SMU potentially to the PAC-12

[SMU2006]

3 minutes ago, keith said:

You left out the BiG and SEC...hahaha.  Just kidding.  For you or any of the other Mustang fans that have their ears to the ground, do you have any insight on the timing?  Also, what's the AAC exit fee?

Timing seems to have accelerated with the feedback that the PAC must expand BEFORE the media rights deal can be announced.

But anyone's guess honestly.  Most think it'll be in time for SMU to be playing in the PAC for 2024.

[GMG_Dallas]

10 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

That's why it helps to have half a dozen billionaires willing to subsidize the difference in the reduced rate.

This exact reason is why I don't understand SMU's desire to move to the Pac 12. The 6 highest rated conference champions will be getting in to the playoffs. Your odds of being the PAC 12 champion competing against Oregon, Washington, Utah, and maybe Colorado are much slimmer than the AAC schools which you can clearly out-spend in NIL. If money is not an issue and recruiting is not issue with the NIL, why seek out the better TV money and P5 name so desperately? You're just complicating your path to being a conference champion.

[El Paso Eagle]

22 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

lol.  If UNT was even on the radar for the PAC it would be the biggest thing to happen in the school's history.

You just don't get it do you? Yes it is a good opportunity. But you guys are like the kids that people hung around with in HS just because they had money and would pay for stuff. Unlike Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF who built good programs and excelled, you guys are boasting because you can buy your way in. Now, let's see if you, and the other SMU fans will answer a question -

Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford leave and then CU, Utah, and the two Arizona schools leave. Is SMU in a better place?

[El Paso Eagle]

23 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Timing seems to have accelerated with the feedback that the PAC must expand BEFORE the media rights deal can be announced.

But anyone's guess honestly.  Most think it'll be in time for SMU to be playing in the PAC for 2024.

Will there be an "adjustment clause" based on if certain schools leave?

[Hunter Green]

4 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

This exact reason is why I don't understand SMU's desire to move to the Pac 12. The 6 highest rated conference champions will be getting in to the playoffs. Your odds of being the PAC 12 champion competing against Oregon, Washington, Utah, and maybe Colorado are much slimmer than the AAC schools which you can clearly out-spend in NIL. If money is not an issue and recruiting is not issue with the NIL, why seek out the better TV money and P5 name so desperately? You're just complicating your path to being a conference champion.

And, according to most insiders, the PAC 12 is having trouble securing a new TV deal. Plus the fact that Oregon, Washington, Colorado and the Arizonas will more than likely bolt during the next round of realignment. So who's left?

[Hunter Green]

12 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

Pretty sure our money is green just like theirs.  Politics notwithstanding.  

I thought the PAC 12 didn't want church schools? 

Oh, wait...

[GMG_Dallas]

3 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

And, according to most insiders, the PAC 12 is having trouble securing a new TV deal. Plus the fact that Oregon, Washington, Colorado and the Arizonas will more than likely bolt during the next round of realignment. So who's left?

If you read ESPN's article about the finalized playoff expansion, they talk about there no longer being a P5 designation for the purposes of playoffs. It'll be the 6 highest rated conference champions and they suggest the Big 12, ACC, and PAC 12 can each find themselves on the outside looking in on a regular basis. The article was before the playoffs started so with TCU beating Michigan, I think the BIG 12 is safe despite being clobbered by Georgia. The deal is, that was also before Tulane beat USC so the AAC gained a lot of respect there. It's not hard to imagine the MWC getting more respect in rankings than the PAC 12, especially if Oregon and Washington leave. They're already more respected than the PAC 12 in basketball considering they received more bids than the PAC 12 last year and are predicted to receive more this year. Factor in the PAC 12 hasn't had a team make the 4-team playoffs since 2016 and it's easy to see why it's a dying conference.

[UNTLifer]

24 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

This exact reason is why I don't understand SMU's desire to move to the Pac 12. The 6 highest rated conference champions will be getting in to the playoffs. Your odds of being the PAC 12 champion competing against Oregon, Washington, Utah, and maybe Colorado are much slimmer than the AAC schools which you can clearly out-spend in NIL. If money is not an issue and recruiting is not issue with the NIL, why seek out the better TV money and P5 name so desperately? You're just complicating your path to being a conference champion.

It's called small privates syndrome and is directly linked to self esteem.

[SMU2006]

19 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

You just don't get it do you? Yes it is a good opportunity. But you guys are like the kids that people hung around with in HS just because they had money and would pay for stuff. Unlike Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF who built good programs and excelled, you guys are boasting because you can buy your way in. Now, let's see if you, and the other SMU fans will answer a question -

Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford leave and then CU, Utah, and the two Arizona schools leave. Is SMU in a better place?

SMU has been ranked three of the last four years with a 10 win season.  Its not like UNT who hovered around .500 with a DOA coach in Littrell yet somehow got the call up to the AAC.

[SMU2006]

17 minutes ago, Hunter Green said:

And, according to most insiders, the PAC 12 is having trouble securing a new TV deal. Plus the fact that Oregon, Washington, Colorado and the Arizonas will more than likely bolt during the next round of realignment. So who's left?

Even in the unlikely event that is true being associated with PAC leftovers is still INFINITELY better than being in the AACUSA.

[SMU2006]

21 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

You just don't get it do you? Yes it is a good opportunity. But you guys are like the kids that people hung around with in HS just because they had money and would pay for stuff. Unlike Cincinnati, Houston, and UCF who built good programs and excelled, you guys are boasting because you can buy your way in. Now, let's see if you, and the other SMU fans will answer a question -

Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford leave and then CU, Utah, and the two Arizona schools leave. Is SMU in a better place?

Yes yes yes 1000x yes in a better place than the current AAC.  

[ForneyGreen]

No doubt that a move to the PAC-12 would be an upgrade for SMU albeit a somewhat watered-down PAC-12 after UCLA and USC leave.  I always felt SMU would not be in the reconstituted AAC for very long.

That being said and assuming SMU would be in the "PAC-12 South", SMU would be the only Central Time Zone school in a conference primarily covered by the West Coast media (South members today are Arizona State, Arizona, UCLA, USC, Colorado, and Utah).

Since SMU already struggles with attendance, I'm not sure that games with Utah and Arizona are going to really move the needle much for them (versus games with geo-similar schools like UNT, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, etc.).

[Hunter Green]

5 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Yes yes yes 1000x yes in a better place than the current AAC.  

Well, see ya later!

[Wag Tag]

Congrats to SMU. Deserved with the money they are spending on facilities and NIL. There attendance and eyes on devices will pick up dramatically with the names they will be playing. The same will happen with UNT. This should also give us more clout with the AAC.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Wag Tag

[DentonStang]

23 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

 Now, let's see if you, and the other SMU fans will answer a question -

Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford leave and then CU, Utah, and the two Arizona schools leave. Is SMU in a better place?

Leave...... To where?  They aren't going to B10 or they would have been taken. B12?  For what reason?  Unless the media deal is a disaster and the money is way less than in the B12 (and the only ones saying it will be are B12 media outlets) they have no reason to move. 

So let's say things change and in 5 years they DO all move. OK, great. We've had 5 years of playing better teams, with better media coverage, better recruiting, and an older of magnitude more money.  5 years in PAC vs AAC may end up being the equivalent of a $150M+ donation based on media rights differential.  And then we are, at worst, back where we are now, but probably we'll be more attractive for the next move. 

There is only upside, no downside. 

When you are treading water in the middle of the ocean of irrelevancy, and a boat floats by that is old, tattered, has had 2 big pieces fall off, and may even be leaking but at this point is still floating (and full of bags of cash), you don't decline to board it because it has ghetto Ikea furniture in it. You get in.

[SMU2006]

4 minutes ago, ForneyGreen said:

No doubt that a move to the PAC-12 would be an upgrade for SMU albeit a somewhat watered-down PAC-12 after UCLA and USC leave.  I always felt SMU would not be in the reconstituted AAC for very long.

That being said and assuming SMU would be in the "PAC-12 South", SMU would be the only Central Time Zone school in a conference primarily covered by the West Coast media (South members today are Arizona State, Arizona, UCLA, USC, Colorado, and Utah).

Since SMU already struggles with attendance, I'm not sure that games with Utah and Arizona are going to really move the needle much for them (versus games with geo-similar schools like UNT, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, etc.).

The causal Dallas sports fan couldn't care less about UNT, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, with virtually zero national brand awareness.  Programs like Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oregon are names with national brand awareness.  

 

[El Paso Eagle]

8 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The causal Dallas sports fan couldn't care less about UNT, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, with virtually zero national brand awareness.  Programs like Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oregon are names with national brand awareness.  

 

And you think they care about SMU? You will have more visitors fans at your games that SMU fans. Years spending money trying to convince Dallas that SMU was their team have resulted in crap.

[DentonStang]

2 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

And you think they care about SMU? You will have more visitors fans at your games that SMU fans. Years spending money trying to convince Dallas that SMU was their team have resulted in crap.

Attendance has trended up actually, but generally:

No, they don't care really.  But it will sure help when our conference is actually covered on ESPN, our opponents are someone somebody has heard of, and not completely ignored like the new (and to a slightly lesser extent the old) AAC.

[GoGreenBeans]

13 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The causal Dallas sports fan couldn't care less about UNT, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, with virtually zero national brand awareness.  Programs like Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oregon are names with national brand awareness.  

 

Congratulations on getting the honor of being beaten down in front of national audiences I guess

[SMU2006]

6 minutes ago, GoGreenBeans said:

Congratulations on getting the honor of being beaten down in front of national audiences I guess

Yeah with our top five transfer class and top twenty NIL there is no way would ever be competitive with the juggernauts of Stanford, CAL, Arizona, Arizona State, et al.  🤣

[TripleGrad]

If it happens, it will be a big deal for SMU.  Congratulations for them.

If it were happening to UNT, the PAC12 would be a shining city on a hill, with nothing but adventure and treasure ahead.

[GMG_Dallas]

9 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

Attendance has trended up actually, but generally:

No, they don't care really.  But it will sure help when our conference is actually covered on ESPN, our opponents are someone somebody has heard of, and not completely ignored like the new (and to a slightly lesser extent the old) AAC.

If only you knew how many times SMU gives 4 free tickets to every city of Dallas employee and still can't fill the stadium. Literally can't give away tickets for free.

I do agree that there's little downside. I just don't see how the extra money is worth it when money isn't a problem. Your goal is to win and make the playoffs. The path is easier in the AAC. Why make the path harder in exchange for money if you don't need the cash?

[GoGreenBeans]

1 minute ago, SMU2006 said:

Yeah with our top five transfer class and top twenty NIL there is no way would ever be competitive with the juggernauts of Stanford, CAL, Arizona, Arizona State, et al.  🤣

Why'd you leave out the "national brand" schools you've been flaunting? 

[UNTethered Eagle]

3 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Yeah with our top five transfer class and top twenty NIL there is no way would ever be competitive with the juggernauts of Stanford, CAL, Arizona, Arizona State, et al.  🤣

[El Paso Eagle]

19 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

Attendance has trended up actually, but generally:

No, they don't care really.  But it will sure help when our conference is actually covered on ESPN, our opponents are someone somebody has heard of, and not completely ignored like the new (and to a slightly lesser extent the old) AAC.

You mean reported attendance. Just like most schools, SMU reports ticket sold. Seen some of your games on TV and if the attendance reported was actual, based on the empty seats, your stadium must hold at least 60K.