MrAlien

The MWC has sent 4 teams to The Tournament the last couple years as a "mid major" conference. If not for Memphis upsetting Houston in the conference final, the AAC probably would have been a 1 bid conference last year.

Couple of thing: I am not sure it was Wern's call, why would any AD want to see his program go into november and december with out the following seasons coaches in place for transfers and recruiting? They handled Littrell situation poorly, they wanted to keep him for a post season run in 22, then they should kept him for the following season in 23. Letting him go after the bowl game was to late to hire a new coach and build a team for 23. Morris was a panic hire, recruiting left with Littrell, players were jumping into the transfer portal, coaching staff was in limbo, and the transfer window was closing. Not ideal timing for a head new coach, I think Morris was the only one willing to take the job.

I agree, that they fired Seth at the wrong time... If a program does not have a coach and staff in place prior to the transfer window opening up then they are throwing away the following season, this is exactly what UNT did.

at think at this level UNT should be targeting as many as possible. The day the transfer window opens should be one of the most important days of the year for this program, though they totally screwed that up last season

This all goes back to last season and waiting to long to fire the coach. With out having a coach in place when the transfer window opened they missed out on many potential transfers.

The tackling was horrible, they out muscled our line on both sides of the ball, and the coaches were unable to figure out an adjustment.

What does the ACC gain by adding SMU? What does Florida State, boston college, or duke by playing in the same conference as SMU? SMU has a small media footprint, those big ACC schools have nothing to gain, in fact it might actually cost them more money to add them.

I am sure that UNT has been on MWC's radar for sometime, however when it came time to make a move a better offer came along.

$17.5 Million could be what they were worth to their last media deal. It makes reasonable sense, as they were in conference with USC and UCLA, and viewers do tune in to watch those games. However why would they put that number out there? Its way below the average P4 payout, turning off any attention from another power conference.

107 is dangerous! I am guessing the Stadium will not let you bring in a bottle of water. hopefully they have some sort of free hydration stations set up for fans. Even then, with that many fans, some people will need medical attention due to the heat, I hope the school is prepared.

no were close to being as strong as the Big12... media payouts would probably be less then the current AAC.

I dont see the ACC adding more schools, because they dont want to divide the profits up between more schools. The ACC is paying out $40 million+ per school, but neither Stanford or SMU can generate that much.

I just dont see the value to a conference adding a small school like SMU... Small school, small fan base, football team is moderately competitive, basketball team not so much. Sure they have big donors, but what does that do for the rest of the conference? With schools like UTSA and UNT, big schools in big cities, most of their alumni live in the viewing market, bigger media foot prints. More eyeballs on screens means more media money for the conference.

you really think with millions of dollars at stake that SDSU didnt dig into what was going on in the PAC?

The PAC brand is being drug through the mud and the name is not going to be worth anything when all is said and done. The PAC does have a major financial issue with Comcast, among other law suits. SDSU got a look at what was going on and changed their mind about joining, SMU probably got a peak as well. I dont think these schools are going to jump ship just for a name, there is a lot of money on the line.

SMU, Tulane, and Rice are small schools with small fan bases, their media footprint is tiny, especially compared to the remaining PAC schools. A potential media deal would not be lucrative to the PAC with just these schools being added. Memphis is in a medium market, but the only game in town, and they have a bigger media footprint then the others. However, that conference might not be as attractive for basketball (which is big at Memphis). They may not have enough schools for a auto bid for the tournament.

Still a lot of questions about this team, among them: whos the QB? how good is the defense? I got them at 4 wins, I dont think LaTECH is going to be that easy (its a win they really want) so I got them loosing that one. I also dont think they will win at Navy. So a 3-3 start, then the schedule gets tough probably loose the next 4, Tulsa is probably the next possible win, however at 3-7 what shape will the team be in?

SMU's problem is that they dont carry a lot of weight in terms of media value. Sure they play in a top media market, but they are the smallest D1 school in the viewing market. Very few people in the market have any connection to SMU, and virtually 0 fans not connected to the university in the area. No conference wants to add a school with a media value less then the current conference split, because that would mean a lower pay out when divided evenly.

should be a good match up, does it count as an away game or neutral site game?

The temps will definitely be a factor, I have spoke to a few friends the last couple days about going to the opener, and everyone responds: "not if its 100 degrees out"

I did not know about the residual payouts from the NCAA tournament that the PAC will receive, however their legal troubles and accounting errors may render that null and void. In fact it might prevent anyone from joining or even merging with them.

The remaining Pac4 schools are not great in basketball, and would likely be in the bottom half of the AAC. Having 2 schools in DFW might actually make travel easier for schools that cover a lot of distance.

SMU does not generate enough media revenue on its own, if given and equal split, existing ACC schools would earn less money. The thought that SMU will forgo revenue sharing for 5 years would put them at a major deficit compared to schools in the ACC that bring in $40+ million a year in addition to their own donors.

AAC or ACC??? The Pac4 school will undoubtedly increase the payouts in the AAC. However in the ACC I think you might see a decrease. The four remaining PAC schools did not do the heavy lifting for the PAC12 with regards to their media deal. Hard to put an exact value on what the remaining four are worth, but having to divide revenue by an additional 4 schools could mean a smaller payout for existing schools. 1 or 2 schools might work, but I dont see the ACC taking all 4, especially with a 3 hour time difference.

ESPN is the only network that can deliver all the college sports, thats worth something in itself. Adding the P4 schools will certainly increase revenue, and would likely trigger a renegotiation, meaning more money for everyone. The MWC deal with FOX/CBS is not as lucrative, adding the P4 schools would increase revenue, however I dont think the pay out would be nearly as high as the AAC. The ACC would have the opposite problem, the four P4 schools would add to the total conference revenue, however they would have four additional schools to split the revenue with, and that might actually decrease the individual payouts for the current ACC schools.