Jump to content

SMU2006

Members
  • Posts

    563
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  • Points

    8,360 [ Donate ]

Posts posted by SMU2006

  1. On 2/10/2024 at 8:48 PM, rcade said:

    SMU made the cut between the G5 and P5. Now it's the P4 and the ACC is in an existential crisis to avoid it becoming the P3. Good luck buying your way out of that.

    The ACC grant of rights runs through 2036 with a sweetheart deal for Disney/ESPN.  There is a reason for all of FSU's bloviating that they are still in the ACC with virtually zero chance of going anywhere for the next decade.  

    Could the ACC lose FSU, UNC, Clemson to the Big 10/SEC?  Sure.  That's possible.  That's why expansion now was the only play.  Just like the Big 12 when everyone left them for dead.  The ACC now has enough schools/programs that will keep them above the required 14 to secure the GoR through its termination in 2036.  

    • Eye Roll 1
    • Downvote 2
  2. Good game (and a really strong contingent of UNT fans at Moody).

    I don't know that SMU is "good".  I think we're wildly inconsistent and have really struggled late in games.  Double digit halftime lead at Memphis that ended up as a loss.  Losses to Wisconsin, Arizona State, and Dayton where we had the lead late in the second half.  SMU has really struggled closing out games and finding consistent scoring outside of Zurich Phelps.

    Before the season I was hoping for 20 wins and the NIT.  I think that's still attainable but we'll see.

  3. 19 hours ago, TheColonyEagle said:

    The logical answer is eventually, yes. The delusional answer is no....a.....West Virginia or Boston College or..........wait for it......SMU 😂 will be on the same level as Ohio State and Texas. Not gonna happen.

    Just split up already. I'm going to say that the SMUs and North Texas's of the world will be right back in the same level of college football in less than five years. The question will be what will happen to Texas Tech, TCU, etc.....

    They will not be in the group with Alabama, Michigan, OU, USC, etc.

    Big time college football is about to be 40 teams

    It isn't about being on the same level as Ohio State and Texas.  For programs like WVU, SMU, and BC its about making the cut.  The next step is a break away from the G5.  The expanded playoff will likely be 8 teams from Big 10/SEC and four from the Big 12/ACC.

    The Big 12 and ACC will be a step below the Big 10/SEC but won't be left for dead like the G5 will inevitably be here in the next decade.

    • Eye Roll 1
    • Downvote 2
  4. 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.

    • Upvote 2
  5. 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).

    • Eye Roll 1
  6. 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.

    • Haha 3
    • Eye Roll 1
    • Downvote 1
    • Puking Eagle 2
  7. 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.

    • Haha 2
    • Downvote 2
  8. 2 hours ago, ScottC said:

    30%, forgoing 70%. Quite a lot for schools who were already at the table. Per the ACC release Stanford, Cal AND SMU will still receive revenue from the College Football Playoff, bowl games and NCAA Basketball Tournament. Also, I believe all three, SMU included, will get their full share of the ACC Network money. 

    This is correct.  SMU will receive around $12m in total revenue (roughly).  Obviously could change depending on number of NCAA basketball credits.

    • Downvote 2
  9. 11 hours ago, emmitt01 said:

    Geez, imagine if you did something crazy, like forego revenue for almost a decade, just to get into one of those leagues. 
     

    Man, you’d feel pretty stupid and look pretty desperate.   But who would do something that crazy? 

    LOL.  SMU becomes a full revenue share member if any legacy ACC school leaves the league (including the close to $1b it will cost a school to leave the conference as well as the rights to their home games through 2036).

    • Downvote 2
  10. 1 hour ago, Matt from A700 said:

    We should storm the court if we beat Memphis and FAU if they are still ranked when they come to Denton.

    If we do it tonight against SMU, get prepared for a bunch of trash from Pony fans on social, "Super Bowl" comments and whatnot.

    I agree with others though, it'd be fun for students. Wish I got to experience that kind of opportunity as a student.

    Its the last time SMU will ever play at UNT.  If the students want to rush the court let them have a good time.

    • Upvote 5
    • Thanks 1
    • Skeptical Eagle 1
    • Eye Roll 1
    • Downvote 1
  11. 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.

    • Haha 2
    • Sad 1
    • Downvote 1
    • Puking Eagle 1
  12. 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.

    • Haha 1
    • Oh Boy! 2
    • Eye Roll 1
    • Downvote 3
  13. 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. 

    • Upvote 1
    • Haha 1
    • Skeptical Eagle 1
    • Downvote 6
  14. 1 hour ago, GMG_Dallas said:

    You clearly didn't read the article as about 80% of it is strictly about SMU and how receiving zero CFP payouts would affect SMU since your leaders believed they would receive that money to offset some of the lost revenue from receiving zero ACC media dollars. I'd copy and paste the SMU-related sections but so much of it is about SMU that it'd be reposting almost the entire article.

    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.

    • Skeptical Eagle 1
    • Eye Roll 1
    • Downvote 3
    • Puking Eagle 1
  15. 1 hour ago, NT80 said:

    Donating doesn’t have to involve being envious suckups to $mut.  

    The “Evil Empire” on Mockingbird Lane, in Highland Park (not Dallas!), is the poster boy for how to cheat and get things without earning them.  Is that really what we aspire to as a program and fan base?

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

    • Haha 1
    • Downvote 2
  16. 2 hours ago, Meangreen Fight said:

    Also have you heard that the playoff committee is considering not granting SMU a P4 share of CFP revenue.  
     

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/sources-cfp-may-withhold-added-revenue-from-smu-despite-power-five-move/ar-AA1mvYqa

    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.

    • Skeptical Eagle 2
    • Downvote 2
    • Puking Eagle 1
  17. 12 minutes ago, Old Denton said:

    If they could've, they would've already.  Name any criteria for "separation" that can avoid antitrust. That's why it hasn't been done yet.

    Its going to be a complete break from the NCAA.  The leagues will then effectively govern themselves without the nuisance of the NCAA and its selective enforcement.  Everyone knows this is coming.

     

    The antitrust case is an interesting one but you'd have to be able to make the case in court that a program like UL-Monroe should effectively be treated the same as Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, UGA, etc.   The reality is there is a clear financial separation that is only going to be more pronounced in the very short term.  

     

    The separation is an inevitability.  The only question is when.

    • Upvote 2
    • Puking Eagle 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.