Looks like ACC about to add SMUt Cal and Stanford

[UNTLifer]

14 hours ago, DentonStang said:

Its just a business deal.  They need more money for their internal issues, we pay, we get what we need.  

Its no different than the girl at the gentlemen's club working her way through college, or when you bonus the young irrelevant guy at your company to make some quiet changes in the accounting ledger because as the owner you're too visible and will be noticed.  

So much in this describes smu's persona to a T.

[GrayEagle]

14 hours ago, Hunter Green said:

If all this is true, does the AAC now go after the PAC 2 plus Boise, SDSU, Air Force and Colorado St?

We will only have 13 members when SMU leaves so we can have five and then be all in.  I think that 18 is as far as you need to go in order to play everyone within a few years' time.  I believe that I would  go after those four and UNLV as the fifth.  Las Vegas is a fun destination and a large market.  Once that happens, have everyone sign a GOR. 

We might consider Oregon State and Wazzu instead of Air Force and Colorado State.  Decisions.  I'd leave that up to Mike Aresco.  We'd need to act fast before the MWC has member sign a GOR.  If I understand correctly, they could leave and lose $4M dollars for the rest of their contract but possibly pickup $8-10M from the AAC.  They would still come out $4-6 million ahead.  More, after the MWC contract expires.

I don't really want to go to 20 teams but we could take all of the above (or try).

[SMU2006]

1 hour 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.

That said, what SMU is doing feels worse because its just overtly corrupt.  In the past it was all behind closed doors.  I can't wait for this to backfire spectacularly though

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.  

[NorthTexan95]

1 minute 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.  

Maybe ... and if we did, you would be at the front of the line making fun of UNT.  

[UNTLifer]

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.  

 So short-sighted.  From my vantage point, smuT is so averse to sharing a conference with us that they now have alumni willing to fund a move forgoing annual revenue for seven years to a conference that appears to be going the way of the PAC12 in seven years.

"Being associated" with these universities doesn't put you on their level.  smuT isn't.  In many respects, you aren't on UNT's level other than having a superior "good ol' boy network".  This just reeks of the little kid that nobody wants to play with, but his family has cash, so the other kids let him tag-a-long so they can have access to said cash.

Go, please go.  I hope Arresco and the AAC administrators tell you to not come running back home when the ACC is gobbled up by the Big10 and SEC and you are left in a position similar to WA St. and OR St.

Edited August 24, 2023 by UNTLifer

[SMU2006]

Just now, NorthTexan95 said:

Maybe ... and if we did, you would be at the front of the line making fun of UNT.  

Not at all.  Do whatever you can to move up.  

The reality is that there is going to be a break from the NCAA by the Power 4 in the next decade.  For SMU this was all about doing anything and everything it can to secure a place at the table before the break occurs.

You can hate it all you want but if UNT had the cash to do it they would.

[SMU2006]

6 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

 So short-sighted.  From my vantage point, smuT is so averse to sharing a conference with us that they now have alumni willing to fund a move forgoing annual revenue for seven years to a conference that appears to be going the way of the PAC12 in seven years.

"Being associated" with these universities doesn't put you on their level.  smuT isn't.  In many respects, you aren't on UNT's level other than having a superior "good ol' boy network".  This just reeks of the little kid that nobody wants to play with, but his family has cash, so the other kids let him tag-a-long so they can have access to said cash.

Go, please go.  I hop Arresco and the AAC administrators tell you to not come running back home when the ACC is gobbled up by the Big10 and SEC and you are left in a position similar to WA St. and OR St.

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.

Edited August 24, 2023 by SMU2006

[NT80]

2 hours ago, emmitt01 said:

They’re also banking on the local interest gained by having ACC teams come to Dallas.  Yes, people will buy tickets to see Florida State, Clemson, Miami, etc. (and SMU may actually be able to announce real butts in seats) but what happens when they aren’t beating those visiting teams?  Will the people who honestly only came to see the opponent get bored of paying premium prices to watch them beat up SMU?  Keep in mind, unlike Texas, OU, Baylor, or Tech, the ACC schools don’t have a local alumni base big enough to keep making up 75% of the crowd.  

 

Yes, people will come to see those marquee teams, they won't be coming to see Smut.  Of the 20,000 at the game, 15,000 will be cheering for the opponent.

[SMU2006]

1 minute ago, NT80 said:

Yes, people will come to see those marquee teams, they won't be coming to see Smut.  Of the 20,000 at the game, 15,000 will be cheering for the opponent.

Yet SMU has better attendance despite UNT having 5x the undergrads......

[DentonLurker]

8 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The reality is that there is going to be a break from the NCAA by the Power 4 in the next decade.

Don’t kid yourself. It’s going to be a Power 2, and then SMU is going to be left out just like the rest of us.

8 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

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.

I know some people have given lip service to this, but the reality is these decisions aren’t really being made with academics very high on the priority list.

[SMU2006]

1 minute ago, DentonLurker said:

Don’t kid yourself. It’s going to be a Power 2, and then SMU is going to be left out just like the rest of us.

I know some people have given lip service to this, but the reality is these decisions aren’t really being made with academics very high on the priority list.

There is already a Power 2 but the Big 12 and ACC will continue to exist within the context of what will essentially be D1A.  

Everything else will be D1AA including scheduling/bowls/etc.

[meangreenbob]

11 minutes 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.

What do you mean we would do the same? 
You talking about whoring yourself out along with your dignity to get something you couldn’t get any other way?  

[Greenrex]

The ACC could confirm Stanford, Cal and SMU as new members by as soon as this weekend, The Athletic’s Nicole Auerbach reported yesterday. Nothing matters anymore. You could tell me the CFL is merging with the AAC and I’d believe you. Stewart Mandel worded it well: Adding Stanford, Cal and SMU makes perfect sense and no sense at all.
The Athletic
(damned paywall)

 

[SMU2006]

2 minutes ago, meangreenbob said:

What do you mean we would do the same? 
You talking about whoring yourself out along with your dignity to get something you couldn’t get any other way?  

If UNT had a chance to be associated with the following institutions (US News Ranking:)

Stanford (#3) Duke (#10) CAL-Berkeley (#20) Notre Dame (#18) UVA (#25) UNC (#29) WF (#29) BC (#36) GA Tech (#44) FSU (#55) Miami (#55) VA Tech (#62) Syracuse (#62) and NC State (#72) you wouldn't do it?

That is just intellectually dishonest.  UNT would do unspeakable things to join those ranks if it had the financial means to do so.

[DentonLurker]

6 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

but the Big 12 and ACC will continue to exist within the context of what will essentially be D1A.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Why would the SEC and Big 10 be okay with a reworked Big 12 and a reworked ACC being on equal footing?

[GMG_Dallas]

10 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Not at all.  Do whatever you can to move up.  

The reality is that there is going to be a break from the NCAA by the Power 4 in the next decade.  For SMU this was all about doing anything and everything it can to secure a place at the table before the break occurs.

You can hate it all you want but if UNT had the cash to do it they would.

How does it secure anything? When the club gets smaller in the next 5 to 10 years, SMU will again be on the outside looking in. If it could happen to Cal and Stanford, it will definitely happen to y'all. All your donors are doing is purchasing a golf club membership with no renewal option.

You have to be frank here. You aren't being associated with any of the ACC programs other than the patch on your logo. SMU will forever be the program that was so desperate to be included and even with money couldn't get in so you had friends help you. Pay attention and you'll see the world is laughing at how sorry y'all look.

We'll see you back in conference play after the ACC crumbles.

[SMU2006]

Just now, DentonLurker said:

Maybe, but I doubt it. Why would the SEC and Big 10 be okay with a reworked Big 12 and a reworked ACC being on equal footing?

B/c the networks need the content.

I think there is a very good chance FSU/Clemson head off to the SEC or Big 10 eventually but there are still 8-10 ACC schools that will not have a landing spot.  The networks will want to keep the ACC alive.  Same for the Big 12.

[GrandGreen]

1 minute ago, SMU2006 said:

Yet SMU has better attendance despite UNT having 5x the undergrads......

Only if you go by SMU bloated attendance numbers.

Almost every team overstates their home attendance, but SMU's  "butts in seats" numbers are pitiful and their announced attendance is unbelievable.  

SMU appears to be able to buy everything but fans. 

I bet the ACC, PAC whatever, can't wait to see those hundreds of Mustang faithful cram their stadiums.  I know it is beneath SMU to play the likes of NT, but bringing less than 500 fans fifty miles North should be embarrassing.   

 

[DentonLurker]

1 minute ago, SMU2006 said:

The networks will want to keep the ACC alive.  Same for the Big 12.

I don’t disagree, but I think the SEC and Big 10 will expand enough to get the networks the audiences they want and command the bulk of the TV revenue. This will then leave pennies for the rest.

[meangreenbob]

14 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

If UNT had a chance to be associated with the following institutions (US News Ranking:)

Stanford (#3) Duke (#10) CAL-Berkeley (#20) Notre Dame (#18) UVA (#25) UNC (#29) WF (#29) BC (#36) GA Tech (#44) FSU (#55) Miami (#55) VA Tech (#62) Syracuse (#62) and NC State (#72) you wouldn't do it?

That is just intellectually dishonest.  UNT would do unspeakable things to join those ranks if it had the financial means to do so.

No. We would not bend over and take it in front of the whole world. 
SMU will never live it down and will always be the joke of the ACC and college football. 

Wait until you visit the opposing teams stadiums and their fans get a hold of you. 
Yikes. 
 

Edited August 24, 2023 by meangreenbob

[Green Otaku]

11 hours ago, NT80 said:

As we are seeing, $$ can get you things now, and new rules made.  If Stanford wants to park it's volleyball team in the WCC but not basketball, watch it happen.  And the WCC would be happy to have Stanford in ANY sport.

That just seems like it would open a huge can of worms. You couldn't stop any team from having teams across multiple conferences. 

[Green Otaku]

It's funny how all of the SMU posters come crawling out from the floorboards. Where were you all during the PAC12 extravaganza?  I remember so many of you posting all the time at the beginning and then for some reason stopped? 

[NT80]

31 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

Yet SMU has better attendance despite UNT having 5x the undergrads......

I'm talking about real people in the stands, not Biff's 5,000 donated tickets that nobody used.

[Green Otaku]

2 hours ago, wardly said:

Hawaii plays football in the MWC, all other sports in the Big West.

Right, but the Big West doesn't sponsor football. So there's no conflict with them playing football in the MWC. 

[UNTLifer]

43 minutes 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.

They institutions you listed are not peer institutions to smu. USNWR is so flawed it isn't funny.  SMU isn't even a Tier One research school.