this time of the month.

Take some of this before you post again:

 

 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1314]

3 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Were you around in the early 80's to see that SMU does not struggle for money or influence when it thinks it can actually win something.

I think the biggest difference today is that paying players is legal, so everyone else is doing it, too. It's not the advantage that it used to be. More power to them if they have enough money to make it work, though.

[ztejas 44286]

5 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Still -

Footing what they would have received in media rights for *7 years*, along with forking out NIL $ for "big time" players seems like a pretty risky gamble.

Like what level of recruiting are the expected to elevate themselves to now? 

At the end of the day they are still competing with OU, Texas, Texas A&M and the rest of the SEC for the elite recruits in Texas.  And they are competing with Ok State, TCU, Baylor, etc., for the next-tier down recruits... only those teams are all playing the vast majority of their games in Texas or at least in the region vs. playing half of their games on the east coast.

So is the plan to beat out OU/Texas/SEC for the top elite recruits in Texas? Is that realistic?

Because otherwise if they just raise their level of recruiting to what OSU, TCU, Baylor, etc., are doing that is no guarantee of success. You need great coaching that can develop players and have great schemes as well. You can easily have a top 20-25 recruiting class year after year and be a losing program.

Will the big cigar donors continue to be happy about shelling out big $ year after year for a handful of 8-4 or 7-5 type seasons? And then especially what happens when the top ACC brands bolt for the B1G and SEC?  You're right back where you were before, except you've paid like $100mm (or whatever the number is) out of pocket that you could have gotten by staying put.

The whole thing seems risky AF to me.

First - there is other ACC money that SMU will get outside of the T1 TV money. Someone did some back of napkin math and it appears to be in line with what the AAC was paying out. 

Second - SMU's booster money is insane. It's eclipsing everyone but Texas and aggy in-state right now. Now that they are back in a power conference you will get a lot more money from the rest of the alumni base - not just the deep pockets alumni that don't give a fuck and put blank checks in the mail. 

I do not think the plan is to go h2h in recruiting with Texas and aggy and LSU. It's - like you said - to recruit at a top 30ish level and then buy the rest on the transfer market.

Like I commented above, even with zero promise yet of playing P4 football SMU was able to assemble a top 30-40ish roster going into this season. Despite having the 72nd ranked recruiting class.

With a decent coaching staff it should be enough to win 8 or 9 games playing in the ACC. That's the only goal right now - get back to being a relevant game on everyone's schedule and maybe have an outside shot at a decent bowl game or conference title game appearance every so often. That was never happening in the American. There is no risk, because SMU had nothing to lose and doesn’t need the TV money. The only risk is that the ACC dissolves and SMU is back to the drawing board. You cross that bridge when you get to it. 

['stache 22147]

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

I guess I’m curious as to why you believe this

I'm legitimately curious why you would disagree. What argument is to be made that the following group is better than the Big XII? Especially if Miami and/or UVA are gone too? ND's half membership helps with scheduling, but they aren't a conference member for football. 

BC, Cal, Duke, GT, Louisville, Miami, NC State, Pitt, SMU, Stanford, Syracuse, UVA, VT. 

 

 

[ztejas 44286]

4 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I think the biggest difference today is that paying players is legal, so everyone else is doing it, too. It's not the advantage that it used to be. More power to them if they have enough money to make it work, though.

Absolutely. SMU is never going to be  Texas or Bama. But they could easily replicate some of the success that Baylor/TCU/okie lite et. all have had in recent years. 

Granted a lot of it is coaching. Who knows whether Lashlee knows what the fuck he's doing. We should get a good idea this season.

[statsman 5698]

17 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Still -

Footing what they would have received in media rights for *7 years*, along with forking out NIL $ for "big time" players seems like a pretty risky gamble.

Like what level of recruiting are the expected to elevate themselves to now? 

At the end of the day they are still competing with OU, Texas, Texas A&M and the rest of the SEC for the elite recruits in Texas.  And they are competing with Ok State, TCU, Baylor, etc., for the next-tier down recruits... only those teams are all playing the vast majority of their games in Texas or at least in the region vs. playing half of their games on the east coast.

So is the plan to beat out OU/Texas/SEC for the top elite recruits in Texas? Is that realistic?

Because otherwise if they just raise their level of recruiting to what OSU, TCU, Baylor, etc., are doing that is no guarantee of success. You need great coaching that can develop players and have great schemes as well. You can easily have a top 20-25 recruiting class year after year and be a losing program.

Will the big cigar donors continue to be happy about shelling out big $ year after year for a handful of 8-4 or 7-5 type seasons? And then especially what happens when the top ACC brands bolt for the B1G and SEC?  You're right back where you were before, except you've paid like $100mm (or whatever the number is) out of pocket that you could have gotten by staying put.

The whole thing seems risky AF to me.

There are two conferences that matter when talking about the very top recruits and top portal transfers- the two with 50-100% more money than the others. 
 
SMu will be competing with the B12 schools for the next level recruits and portal transfers. 
 
They will play six to seven games per year in Texas. 
 
The ACC has a great rep for putting players in the NFL, better than the B12. 
 
There are a lot of graveyards for the IR8 to whistle by as they pass. 

[Hurtlocker 2219]

28 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

I don't even fully understand it. It had something to do with NCAA tournament payouts to the conference and who gets it if/when teams leave.

Not sure what the gap/delay is between tournaments and the payout.

every win in the NCAA tournament earns you a credit, the more your conference wins the more credits you get.   They do it on like a 3 or 5 year swing I can't remember, then that is how the NCAA shares the revenue from the tourney, its not paid out on a single year.   I think the B12 made the most last year with like $11m or something, but most of the big conferences are like $7-10m a year.

So for the Pac, WSU and OSU are sitting on 3-5 years of credits from the NCAA which could pay out $20-30m

[redswingline 1124]

1 hour ago, Dutch said:

One worth taking, though.  They get to play P5 football for around a decade and, if they stop 30+ years of being dogshit and actually start winning, can use it to try and get a seat at the "Best of The Rest" conference behind the SEC and B1G.

I don't have ill-will towards SMU. I'm just being pragmatic here.

-It is not like they were dominating the AAC. Even though the ACC may arguably be the shittiest 'power' conference, it's still a big step up. SMU isn't going to all of the sudden start out recruiting everyone in the state. Money may buy some guys but you still need a staff that is top notch and wants to actually stay there.

-Why would TX kids want to go play on the east coast? Do you think their parents would be on board with missing half their games?

-The fan support is meek at best.

-Who is to say the ACC actually makes it to 2036? What if it implodes in 4-5 years, or in say, 2030 when the buyout isn't nearly what it is right now?

Like I'm saying - it's a big risk without the high reward.

[camel at sea 589]

2 hours ago, LTbear said:

 

 

SMU probably comes out ahead of status quo with respect to conference distribution, even with taking no money for Tier 1. They come out way ahead with respect to ticket sales, donations, merch sales, etc.  This is a great move for them.  It'll be interesting to see how this works out on the recruiting trail and with local fan interest.   

SMU might see at least one big name school like Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson, or Miami on its home football schedule each year.  That will draw a lot of local interest, at least for the first few years, and it's something no Big 12 school can replicate.  TCU will have a bunch of relatively strong local programs on its annual slate (SMU can't match that), but none of the big national names that SMU will host.  SMU will host hoops games against Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, etc.  TCU will host Kansas, Baylor, Houston, Arizona, etc.

[statsman 5698]

15 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I think the biggest difference today is that paying players is legal, so everyone else is doing it, too. It's not the advantage that it used to be. More power to them if they have enough money to make it work, though.

SMU wasn’t just paying players. They were entering/starting bidding wars and winning them. (Read “A Payroll to Meet”. SMU was setting up lifetime annuities for blue chips you never heard of). 

[Hurtlocker 2219]

30 minutes ago, bullet said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/it-is-insane--how-the-accs-contentious-back-and-forth-expansion-deal-ultimately-got-done-170122627.html

ACC was trying to go full Big 10, negotiating with AU, ASU, UU as well as Cal and Stanford when AU/ASU/UU lost patience.

Insane is a good way of phrasing it, this can't be sustainable.   SMU is taking no money AND hosting most of the Olympic events for Cal and Stanford.  Crazy

[ButtFumble 5291]

3 hours ago, LTbear said:

Last fall the PAC had an offer from ESPN for $30 million each.

yes I was aware of that, but they suspect that the ASU presidents and an ASU professor convinced everyone else that the PAC 12 was worth $50 million

[camel at sea 589]

33 minutes ago, bullet said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/it-is-insane--how-the-accs-contentious-back-and-forth-expansion-deal-ultimately-got-done-170122627.html

ACC was trying to go full Big 10, negotiating with AU, ASU, UU as well as Cal and Stanford when AU/ASU/UU lost patience.

That's probably why the 4C schools are all getting full shares immediately.  Yormark used that offer to trump anything the ACC might be able to throw at them.  

[redswingline 1124]

8 minutes ago, ztejas said:

 But they could easily replicate some of the success that Baylor/TCU/okie lite et. all have had in recent years. 

Granted a lot of it is coaching. Who knows whether Lashlee knows what the fuck he's doing. We should get a good idea this season.

Easily huh?

 

 

 

 

[Augustus 3061]

Stanford and Cal in the Atlantic Coast Conference.  (And that's just one example, of course)

Realignment has turned one of the greatest things on earth into an absurdity.

Not breaking news, of course, but what a heartbreak for lifelong fans of the sport.

 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3522]

43 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Still -

Footing what they would have received in media rights for *7 years*, along with forking out NIL $ for "big time" players seems like a pretty risky gamble.

Like what level of recruiting are the expected to elevate themselves to now? 

At the end of the day they are still competing with OU, Texas, Texas A&M and the rest of the SEC for the elite recruits in Texas.  And they are competing with Ok State, TCU, Baylor, etc., for the next-tier down recruits... only those teams are all playing the vast majority of their games in Texas or at least in the region vs. playing half of their games on the east coast.

So is the plan to beat out OU/Texas/SEC for the top elite recruits in Texas? Is that realistic?

Because otherwise if they just raise their level of recruiting to what OSU, TCU, Baylor, etc., are doing that is no guarantee of success. You need great coaching that can develop players and have great schemes as well. You can easily have a top 20-25 recruiting class year after year and be a losing program.

Will the big cigar donors continue to be happy about shelling out big $ year after year for a handful of 8-4 or 7-5 type seasons? And then especially what happens when the top ACC brands bolt for the B1G and SEC?  You're right back where you were before, except you've paid like $100mm (or whatever the number is) out of pocket that you could have gotten by staying put.

The whole thing seems risky AF to me.

For SMU really think the more risky move might be sitting around for another 7-10 apathetic years in the American waiting for the next realignment shakeup. If SMU ever wanted to be in a "major/power" conference again, it had to happen soon because once the ACC blows up and we get to the eventual College Football .inc endgame of 2 "big time" conferences and 1 or maybe 2 "best of the rest" conferences they would be locked out forever. At least they gave themselves a fighting chance even if it is going to cost many years of TV revenue. 

[Don Johnson 4852]

This is why the numbers “work” for SMU.

This was their only and last shot to get in a P5. The Big 12 won’t take them. Nor will the SEC or Big 10. The PAC 12 was going to take them but blew up. That left the ACC who needed some schools to add revenue.

SMU is giving up 9 years of revenue, not just 7. But they were only making like $7 million a year in the American. And that was a deal made when decent programs like Cincinnati, Houston and UCF were members. Go look at the current lineup of teams in the American. Real bad. They replaced those three with UAB, Charlotte, FAU, North Texas, Rice and UTSA. The next negotiations were going to be ugly.

The deal with the ACC is they forgo TV revenue but still get their share of playoff, bowl and NCAAT revenue. Which will get close to that $7 million they are leaving behind.

Not to mention, tickets sales will be better in all sports based on decent opponents as opposed to the current slate. Some fans may scoff at an ACC schedule being exciting, but - not even mentioning Clemson and FSU - Miami, Pitt, NCST and Louisville, VaTech, etc are a hell of a lot more interesting games to attend than SMU's current home conference slate of North Texas, Navy, Tulsa, and Charlotte. Try selling that to a DFW family looking for something to do on a Saturday.

And the boosters have supposedly raised north of $200 million to help SMU weather the 9 years.

So, they had one shot to make P5 and they essentially “bought” their way into it. And while we all believe the whole system may blow up in the next 9 tears, when it does, they are least heading into that stage as a P5 team, not a G5.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Don Johnson

[statsman 5698]

12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm legitimately curious why you would disagree. What argument is to be made that the following group is better than the Big XII? Especially if Miami and/or UVA are gone too? ND's half membership helps with scheduling, but they aren't a conference member for football. 

BC, Cal, Duke, GT, Louisville, Miami, NC State, Pitt, SMU, Stanford, Syracuse, UVA, VT. 

 

 

You made the argument that the B12 had more prestige than the ACC, less FSU, Clemson and UNC. That you’re now also taking away Miami and Virginia is a sign that even you realize that doesn’t hold up. 
 
Georgia Tech, Stanford, Cal, UVA, BC, Pittsburgh- those are a lot of schools with money and history of success. If their administrations decide they want to be very good at football and basketball, they will be very good at football and basketball. 
 
Baylor, TCU, OSU, KSU and ISU are at program heights. That’s great, but the things you believe make that success sustainable (good fan support, university leadership) have also been there when they were jokes. 
 
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not pulling for SMU’s success. I don’t really like them, just as I don’t really like the IR8. I’m just aware that they (SMU) have a plan, and it’s a good one. It almost worked before, and that was with a mediocre coach like Bobby Collins. 
 
I find it humorous how the IR8 have worked to keep SMU out of their club and SMU crashed in anyway, by buying a table. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5908]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

And the only thing arguably better about the ACC is FSU and Clemson as far as on the field competition. Academics I guess are better 

Arguably and I guess? Lulz

['stache 22147]

9 minutes ago, statsman said:

You made the argument that the B12 had more prestige than the ACC, less FSU, Clemson and UNC. That you’re now also taking away Miami and Virginia is a sign that even you realize that doesn’t hold up. 
 
Georgia Tech, Stanford, Cal, UVA, BC, Pittsburgh- those are a lot of schools with money and history of success. If their administrations decide they want to be very good at football and basketball, they will be very good at football and basketball. 
 
Baylor, TCU, OSU, KSU and ISU are at program heights. That’s great, but the things you believe make that success sustainable (good fan support, university leadership) have also been there when they were jokes. 
 
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not pulling for SMU’s success. I don’t really like them, just as I don’t really like the IR8. I’m just aware that they (SMU) have a plan, and it’s a good one. It almost worked before, and that was with a mediocre coach like Bobby Collins. 
 
I find it humorous how the IR8 have worked to keep SMU out of their club and SMU crashed in anyway, by buying a table. 

I left Miami and UVA in for the comparison. "If they gave a shit they might be really good" isn't much of an argument. The Big XII top to bottom gives a shit and have for a long time. Even KU football is upgrading the stadium finally. The difference is that this alignment has no differences at the top, but major differences in the middle and bottom. Every Big XII team gives a shit and has had some success, many of them long term success. The ACC programs after FSU/Clem are a few decent programs, and some that haven't done shit in forever and have shown no interest in doing better. 

9 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Arguably and I guess? Lulz

It's not arguable that FSU and Clemson are the biggest brands of the non BIG/SEC programs. It's arguable if that alone puts them above the Big XII right now due to the lack of success and give a shit with the rest of that conference. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by 'stache

[nnm 38004]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

And yeah--SMU's situation is now far better than TCU's.

I feel like I’m in crazy land here. In what universe is SMU’s 9 years of no TV revenue, a junior high stadium that they can’t fill, and 30 years of futility, better than TCU coming off a NCG?

[ButtFumble 5291]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/08/26/mailbag-all-about-washington-state-and-oregon-state-from-the-pac-2-and-a-reverse-merger-with-the-mw-to-the-bylaws-and-war-chest/

 

at 7:53 the ASU president states that the Rose Bowl game is owned by the PAC 12 and Big 10.....there are articles out there from the past where the tournament of Roses states they provide money to the PAC 12 and Big 10 annually I believe it was $18 million each and that was back in the 2010s

 

in the Wilner link he states there is $65 million in NCAA credits that will be paid out over the next decade or so and the PAC has $43 in assets and some of that is cash reserves and I am not sure that fully accounts for any PAC12n assets that could be sold off

he also clears up that Comcast will be paid back by all 12 members and that will be out of the distributions that will happen in May of next year

[Napoleon 8853]

40 minutes ago, redswingline said:

-Why would TX kids want to go play on the east coast? Do you think their parents would be on board with missing half their games?

This whole thing of parents having to be at every game is just bizarre to me. 

I had siblings who also played soccer growing up on Saturdays and both parents worked. 

Saturdays one parent would be with one or two kids and the other parent would be with the other one. Occasionally one kid would have to ride to a game with a friend because the parents were busy chauffeuring to two other locations. 

During the week my mom would try to attend sporting events at school, which was right next to our house, but she didn’t always make it. 

No parents ever went to road games. Ever. Not one. No one even thought about it. 

Now parents’ entire lives are wrapped up in their child’s/children’s every breath. It’s just strange.

[oSuJeff97 3439]

56 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

Were you around in the early 80's to see that SMU does not struggle for money or influence when it thinks it can actually win something.

Yes I was.

Comparing the state of college football in 2023 to the 1980s is pretty ludicrous, IMO.

 

 

49 minutes ago, ztejas said:

First - there is other ACC money that SMU will get outside of the T1 TV money. Someone did some back of napkin math and it appears to be in line with what the AAC was paying out. 

Second - SMU's booster money is insane. It's eclipsing everyone but Texas and aggy in-state right now. Now that they are back in a power conference you will get a lot more money from the rest of the alumni base - not just the deep pockets alumni that don't give a fuck and put blank checks in the mail. 

I do not think the plan is to go h2h in recruiting with Texas and aggy and LSU. It's - like you said - to recruit at a top 30ish level and then buy the rest on the transfer market.

Like I commented above, even with zero promise yet of playing P4 football SMU was able to assemble a top 30-40ish roster going into this season. Despite having the 72nd ranked recruiting class.

With a decent coaching staff it should be enough to win 8 or 9 games playing in the ACC. That's the only goal right now - get back to being a relevant game on everyone's schedule and maybe have an outside shot at a decent bowl game or conference title game appearance every so often. That was never happening in the American. There is no risk, because SMU had nothing to lose and doesn’t need the TV money. The only risk is that the ACC dissolves and SMU is back to the drawing board. You cross that bridge when you get to it. 

Ok that makes a lot more sense to me re: the additional money that would put them on par with the AAC.

And great point there at the end as well. 

My initial thought was just do your NIL thing and absolutely dominate the AAC for the next 7 years... win 10+ games every year and they will definitely be in play for the expanded CFP... then you've put yourself in position for the next round of Prestige Worldwide shit in like 10 years but they can probably do it using the route you described and they get the prestige of being in P4 much sooner.

 

43 minutes ago, statsman said:

There are two conferences that matter when talking about the very top recruits and top portal transfers- the two with 50-100% more money than the others. 
 
SMu will be competing with the B12 schools for the next level recruits and portal transfers. 
 
They will play six to seven games per year in Texas. 
 
The ACC has a great rep for putting players in the NFL, better than the B12. 
 
There are a lot of graveyards for the IR8 to whistle by as they pass. 

OK guy, thanks for making my point for me, re: the recruting.

Does "the ACC" have "a great rep" for putting players in the NFL, or does Clemson, FSU and Miami have a "great rep" for putting players in the NFL?

 

13 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

For SMU really think the more risky move might be sitting around for another 7-10 apathetic years in the American waiting for the next realignment shakeup. If SMU ever wanted to be in a "major/power" conference again, it had to happen soon because once the ACC blows up and we get to the eventual College Football .inc endgame of 2 "big time" conferences and 1 or maybe 2 "best of the rest" conferences they would be locked out forever. At least they gave themselves a fighting chance even if it is going to cost many years of TV revenue. 

Maybe or maybe not.

What if, using their vast NIL resources I keep hearing about, they start firing out 10-12-win seasons in the AAC year in and year out... like they win the conference virtually every year and are in play for the expanded CFP every year? At the end of those 7 years they would still be sitting in Dallas, still have the vast resources and now they also have nearly a decade of really high-level success. Seems like that could be a good route for them too when literally everyone knows that all of the biggest ACC brands are planning on bolting for the SEC/B1G as soon as they possibly can.

But then I could see the other route working as well... just thinking out load because giving up the media rights for 7 years just seemed crazy to me.

['stache 22147]

I feel like that has to have been misinterpreted. There's no way Stanford and Cal will be playing most, or even a significant part, of their home events in Dallas. Once you're on the plane, what's an extra couple of hours? It's gonna be expensive for Stanford/Cal either way, and the east coast programs are gonna have some increase, but likely would only need to visit the west coast once a season. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by 'stache

[redswingline 1124]

25 minutes ago, statsman said:

The ACC has a great rep for putting players in the NFL, better than the B12. 
 

That may be the case, but I think the fact that there are 20-21 NFL teams east of Missouri has a lot to do with that.

 

 

[redswingline 1124]

3 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Yes I was.

Comparing the state of college football in 2023 to the 1980s is pretty ludicrous, IMO.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5908]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's not arguable that FSU and Clemson are the biggest brands of the non BIG/SEC programs. It's arguable if that alone puts them above the Big XII right now due to the lack of success and give a shit with the rest of that conference. 

Why wouldn't that alone put them above the Big 12? Which conference do you think will win a national championship first, or have better success in the playoffs? And I think you're under selling the give a shit with the rest of the conference. Hell, I'd bet Miami wins a national championship before anyone in the Big 12 after Texas/OU leave.