TheColonyEagle

Actually....I think he's gone regardless now that I think about it. I don't know if they'll win 10+ games again or win the conference but they should have a decent record. Plus he knows....this is his last year with the only QB he's ever known. His value is as high now as it may ever be.

When you hear coaches bringing up concerns about funding, facilities, etc.....they're setting up their exit. He's been doing this for a couple of years. I would think he'll be gone next year if they win again this year.

Why doesn't FSU say "ok we'll let SMU in....they just have to pay each school $10 mil per year for the next 5 years to join." SMU has shown they'll do whatever it takes. Seems like easy money. Take advantage of their desperation. And like others, I call BS on the "donors have pledged 100s of millions of dollars." Why would someone flush money down the toilet like that. The ACC won't be around in a few years. SMU will never see year 7 of their non revenue ACC membership. Clemson, FSU, etc will be on to the 30-40 team big college football association. SMU will be right back where they are now. I mean I get, "nothing to lose, try it." But really rich people generally invest their money into sure things. This is the furthest thing from it...

Like others have said. It will be more of a “how do we look” the schedule is weird….the last half of the season is tough. However the first half is much easier and I would say that’s good for the new staff…. win the games we should win, be competitive in the games we shouldn’t. Positive momentum into next year is what I’m looking for so I can’t get caught up in the record in year 1. If he goes 3-9 but we’re in every game….I’ll be patient.

My question is why would this guy settle for $17.5 million. Why not demand $100 billion trillion?

Your expenses are going to go up in the ACC

Yes, the Big 10 schools will be treating Rutgers like the ACC schools will be treating SMU. SMU = Rutgers

You know good and well....they're not going to say "SMU, you have to leave the ACC." They're going to say "SMU.......NC State, Wake Forest, Rutgers, etc. you can stay here if you want but a few of us schools are going over here with these other schools and we're now in a different thing. And we're good...don't need you guys." I really hope you're not naïve enough to think otherwise.... It's gone from sort of funny to kind of sad.

This really does describe SMU's world view for many, many years. This whole thing....there's no one in the country that could go down this path EXCEPT for SMU. They have never....NEVER done anything on their own. It's always been about who they're "associated" with. The SWC "association" has finally worn off because it's been long enough for the SWC to be a distant memory. They couldn't compete in the SWC (post WWII) so they did what they did. It didn't work. So they've been desperately trying to get back to a a group of programs they feel they can "associate with." They finally got their chance. They'll just buy their way into a group and then we can say, "Look, Clemson and SMU are the same." It's like me saying, "Michael Jordan and I combined for 63 points in one playoff game." If all UNT had was just a bunch of money and we paid our way into this situation and then every time UNT is mentioned with the ACC, there will be an asterisk: "*they're technically IN the ACC but they didn't do anything to earn it...they just paid everyone in the conference off" I would be super embarrassed. SMU is going to get destroyed publicly for this move. Huge risk...if you don't win the ACC or compete....I don't see how SMU recovers from this. If the ACC folds in a few years, and Clemson and FSU (the only real name brands in that league) leave, I don't see how SMU recovers from this. If SMU wins at most 5-6 games every year while bleeding all that money to be "associated with elite institutions," how do you recover from a public perception standpoint? (and let's be honest....you're not starting from an A+ public perception now). Still today, 30+ years later, the next thing that comes up after someone says "SMU" is "cheating"....now you're paying your way into a conference. Of 20 different outcomes, there are 19 negative and 1 positive for SMU. If SMU were at least getting more money from this move....there would be maybe 2 or 3 positives. But SMU has to win big on the football field for this to come close to this being a positive outcome for them. But I think SMU is so blinded by this hyper inflated view of themselves, they can't look at this situation objectively... Will be interesting to watch.

I think I just realized I may have misread @NorthTexasWeLove's post. You're saying "investment" from the school, not donors. However....I'm assuming increased donor $$ leads to increased investment from the school. So....kind of a chicken or egg thing I guess...

Memphis Basketball history: NCAA Tournament: 28 Years (35-28), 3 Final Fours Ranked in AP Poll: 23 Times (Preseason), 17 Times (Final), 312 Weeks (Total) When it comes to winning....we are no where close to that stratosphere.... **I'll add, Memphis boosters aren't "generous." Memphis doesn't depend on donor "generosity." Donor "generosity" is needed when your program doesn't win on a scale like Memphis basketball has. Memphis donors are riding the wave of Memphis basketball success.

Feels like they could've done that differently.....

If that's the case...Earle may be more legit than we ever thought...

Unfortunately for SMU they have zero say…..

It’s almost sad watching them come to grips with their actual place in this world. almost….

That fear is what the 4 remaining PAC schools are hoping will save them....

That's my point.....why would we lose any of the better AAC programs to these 4 teams that no one wants? They don't offer anything. "The Pac 12 is a P5 conference" No....the Pac 12 WAS a P5 conference. All the "P" left and went to the Big 10. The only difference between Arizona/Arizona St and Oregon St/Wash St is the Arizona schools found the life boat sooner and jumped on it. Of course there's a fear that the better programs will leave....but it's fear based on old assumptions based on people with grand memories of USC battling it out with Washington for a spot in the Rose Bowl and John Wooden leading UCLA to national championships and Matt Leinart leading USC to the BCS National championship game. Those days are LONG GONE and have nothing to do with the current "PAC" conference. People have got to let that go...it's gone.

You can see the narrative starting to be pushed now....'REBUILT PAC CONFERENCE!" These are the things that get FOMO going with existing AAC schools. They better be ignoring the noise or they're going to give these 4 PAC leftovers leverage they currently don't have. Facts as of 2023: This "100+ year old conference" does NOT have any value anymore with the big brands gone. It's just a left over logo The PAC has no TV deal The 4 remaining PAC teams have no national TV appeal Adding AAC teams to these 4 teams (the ones that have no national TV appeal) will give a new "PAC" conference no more coverage than the MWC or AAC. ESPN doesn't give a damn about Oregon St now (a nationally ranked Ore St) What makes anyone think they will when they're sharing a conference with Memphis instead of Oregon? Whatever money they get TODAY from the CFP is going to be very short lived and is not sustainable The SEC/Big10&12 are not going to let this new version of the PAC stay in their club any longer than they have to Objectively speaking, the fact that UTSA is being thrown around in these conversations shows they're not serious. They have had football success, yes, but the rest of their athletic program is horrible and underfunded with no facilities. Remember, they had arguably the worst basketball program in the conference and they took moving up so seriously they had to keep their coach because they couldn't afford to fire him. And the PAC is supposed to be bringing them on? It's all noise being drummed up by the press and social media....but presidents and ADs have horrible FOMO and it just takes one to get scared and then the dominoes start to fall. I know it's too much to ask for these AAC leaders to have some common sense but they're going to have to use some here...the 4 PAC schools have nothing and they know it.

“Hey I haven’t checked out the new realignment forum….maybe I’ll bop on over and check it ou……..”

Doing away with any conference affiliation for the playoff is the best thing for them. They’ll just do away with it and put in who they want. Pretty simple.

Very good chance we’re about to find out….

We were there. I know this game gets brought up a lot but it shows what it will take. In 2018, We came back to Denton 4-0 before La Tech. So it takes a combination of things (and it takes this same combination for most teams not Bama or Ohio St by the way) #1 win (we were 4-0) #2 beat meaningful competition (we killed Arkansas) #3 get national attention (we were all over ESPN after Arkansas) #4 ranking (we were getting top 25 votes) #5 when you get a big crowd WIN so they’ll come back After La Tech we went to a winless UTEP and had we taken care of business against La Tech, we would’ve come back to Apogee 6-0, ranked and we would’ve sold out vs Southern Miss.

I've been arguing against AAC/MWC going to PAC vs the other way around. I just don't see the benefit and I agree with your point above that the PAC 4 doesn't really have much leverage. (we can argue AQ status for 2023 and beyond) however.... My thought regarding risk/reward for AAC schools going PAC is contingent upon some logic....but this is college football and logic doesn't apply. There's one thing that guides all of these schools and it's FOMO. FOMO led Colorado to kick this whole thing off. They weren't about to risk being in Oregon St's position so they went with the devil they knew. The one thing that COULD lead AAC schools to jump is the same thing. And it just takes one to start it. If.....say Memphis started sniffing around, then Boise, then SDSU again and here come the rumors that there will be enough of the MWC to take care of the exit fees, then SMU jumps in, and Tulane, then we start looking into it.... Next thing you know it's every man, woman and child for themselves and low and behold.....the Pac 12....or....Pac 16 lives on. Sure....the programs in this new conference still don't get a seat at the table when the Big 10 and SEC squash the ACC and the rest of college football.....but again, like our friend @Cougar King said on another post, "I'm not worried about the future." These schools aren't either. They're reacting to today because they're scared of the future. FOMO is what can cause the group that actually HAS leverage to succumb to the group without it. Because emotions and perceptions are guiding all of these decisions too...