Another example - FBS needs to restructure

[GMG_Dallas]

13 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Try to keep up.  

They are using SMU as a warning to the PAC-2 that they can't just elevate a gaggle of G5's and expect to get the CFP $$$ and autonomous status.  The legal argument for not giving SMU the CFP money is hilarious considering the Big 12 added BYU, Cincinnati, UH, and UCF last year and they received their shares.  The issue with SMU will get resolved without any issue which has been communicated both to SMU's administration as well as the ACC.

Its all about letting the other conferences know the last life raft from the G5 has been taken.

The last life raft was taken by those who joined the BIG12. SMU is being used as the example of that. Otherwise the legal argument for not giving SMU the P5 CFP share when they gave it to the new BIG12 schools extends to any other G5 school wanting to make the jump.

[SMU2006]

Just now, GMG_Dallas said:

The last life raft was taken by those who joined the BIG12. SMU is being used as the example of that. Otherwise the legal argument for not giving SMU the P5 CFP share when they gave it to the new BIG12 schools extends to any other G5 school wanting to make the jump.

LOL.  This couldn't be more incorrect.

The ACC is by every quantifiable measure a superior conference to the new Big 12.  Last I checked the ACC will have an auto bid to the expanded playoff.

So explain to me again how SMU isn't in a P4 conference?  And again (can't believe it as to be reiterated but whatever...) it as already been communicated to SMU and the ACC that this measure will not pass.  You need unanimous approval among the ADs and there is absolutely NO WAY that happens. 

[Mean Green 93-98]

1 hour ago, SMU2006 said:

The ACC is by every quantifiable measure a superior conference to the new Big 12. 

I mean, the ACC just accepted 3 teams who wanted into, but were rejected by, the Big 12.

[SMU2006]

15 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I mean, the ACC just accepted 3 teams who wanted into, but were rejected by, the Big 12.

No, Stanford/CAL wanted to be associated with schools that had students who can read above the fourth grade level which eliminates virtually all the schools in the Truck Stop 12.

Edited January 25 by SMU2006

[NT80]

1 hour ago, SMU2006 said:

No, Stanford/CAL wanted to be associated with schools that had students who can read above the fourth grade level which eliminates virtually all the schools in the Truck Stop 12.

Sounds like sour grapes from the spoiled brat school that first got left behind from the SWC, and then bypassed again in 4 tries, lol.

Had to bribe your way up.

[Mean Green 93-98]

3 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

No, Stanford/CAL wanted to be associated with schools that had students who can read above the fourth grade level which eliminates virtually all the schools in the Truck Stop 12.

Revisionist history.  Obviously, their first choice was the Big 10, but after they got an unequivocal "Get lost" from them, the next option they tried was the Big 12.  Who also told them no.  Trying the ACC came after the other options failed.

And now the entrance of those 3 bottom feeder schools is causing the better ACC schools to try to find any loophole they can they might get them out of that conference.

[SMU2006]

1 hour ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Revisionist history.  Obviously, their first choice was the Big 10, but after they got an unequivocal "Get lost" from them, the next option they tried was the Big 12.  Who also told them no.  Trying the ACC came after the other options failed.

And now the entrance of those 3 bottom feeder schools is causing the better ACC schools to try to find any loophole they can they might get them out of that conference.

Now who's revisionist history?  Every school that is not in the Big 10 or SEC currently would commit unspeakable acts to get into those leagues.  Every single one.

 

The FSU AD last LAST SUMMER it was "a matter of when not if" they leave the ACC.  They've had their guns out for the league for years.  The additions of CAL/Stanford/SMU puts more money in their pockets and ultimately a super majority of schools voted them in.  SO yeah.  Nice try.

 

The reality is that the ACC is far and away the premiere academic/athletic conference in the country and a natural fit (geography aside b/c no one cares about that anymore) for CAL and Stanford.  They are going after the same prospective students that go to Duke/UVA/WF/BC/GT.

Edited January 25 by SMU2006

[Mean Green 93-98]

40 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Now who's revisionist history? 

I assume you mean "whose revisionist history"?  The sentence (phrase) still doesn't make sense.

Yes, Florida State already had its eyes on the exit, which already says something about the recent desirability of the conference.  But the 3 best athletic schools in the conference voted against adding the 3 new schools, because they see the additions as downgrading their conference even further.  And now they clearly want out more than ever.

Again, all 3 schools wanted into the Big 12 before they ever turned toward the ACC.  Now you want to brag up the ACC because that's where you are headed; that's understandable.  But you know that if the Big 12 had been willing to take SMU, you never would have bothered writing your last paragraph above.

[Texas Stranger]

On 1/24/2024 at 1:37 PM, SMU2006 said:

University Park.  Put some respect on UP's name!

Why?  SMU doesn't.  You even put the name of some other town on your jerseys.

[Meangreen Fight]

On 1/24/2024 at 11:35 AM, SMU2006 said:

This is about sending a message to Wazzu/Oregon State that they can't just elevate a bunch of G5's and expect them to keep "P5" status and get the CFP $$$.  This has absolutely nothing to do with SMU and will be resolved accordingly.  Not the slightest bit concerned.

This is a completely delusional position.  😂 The message is that small schools, that don’t win big once in a while and don’t have large fan bases aren’t revenue generators.  Having your large donors essentially pay the other schools in the conference for right to be in the conference established a precedent that SMU doesn’t have value to the elite athletic brand schools. 

[SMU2006]

7 minutes ago, Meangreen Fight said:

This is a completely delusional position.  😂 The message is that small schools, that don’t win big once in a while and don’t have large fan bases aren’t revenue generators.  Having your large donors essentially pay the other schools in the conference for right to be in the conference established a precedent that SMU doesn’t have value to the elite athletic brand schools. 

yet SMU was invited with a supermajority from the ACC...

This is entirely about the PAC-2 and permanently closing the door for G5 to P4 movement.

[GMG_Dallas]

53 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

yet SMU was invited with a supermajority from the ACC...

This is entirely about the PAC-2 and permanently closing the door for G5 to P4 movement.

This is like inviting the rich kid to hang out because you know he'll tell everybody they can come over to his ranch and ride 4 wheelers.

SMU wasn't wanted for the brand, you were "wanted" because you could afford to give up 9 years of media money. I know most schools give up some media money when they initially move up to a new conference but has 9 years ever happened before? Talk about being desperate and nobody wanting you for who you are.

[SMU2006]

43 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

This is like inviting the rich kid to hang out because you know he'll tell everybody they can come over to his ranch and ride 4 wheelers.

SMU wasn't wanted for the brand, you were "wanted" because you could afford to give up 9 years of media money. I know most schools give up some media money when they initially move up to a new conference but has 9 years ever happened before? Talk about being desperate and nobody wanting you for who you are.

lol.  You're allowing your blind hatred of SMU to distort the facts.

The additions of CAL/Stanford/SMU was about grabbing the best available programs that fit the ACC's academic and athletic profile.  SMU's willingness to forego 9 years of TV revenue demonstrates the importance of getting out of the G5 which is 100% going to be siphoned off into a separate league.  This was SMU's last chance and they wanted to make themselves as attractive of an expansion candidate as possible.  It also protects the ACC in the event that "if" FSU is able to wiggle off the hook before 2036 they have secured enough additions to keep the league above 14 teams which locks them into their existing media deal with Disney/ESPN.

If any other G5 school had the financial resources to put such a proposal together they would have b/c its not hyperbole to say its life and death.  SMU was able to leverage several billionaires to bankroll its way to safety.  Whether the "brand" is what the ACC desired is irrelevant.  We're in.  Ultimately that is the only thing that matters.

[cousin oliver]

54 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

This was SMU's last chance and they wanted to make themselves as attractive of an expansion candidate as possible.  It also protects the ACC in the event that "if" FSU is able to wiggle off the hook before 2036 they have secured enough additions to keep the league above 14 teams which locks them into their existing media deal with Disney/ESPN.

You are speculating on these points as well.  Don't call out someone for doing the same thing you are doing.

[wardly]

On 1/24/2024 at 9:58 AM, SMU2006 said:

There is going to be a split coming in the next 5-7 years.  Financially it just doesn't make sense for the G5 schools to keep it up.  G5 will be the new D1AA and have its own championship.

It will probably come sooner than later. It has been speculated that $100 million is the NIL buy in, which will push out a number of p5 programs as well as all the G5's. When this happens there will be a realignment of most if not all conferences. It could be $100 million NIL requirement for the Super Programs and pulling a number out of the hat $35 million for the next tier, and all others dropped to 1AA or another level in between.

[SMU2006]

1 hour ago, cousin oliver said:

You are speculating on these points as well.  Don't call out someone for doing the same thing you are doing.

Speculation as to what?  The ACC's motivations for expansion?  

Its pretty simple.  The ACC saw what happened to the PAC-12 and decided to be proactive.  There are three schools that are largely linked with potentially leaving the ACC (FSU, UNC, Clemson).  If the ACC membership falls below 15 schools ESPN has the right to renegotiate the existing media rights deal which could ultimately lead to the GOR being negated and the ACC goes the way of the PAC-12.  The additions of Stanford/CAL/SMU provide additional security "if" there are defections (again unlikely until 2033-2034 at the earliest).

[SMU2006]

19 minutes ago, wardly said:

It will probably come sooner than later. It has been speculated that $100 million is the NIL buy in, which will push out a number of p5 programs as well as all the G5's. When this happens there will be a realignment of most if not all conferences. It could be $100 million NIL requirement for the Super Programs and pulling a number out of the hat $35 million for the next tier, and all others dropped to 1AA or another level in between.

I agree in principle although I think its going to take 5-7 years before being fully implemented.  Who knows what will happen in the interim but you can bet there will be some lawyers gobbling up a lot of billable hours b/c the mother of all antitrust lawsuits will likely be coming down the pike.

[Arkstfan]

If pay to play becomes the norm and is truly free market, there are no more 28-35 schools who can truly compete. Anyone else is hoping to be a successful MLB small market team.

Problem is there are another 30 or so who will feel obligated to try to keep up and all or close to it will fail because they will overspend vs their capacity, or they overspend for a few critical players, they make the playoff as champions and get blasted by the second place Big 10 or third place SEC in the first round. The big investment in Joe Stud comes to an end because he can get same money or close to it from a team that can make it to the finals or semis.

Basically until the 1950's a scholarship was whatever the school or conference said it was.  The NCAA's only input for decades was that players had to be enrolled. Eventually NCAA was drug into the mess and a scholarship was capped at tuition, books, fees, housing, and meals with a small cash stipend called "laundry money" that was capped at $15 a month.

Until 1973 football scholarships had no cap, some top programs awarded as many as 150 just to warehouse talent. 1973 brought the 105 limit which became 95 then 85. Until around 2005 or so there was no minimum number of scholarships. 

1969 Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and not long after the University Division schools opened fall camp for the centennial season of college football. Schools had anywhere from 150 to zero on scholarship. You had conferences with no limit, 105 limit, 85, 75, 70 limits. Conferences generally didn't even make out the conference schedule, the ADs did it. In the SEC team with the best winning percentage was the champion as long as you played at least five conference games. That year you had SEC teams playing 5, 6, or 7 league games. Tennessee went 5-1 winning the championship over LSU who went 4-1.

We CAN survive and thrive in a college football universe where the starting QB at Ohio State makes a million a year and the starting QB at San Jose State makes $40,000 over the scholarship, a universe where the 85th guy on scholarship at Georgia makes $30,000 and the 85th guy at FAU gets a scholarship and glad to have it.

What we can't survive is if Memphis starts roster spending like Iowa State or Colorado State spends like Kansas or Oklahoma State tries to keep pace with OU. Everyone has been spending like crazy to get facilities to keep up with the P5 boys, that's possible. It's a capital expense with a long life and debt can finance it. Annual spending is a whole nuther beast and keeping pace will be out of reach.

Collective bargaining can keep things in check. SEC might negotiate a five million cap with a $20,000 minimum. Big 12 might negotiate a $3 million cap and $6000 minimum per player and AAC might go with $1 million and no player minimum but have to spend at least 75% of the cap.

Personally I think best outcome is SEC and Big Ten pick off what they want from ACC, likely some mix of Virginia Tech, UVA, UNC, maybe Duke or NC State to plug a couple holes and Florida State and Clemson based on TV value. They secede and to maximize TV money go to a 10 or even 12 game conference schedule. Sun comes up and suddenly the Big 12 and ACC remnant understand they are out of the club and they can dial back the spending. Now the folks like San Diego State and Memphis are no longer looking for that last golden ticket they thought was out there. 

If you look at where Big 10 and SEC are now they just don't need much to become untouchable, not saying all their current members can keep up but they could be a real beast and I'm not sure its a bad thing if they leave. It's if the Houston's and SMU's and Memphis' are in some semblance of the club that the fecal matter is randomly distributed by the air movement device.
 

[MCMLXXX]

8 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

 

So, why is Nebraska left in the gray?

[UNTLifer]

Scanning back through this thread made for a good chuckle.  This smu poster thinking they are in the same academic level as Duke, Stanford, etc. is hilarious. 

[NT80]

23 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

If pay to play becomes the norm and is truly free market, there are no more 28-35 schools who can truly compete. Anyone else is hoping to be a successful MLB small market team.

Problem is there are another 30 or so who will feel obligated to try to keep up and all or close to it will fail because they will overspend vs their capacity, or they overspend for a few critical players, they make the playoff as champions and get blasted by the second place Big 10 or third place SEC in the first round. The big investment in Joe Stud comes to an end because he can get same money or close to it from a team that can make it to the finals or semis.

Basically until the 1950's a scholarship was whatever the school or conference said it was.  The NCAA's only input for decades was that players had to be enrolled. Eventually NCAA was drug into the mess and a scholarship was capped at tuition, books, fees, housing, and meals with a small cash stipend called "laundry money" that was capped at $15 a month.

Until 1973 football scholarships had no cap, some top programs awarded as many as 150 just to warehouse talent. 1973 brought the 105 limit which became 95 then 85. Until around 2005 or so there was no minimum number of scholarships. 

1969 Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and not long after the University Division schools opened fall camp for the centennial season of college football. Schools had anywhere from 150 to zero on scholarship. You had conferences with no limit, 105 limit, 85, 75, 70 limits. Conferences generally didn't even make out the conference schedule, the ADs did it. In the SEC team with the best winning percentage was the champion as long as you played at least five conference games. That year you had SEC teams playing 5, 6, or 7 league games. Tennessee went 5-1 winning the championship over LSU who went 4-1.

We CAN survive and thrive in a college football universe where the starting QB at Ohio State makes a million a year and the starting QB at San Jose State makes $40,000 over the scholarship, a universe where the 85th guy on scholarship at Georgia makes $30,000 and the 85th guy at FAU gets a scholarship and glad to have it.

What we can't survive is if Memphis starts roster spending like Iowa State or Colorado State spends like Kansas or Oklahoma State tries to keep pace with OU. Everyone has been spending like crazy to get facilities to keep up with the P5 boys, that's possible. It's a capital expense with a long life and debt can finance it. Annual spending is a whole nuther beast and keeping pace will be out of reach.

Collective bargaining can keep things in check. SEC might negotiate a five million cap with a $20,000 minimum. Big 12 might negotiate a $3 million cap and $6000 minimum per player and AAC might go with $1 million and no player minimum but have to spend at least 75% of the cap.

Personally I think best outcome is SEC and Big Ten pick off what they want from ACC, likely some mix of Virginia Tech, UVA, UNC, maybe Duke or NC State to plug a couple holes and Florida State and Clemson based on TV value. They secede and to maximize TV money go to a 10 or even 12 game conference schedule. Sun comes up and suddenly the Big 12 and ACC remnant understand they are out of the club and they can dial back the spending. Now the folks like San Diego State and Memphis are no longer looking for that last golden ticket they thought was out there. 

If you look at where Big 10 and SEC are now they just don't need much to become untouchable, not saying all their current members can keep up but they could be a real beast and I'm not sure its a bad thing if they leave. It's if the Houston's and SMU's and Memphis' are in some semblance of the club that the fecal matter is randomly distributed by the air movement device.
 

So, will there come a time when the SEC and Big10 go to a demotion and promotion system, like European soccer?  Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, etc cannot compete on the football field with the top dogs as it is now.   

And, the former top dogs in their previous conferences like USC, OU, UCLA et al may suddenly finish 7th or 8th, causing panic in their fanbases.  Fire the coach, spend more on the Portal, etc.  Someone has to lose every year in these Super Conferences.

[Cougar King]

On 1/23/2024 at 11:51 PM, NT80 said:

They got beat by a 6-6 Boston College team (ACC, lol) in a pitiful 10am Bowl in Boston.  No respect and no win!

Sir, one of these is not like the other. You know as well as everybody that there's a reason why people will be buying SMU season tickets while nobody will take UNT tickets for free.

 

 

SMU's 2024 Home Schedule

Houston Christian

BYU

TCU

Florida State

Pittsburgh

Boston College

California

 

UNT's 2024 Home Schedule

SFA

Wyoming

Army

East Carolina

Tulane

Tulsa

[Arkstfan]

16 hours ago, NT80 said:

So, will there come a time when the SEC and Big10 go to a demotion and promotion system, like European soccer?  Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, etc cannot compete on the football field with the top dogs as it is now.   

And, the former top dogs in their previous conferences like USC, OU, UCLA et al may suddenly finish 7th or 8th, causing panic in their fanbases.  Fire the coach, spend more on the Portal, etc.  Someone has to lose every year in these Super Conferences.

I doubt it. The schools who give up will go the way of the Canton Bulldogs and Duluth Eskimos. They either give up and leave for something affordable or give up on football completely.

If they think they need a replacement team then expect to pay a few hundred million to buy in.

[NT80]

7 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

I doubt it. The schools who give up will go the way of the Canton Bulldogs and Duluth Eskimos. They either give up and leave for something affordable or give up on football completely.

If they think they need a replacement team then expect to pay a few hundred million to buy in.

The point was that if these "Football Super Conferences" are carrying dead weight like Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Indiana, etc...they really aren't "Super" conferences like they would be with better Brand replacements.   Better programs on the fringe (Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida State, etc.) will still need a way to play in the Top tier without being in the SEC or Big10.  

[SMU2006]

On 2/17/2024 at 10:04 AM, UNTLifer said:

Scanning back through this thread made for a good chuckle.  This smu poster thinking they are in the same academic level as Duke, Stanford, etc. is hilarious. 

SMU is absolutely in the same peer group as the majority of the ACC (FSU, NC State, Clemson, VA Tech, GA Tech, WF, Miami, Syracuse, PITT, etc.)

 

Stanford and CAL are two of the top 10-15 schools in the nation.  Being associated with them (as well as Duke/UNC/Notre Dame/UVA) will only help SMU.  Rising tide raises all boats.

 

The AAC is a wild bag of academic institutions ranging from elite (Rice) to atrocious (Memphis).  Every ACC school except Louisville is a USNWR Top 80 institution, including SMU.

Edited February 19 by SMU2006