Looks like ACC about to add SMUt Cal and Stanford

[Wag Tag]

Who cares SMU is leaving, it will be an advantage for UNT. I would take WSU and OSU over SMU and if we are to add some MWC schools down the road that is a much better conference then when we first got in!

[meangreenbob]

When does this go into effect? 
 

[DentonLurker]

Preview of gameday- SMU vs. Boston College in their first ACC game

[greenminer]

1 hour ago, DentonStang said:

Its not "fixing" anything. Its keeping us from being flushed into FCS with the rest of MWC Sunbelt and AAC.

If you think about it, both of us are trying to build the base and maximize opportunity to stay at the top level.  But one is trying to reach out to the region and say "let's grow where we are planted and figure this out".  The other is putting on lipstick and offering itself up to P2 as the village bicycle.

The journey to P2 isn't done yet.  When the ACC dissolves, and the P2 are securing their place in the next cycle, will the P2 seek schools that have built their base and a winning tradition, or will they want a program that offers nothing but money - a resource they already have?
 

Edited August 24, 2023 by greenminer

[DeepGreen]

4 minutes ago, greenminer said:

or will they want a program that offers nothing but money?

It's all about the Benjamins.

[Hunter Green]

1 hour ago, SMU2006 said:

It has nothing to do with being associated with UNT in isolation and everything to do with being associated with an objectively better group of peer institutions both academically and athletically.

Yes give me a conference with a dozen schools in the USNWR Top 100 (including SMU) as opposed to the AAC with just Rice and Tulane.  This isn't even factoring in the vastly superior on-field and on-court improvement.

Its nothing more than that.  UNT would do the same if they could.

Well, have fun losing your asses to said "comperable" schools on the field and the court.

[Hunter Green]

30 minutes ago, meangreenbob said:

When does this go into effect? 
 

The sooner, the better.

[NT80]

The P5 "label" propaganda has been on full display recently.  The lines are getting more blurred by each realignment or conference addition.  Smut is trying to buy their way in.  A new article suggests that the MWC adding OSU and WSU would elevate all included to P5 status.   This farce needs to stop.

"Oregon State and Washington State would immediately boost the impact of the Mountain West and elevate them to Power Five status."

https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/news-amid-pac-12-acc-merger-rumors-oregon-state-washington-state-receive-interest-2-new-conferences-big-ten-or-big-12

 

[greenminer]

What is ESPN's interest long term?

Is their ideal broadcast option a P2 NCAA, with everyone else as far out of the picture as possible, ASAP?  Or do we have reason to believe they want a 3rd (and 4th) conference right there, at least in peripheral vision?

@Cerebus @Arkstfan

[SMU2006]

1 hour ago, DentonLurker said:

 

 

59 minutes ago, greenminer said:

If you think about it, both of us are trying to build the base and maximize opportunity to stay at the top level.  But one is trying to reach out to the region and say "let's grow where we are planted and figure this out".  The other is putting on lipstick and offering itself up to P2 as the village bicycle.

The journey to P2 isn't done yet.  When the ACC dissolves, and the P2 are securing their place in the next cycle, will the P2 seek schools that have built their base and a winning tradition, or will they want a program that offers nothing but money - a resource they already have?
 

When/if that occurs (again the ACC grant of rights runs through 2036) it'll be about the exact same thing that realignment is about now.

Money.

As long as that is the central component I like SMU's chances to navigate those waters and land in a situation that FAR exceeds the AAC.

[aprice]

On 8/18/2023 at 9:15 PM, El Paso Eagle said:

Thanks 

 

18 hours ago, NT80 said:

He makes a great point.  P5 membership used to mean something, as in having elevated your athletic program to a top competitive level in several areas.  Not just because you bought your way in!

 

16 hours ago, Wag Tag said:

I believe this could be a great outcome, if we are able to add OSU and WSU. Then raid the MWC! GMG 

 

2 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

So let me get this straight.

If UNT had the financial resources to do something like this to be associated with elite institutions such as Stanford, CAL, Duke, Wake, UVA, UNC, BC, et al......  you wouldn't support it?

SMU is doing the exact same thing that others have done in realignment.   Use your advantages to leverage your way up the ladder.  

 

I just like watching my team play.  Worrying about being in an exclusive club is kind of juvenile tbh. Especially when youre willing to fork over up to 200 million to do it.  It's just kind of sad really how insecure these boosters are.

At the end of the day it comes across as desperate and pathetic.  DFW will never care about SMU and stunts like this is the reason why.  How are you going to pick up a fan base when this is your story? A story of buying access with excessive wealth.  Who is going to get behind that?  I'm guessing the boosters already know this which is why they would never move up without bribes.

[SMU2006]

26 minutes ago, greenminer said:

What is ESPN's interest long term?

Is their ideal broadcast option a P2 NCAA, with everyone else as far out of the picture as possible, ASAP?  Or do we have reason to believe they want a 3rd (and 4th) conference right there, at least in peripheral vision?

@Cerebus @Arkstfan

2 minutes ago, aprice said:

 

 

 

 

I just like watching my team play.  Worrying about being in an exclusive club is kind of juvenile tbh. Especially when youre willing to fork over up to 200 million to do it.  It's just kind of sad really how insecure these boosters are.

At the end of the day it comes across as desperate and pathetic.  DFW will never care about SMU and stunts like this is the reason why.  How are you going to pick up a fan base when this is your story? A story of buying access with excessive wealth.  Who is going to get behind that?  I'm guessing the boosters already know this which is why they would never move up without bribes.

The school isn't forking over a dime.  Its a handful of alumni who are doing this.  

Also, there is an additional $50-100m earmarked to be greenlit the moment the ACC deal goes down from the Hunt/Miller/Brookshire/Fords that is engineered to keep the NIL and operational budgets in line with other ACC schools.

Having billionaires is a super cool cheat code.

[UNTethered Eagle]

6 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The school isn't forking over a dime.  Its a handful of alumni who are doing this.  

Also, there is an additional $50-100m earmarked to be greenlit the moment the ACC deal goes down from the Hunt/Miller/Brookshire/Fords that is engineered to keep the NIL and operational budgets in line with other ACC schools.

Having billionaires is a super cool cheat code.

Does this finally validate y'all? It's extremely odd that you are here, leading me to believe you are not.

Edited August 24, 2023 by UNTethered Eagle

[DentonStang]

10 minutes ago, aprice said:

 

 

 

 

I just like watching my team play.  Worrying about being in an exclusive club is kind of juvenile tbh. Especially when youre willing to fork over up to 200 million to do it.  It's just kind of sad really how insecure these boosters are.

At the end of the day it comes across as desperate and pathetic.  DFW will never care about SMU and stunts like this is the reason why.  How are you going to pick up a fan base when this is your story? A story of buying access with excessive wealth.  Who is going to get behind that?  I'm guessing the boosters already know this which is why they would never move up without bribes.

Yeah, and if Boise was in a better market they would have moved up too. And if Northwestern hadn't been in the B10 for decades they wouldn't be there either. So what. Do what you can to survive. 

Our admin woke up and took the shackles off way too late, but we might just sneak in. In 10 years we'll do what we can again. 

[SMU2006]

2 minutes ago, UNTethered Eagle said:

Does this finally validate y'all? It's extremely odd that you are here, leading me to believe you are not.

I'm not sure its validation but its certainly proof positive that the SMU brass has leveraged its assets and positioned the university to make a significant move up.

Time will tell if we can validate that investment.  I'm hopeful.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I imagine some things still need to be negotiated, but wouldn't it be crazy if SMU is bound by the same exorbitant exit fees as the rest of the ACC while not receiving a thin dime of all the media dollars everyone else will be getting? 

[meanJewGreen]

Just now, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I imagine some things still need to be negotiated, but wouldn't it be crazy if SMU is bound by the same exorbitant exit fees as the rest of the ACC while not receiving a thin dime of all the media dollars everyone else will be getting? 

Something tells me if theyre willing to pay 200 mil to get in and fork over any revenue, theyre ok with the exit fees

[aprice]

4 hours ago, aprice said:

No they didn't.  These conferences were created by whoever had the must alumni in their state houses to lobby for their team to be a part of the "in" club, or sheer luck or convenience.  

What did wazzuu, oregon, state oklahoma state, texas tech, baylor, etc to do "earn" anything?  We still have g5 powerhouses such as Boise State excluded after doing EVERYTHING to do deserve it.

Lets not pretend that the P5 universe was somehow based on merit.  The landscape has always been built by insecure alumni in politics who wanted to elevate their school by punching downwards towards anyone not them.

 

7 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The school isn't forking over a dime.  Its a handful of alumni who are doing this.  

Also, there is an additional $50-100m earmarked to be greenlit the moment the ACC deal goes down from the Hunt/Miller/Brookshire/Fords that is engineered to keep the NIL and operational budgets in line with other ACC schools.

Having billionaires is a super cool cheat code.

You're just further reinforcing my point. 

Funny thing is when the next wave of consolidation happens you're going to be right back where you started.  

 

[UNTethered Eagle]

1 minute ago, SMU2006 said:

I'm not sure its validation but its certainly proof positive that the SMU brass has leveraged its assets and positioned the university to make a significant move up.

Time will tell if we can validate that investment.  I'm hopeful.

I'm talking about you and the fan base specifically. And that answer sounds like a 'No'.

[untbowler]

17 hours ago, NT80 said:

"I'm told Cal, Stanford and SMU are in the process of finalizing a deal to join the ACC in football, men's basketball and women's basketball..."

That will be interesting to see where Smut tries to park the rest of their minor sports.  I think the Southland might have some openings!!

And Stanford sponsors like 30 sports, but were already talking about maybe cutbacks along with Cal.

 I hope Aresco does not allow SMU to keep their olympic sports in AAC. Tell them to take them all because AAC is no longer their home

[Mean Green 93-98]

3 minutes ago, meanJewGreen said:

Something tells me if theyre willing to pay 200 mil to get in and fork over any revenue, theyre ok with the exit fees

I guess.  But I imagine even SMU would rather not pay $120 million to get out if an opportunity arose.  It just seems strange given the huge disparities in the financial benefit of ACC affiliation for SMU and for everyone else.

[SMU2006]

1 minute ago, untbowler said:

 I hope Aresco does not allow SMU to keep their olympic sports in AAC. Tell them to take them all because AAC is no longer their home

SMU is in for all sports.  

[SMU2006]

4 minutes ago, NT80 said:

So you admit it's not about being equal in quality to the level, it's just about being able to con/buy your way into that level.

Not at all.

SMU is more financially committed than any G5 and half the P5's in the country.  Leveraging that financial commitment to improve conference affiliation is just good business.  Plain and simple.  

Edited August 24, 2023 by SMU2006

[NT80]

3 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Not at all.

SMU is more financially committed than any G5 program in the country and its not even close.  Leveraging that financial commitment to improve conference affiliation is just good business.  Plain and simple.  

It's not about having more money, it's about integrity and using the money correctly....and legally, unlike in 1980.

[Mean Green 93-98]

2 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

So let me get this straight.

If UNT had the financial resources to do something like this to be associated with elite institutions such as Stanford, CAL, Duke, Wake, UVA, UNC, BC, et al......  you wouldn't support it?

SMU is doing the exact same thing that others have done in realignment.   Use your advantages to leverage your way up the ladder.  

It's a fair question.  But your impending "association with elite institutions" will not be a full membership in the ACC.  They can call it what they will, but the pending arrangement relegates you to a position of inferiority within that conference like nothing I've ever seen before.