[Cal Loss GIF-only reactions MEGA THREAD]

[Meanwhile in Waco]

Isn’t this GJ Kinne’s first year in San Marcos? Was he available for us? Did we interview him? 

[Our Defense is TERRIBLE!!!]

I’ve been following this program for a long time. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a defense so teeny tiny. How is a defense this small supposed to compete. Why would anyone do anything but just line up and run over that defense. You can’t put a scheme in place to make up for a defense  full of 5’10” 190 lb players. And Booger Kennedy was in the stadium today but he sure wasn’t on the field. 
 

 

[Poll: who did we hire?]

If you didn’t get a Todd Dodge vibe from this game then you didn’t watch Todd Dodge here. 
 

That was Todd Dodge 2.0

 

[UAB]

8 minutes ago, meangreenbob said:

If Oregon St and Washington St are watching these two AAC games tonight I’m sure they’ve concluded they want no part of the AAC. And wait until Saturday at DATCU with the heat.  

It won’t take long for the AAC to fall to the bottom of P5’s or whatever it’s called now. 
 

If we don’t care enough to fill our stadiums no one else will care either  

 

Ok I may calm down a little there…..

I think we’ll draw better than UAB appears to have drawn in Dilfer’s debut but to say we’ll fall to the bottom of the P5s is a bit much since we already are technically at the bottom of the P5s.  But we’ll still be ahead the rest of the non P5s which won’t draw either….

My point was Dilfer at UAB is ALL hype and even then, the hype didn’t bring fans out to his first game. I think he’s a joke of a hire…..we’ll see how that unfolds. 

[UAB]

Crowd looks horrible. All the Dilfer hype, new conference, new stadium, weather not an issue….

Not a good look 

Hope Datcu can overcome the heat Saturday. 

[ACC SMU STANFORD CAL]

I’ve been on this board for a long, long time. And I’ve seriously given a down vote probably less than 10 times in all those years. I’m not a big down vote guy…..and then you come in here and post that…..

 

That’s your fault. 

[Some very special guests will be joining us at Tony’s GMG Tailgate Sat]

Very cool 

[Jeff Traylor wants the money to match the recruiting effort as UTSA enters the AAC]

1 hour ago, TheColonyEagle said:

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. 

 

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.

 

[Jeff Traylor wants the money to match the recruiting effort as UTSA enters the AAC]

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. 

 

[Looks like ACC about to add SMUt Cal and Stanford]

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...

[Rangers '23]

[POLL: How Many Wins in 2023?]

On 8/16/2023 at 3:06 PM, Cerebus said:

With 83 votes in the consensus seems to be around 6-7 wins.

Some follow up question for those who voted:  How bad a season could this team have and still allow you to maintain a positive outlook on future seasons.

On the flip side: How good a season would you need to see to completely buy into this coaching staff?

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. 

[Oregon State demanding 17.5 million to accept ACC merge?]

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

[Looks like ACC about to add SMUt Cal and Stanford]

4 hours ago, DentonStang said:

This is such a weird thing that keeps beining brought up. SMU will not be bleeding money.

We only get $7M from AAC and you get less.  We still have football teams. 

Media money doesn't keep our athletic department floating, nor does it keep yours. Ours is supported by donors already. Yours is less ethically funded by student fees and tax money.

The situation isn't changing in the ACC.

It can only go up. There is literally no downside.  Being back here in 10 years is the worst outcome. So why would we not try?

Your expenses are going to go up in the ACC

[Looks like ACC about to add SMUt Cal and Stanford]

4 hours ago, ColoradoEagle said:

Rutgers?

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

SMU = Rutgers 

[Looks like ACC about to add SMUt Cal and Stanford]

33 minutes ago, Dpony14 said:

Once were in, they cant kick us out.

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.

[Looks like ACC about to add SMUt Cal and Stanford]

3 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.  

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.

[Who has the most generous athletics boosters?]

2 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

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. 

 

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...

[Who has the most generous athletics boosters?]

4 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

Memphis invests 5x more than UNT in basketball.

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. 

 

[They are putting DATCU sign up on stadium right now!]

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

[Stone Earle Named Starter]

13 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

I feel like Stone forced their hand but they feel obligated to also play Rogers because they convinced him to transfer here thinking he would win the job easily.

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

[GIF/Vid ONLY response to Stone Earle being named starting QB]

[SMU is not wanting us in]

3 hours ago, DentonStang said:

It would not be in SMU's interest for you to be in

Unfortunately for SMU they have zero say…..

[SMU is not wanting us in]

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

almost….