SMU2006

Yes but the post was framed as "donor fatigue". I see zero signs of donor fatigue at SMU. Quite the contrary.

Where is the donor fatigue at SMU? We just hired away a sitting AD in the Big 10 (Damon Evans - Maryland) who was previously the AD at Georgia. Raised over $150m last year alone and NIL collective second behind only Miami in the ACC.

"sources". Gee I wonder if they were from Tallahassee FL or Clemson SC?! GOR is absolutely the lynchpin. I'm sure FSU/Clemson will argue otherwise but we'll see ya in court again in 2030 if that's the case.

lol. It isn't gonna be Rice. Tulane and USF are intriguing, however.

The Exit Fee Was Never the Real Barrier—It's the GOR The idea that the ACC’s so-called “exit fee” dropping below $100 million suddenly makes it easier for FSU and Clemson to leave is a red herring. The real obstacle has never been the exit fee—it’s the Grant of Rights (GOR). Paying the exit fee only gets a school out of the conference; it does nothing to reclaim the media rights they signed away. As long as the GOR remains enforceable, the ACC—not FSU or Clemson—controls their media revenue through 2036. That’s why their legal arguments have focused on sovereign immunity rather than traditional contract defenses. They aren’t fighting the exit fee—they’re fighting to break the GOR and take their media rights with them. The GOR is a Copyright License—And Long-Term Licenses Are Enforceable At its core, the ACC’s GOR isn’t just a contract—it’s an IP license. FSU and Clemson voluntarily licensed their media rights to the ACC for a defined term, much like a content creator licenses their work to a distributor. Long-term IP licensing is standard practice—media companies, sports leagues, and content owners routinely sign deals spanning decades, and courts consistently uphold them. In fact, under 17 U.S.C. § 203, federal copyright law permits authors to terminate an assignment only after 35 years. If Congress considers 35 years a reasonable licensing period for original creative works, a 20-year GOR for college media rights is hardly excessive. What makes the GOR particularly strong—and problematic for Clemson and FSU— is that it covers not just existing works but prospective works (future games). Courts have consistently upheld such sophisticated commercial arrangements, and the standard for unconscionability is extraordinarily high in this context—virtually insurmountable for universities that willingly entered these agreements with full legal representation.

The exit fees have always been a red herring. The real crux of the issue for FSU and Clemson is the GOR which runs through 2036. That and the fact the Big 10 and SEC have expressed no desire to expand beyond their current makeup. It could change certainly, but the Big 10 and SEC are next in line for a tiered media distribution. If the Big 12 is truly getting in bed with private equity you can absolutely be assured schools that are underperforming will be given virtually nothing with the threat of relegation looming over their heads.

Absolutely not. Tier payout systems are going to become the norm, however. Its only a matter of time before the networks look at the Big 10 and SEC and tell them that in no world does Mississippi State/Vandy deserve as much revenue as Texas/Georgia or Northwestern/Purdue getting equal share to Ohio State/Michigan. When the existing TV contracts are up for renewal you're going to see a massive shift towards brand and incentive-laden revenue distributions that will further enrich the established schools and the ones who have been sliding by with a free meal ticket left fighting for scraps.

Pretty soon that'll be a protected class

This is such good news....

who hurt you?

SMU sold out every home game except Houston Christian this year. No need for UNT.

I wouldn't necessarily say that we won't play UNT again in football. SMU has played UNT a ton throughout its history. Far more than any other regional schools in the P4. That said, I doubt we will ever play in Denton again.