Looks like ACC about to add SMUt Cal and Stanford

[untphd]

24 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The school isn't forking over a dime.  Its a handful of alumni who are doing this.  

Also, there is an additional $50-100m earmarked to be greenlit the moment the ACC deal goes down from the Hunt/Miller/Brookshire/Fords that is engineered to keep the NIL and operational budgets in line with other ACC schools.

Having billionaires is a super cool cheat code.

Nobody on ponyboard want to play today?

[UNTethered Eagle]

4 minutes ago, NT80 said:

It's not about having more money, it's about integrity and using the money correctly....and legally, unlike in 1980.

This is the point that he misses. Or at the very least he ignores. 

[SMU2006]

7 minutes ago, NT80 said:

It's not about having more money, it's about integrity and using the money correctly....and legally, unlike in 1980.

Tell me what is illegal about what SMU is doing.  I'll wait.

 

[SMU2006]

2 minutes ago, NT80 said:

When the ACC kicks you out because you're not competitive in anything then you'll understand.  It's not always about $$.  The quality of the conference matters too.  Money can't buy you ethics, obviously.

You're right.  With a Top 10 NIL how could we ever compete with the likes of Boston College, Syracuse, GA Tech, and PITT....

[NM Green]

This is such a weird spitting match. 

1. I am not crushed smu is leaving. Our additions are going to be better than what smu brought to the table. 
2. I’ve always found the ACC the most boring conference in the country. The small privates are boring.
3. smu fan on our board is weird. They can’t spew the letters UNT at any other time but somehow found our board and now live here. 
4. smu fits in the ACC. UNT needs to continue winning, in the AAC and prepare to align ourselves with the Big 12 public schools in the next movements. 

Meanwhile go get SDSU Boise UNLV and Air Force and let’s have some fun with partners who are excited to be here. 

SMU is about to be the ACC’s latest drama. 

Beat Cal

GMG

[TheColonyEagle]

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.

[Dpony14]

The hand wringing and pearl clutching in here is hilarious. Calling it corrupt to take a zero share. LOL Nobody ever has any issue with schools taking reduced shares for P4 acceptance, but taking it one step further is somehow corrupt and against some made up moral code. 

The ship is sinking and there aren't going to be many more life rafts. We used our money to buy one, like anyone with the resources would do. Once were in, they cant kick us out. If that was possible there are a handful of BIG10 and SEC teams booted within days. No matter what happens, we'll be no worse off than if we stayed in the AAC. 

Ya'll should be happy. You'll probably get some of the money were giving up, and you'll have an easier path to win the AAC. 

[Dpony14]

8 minutes ago, NT80 said:

Did it make a difference in your 7-6 record last season?   NIL is just bribery.   Paying athletes that otherwise won't consider you.  Again, ethics.

You have an NIL program too. So is it only unethical when SMU does it?

[meangreenbob]

33 minutes ago, Dpony14 said:

The hand wringing and pearl clutching in here is hilarious. Calling it corrupt to take a zero share. LOL Nobody ever has any issue with schools taking reduced shares for P4 acceptance, but taking it one step further is somehow corrupt and against some made up moral code. 

The ship is sinking and there aren't going to be many more life rafts. We used our money to buy one, like anyone with the resources would do. Once were in, they cant kick us out. If that was possible there are a handful of BIG10 and SEC teams booted within days. No matter what happens, we'll be no worse off than if we stayed in the AAC. 

Ya'll should be happy. You'll probably get some of the money were giving up, and you'll have an easier path to win the AAC. 

“We used OUR money” How much of it was yours?

[TheColonyEagle]

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.

[DentonStang]

4 hours ago, TheColonyEagle said:

 ". If SMU wins at most 5-6 games every year while bleeding all that money to be "

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?

Edited August 25, 2023 by DentonStang

[ColoradoEagle]

23 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

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.

Rutgers?

[NT80]

 

This article implies that Stanford's olympic sports would be moving to the ACC, but another article said this entry is only for football and M/W basketball.   Which is it?

Stanford and Cal are extremely close to becoming members of ACC after Pac-12's collapse

The presidents and athletic directors are set to meet Thursday, and there is growing confidence that it will come to a vote and pass eventually in the future.

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/stanford-and-cal-are-extremely-close-to-becoming-members-of-acc-after-pac-12s-collapse

Edited August 24, 2023 by NT80

[aprice]

2 hours ago, DentonStang said:

This is such a weird thing that keeps bringing 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 and nor does it keep yours. Ours is supported by donors already. Yours is less ethically funded by student fees and tax money.

They situation isn't changing in the AAC.

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?

 

It can't really be explained to you because you're too tone deaf to understand.  

Buying access is never a good look, its just not.  Its just a pathetic last ditch effort to be relevant from small insecure people.  Being openly willing to spend 200 million to buy a ticket to a better conference is just gross.  If you can't understand that then you never will and is exactly why SMU has no local support.

SMU will never be relevant in DFW sports.  You people share a common attitude that is just repulsive and off putting to any new prospective fans.  Good luck, can't wait to see it fail spectacularly. 

[NT80]

ACC Close to Adding Cal, Stanford, SMU, Perhaps at Reduced Rate

Two of the three expansion targets, Stanford, the bell-cow of the group, and Cal, are proposing to take a significantly reduced revenue distribution for multiple years, starting at about 30%. SMU is proposing to take no distribution for as many as seven years, something Yahoo Sports reported more than a week ago. Options range from adding all three, adding only Stanford and Cal, adding only SMU or adding none of them.

The scuttlebutt (unconfirmed) is that North Carolina and North Carolina Stare have flipped their votes from being against the addition of Cal and Stanford to being for their addition to the ACC.  If true, the Bay Area schools and SMU will get an invitation to join the ACC soon, perhaps this weekend.

https://www.si.com/college/cal/news/acc-cal-stanford-football-hoops-only

Edited August 25, 2023 by NT80

[DentonStang]

1 hour ago, aprice said:

 

It can't really be explained to you because you're too tone deaf to understand.  

Buying access is never a good look, its just not.  Its just a pathetic last ditch effort to be relevant from small insecure people.  Being openly willing to spend 200 million to buy a ticket to a better conference is just gross.  If you can't understand that then you never will and is exactly why SMU has no local support.

SMU will never be relevant in DFW sports.  You people share a common attitude that is just repulsive and off putting to any new prospective fans.  Good luck, can't wait to see it fail spectacularly. 

You would rather miss out on a shot at being P4 because it's not a "good look"?  That's some insane, baby boomer, career $100k first-level manager thought right there.  Insane. 

Edited August 25, 2023 by DentonStang

[TheColonyEagle]

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 

[TheColonyEagle]

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

[untcampbell]

As a native of the town of the cow, I used to explain the difference between Dallas and Fort Worth as what happens after work. Dallas gets in the BMW and goes straight to happy hour in its suit. Fort Worth goes home, gets its first beer from the fridge, changes into shorts and flips (or jeans and boots) and is off to happy hour.

Now I will just use Dallas is $MU, Fort Worth is TCU. The difference....TCU earned its place in the hierarchy, $MU bought it.

 

GMG

[Rudy]

15 minutes ago, untcampbell said:

 

Now I will just use Dallas is $MU, Fort Worth is TCU. The difference....TCU earned its place in the hierarchy, $MU bought it.

 

Hey, whores gonna whore. 

[Dpony14]

38 minutes ago, Rudy said:

Hey, whores gonna whore. 

And apparently UNT fans are gonna cry and throw hissy hits. Nobody seems to care about Stanford and Cal taking 30% shares, but heaven forbid SMU takes less. 

[greenminer]

24 minutes ago, Dpony14 said:

And apparently UNT fans are gonna cry and throw hissy hits. Nobody seems to care about Stanford and Cal taking 30% shares, but heaven forbid SMU takes less. 

This is an outfit SMU bought in the 1980s.  it fits, and you have to wear it whether you think It's fair or not.

Also,The whole "UNT would do it too" is the most dumb, and honestly un-SMU thing ever.  Y'all can do better.  Just because someone else may do it doesn't make it justified.  If it were UNT, we'd be taking heat too.  And we'd deserve it.  But, of course, it isn't us. it is SMU.  Just like the 1980s.  And you'll wear this outfit again in 7-10 years.

[outoftown]

I know there are numerous people out the claiming "its a done deal".  But I am not sure it is. I give it 50/50 at this point in time. I assume actually that negotiations and arm pulling going on in the background are very hard. Every day that goes by and they do not announce they got the deal done, the chance of it actually happening is going down. Time kills deals as the PAC members already had to experience once this year.

It is one thing for SMU to be willing to buy its way into the ACC, but it would be another level of funny to get rejected twice when trying to do so.

For the PAC schools time is really of the essence though. If the ACC turns out to be as incapable at taking timely decisions as the PAC10 was, then they might have to move on in a week or two.

[UNTethered Eagle]

7 hours ago, Dpony14 said:

And apparently UNT fans are gonna cry and throw hissy hits. Nobody seems to care about Stanford and Cal taking 30% shares, but heaven forbid SMU takes less. 

$200 Million to get in, and ZERO for 7 years. Seems like smu has been crying for quite a while for someone to validate them.

[Rudy]

7 hours ago, Dpony14 said:

And apparently UNT fans are gonna cry and throw hissy hits. Nobody seems to care about Stanford and Cal taking 30% shares, but heaven forbid SMU takes less. 

And douchebag smu fans are going to keep posting here.