Looks like ACC about to add SMUt Cal and Stanford

[emmitt01]

This is hilarious.  SMU is about to give the ACC access to the DFW market, not get paid for it…and then watch as the ACC folds over the next few years. 
 

[TripleGrad]

52 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

I believe this could be a great outcome, if we are able to add OSU and WSU. Then raid the MWC! GMG 

Add OSU/WSU by "merging" into the PAC.  Then we get a shiny P5 badge too  🙂

[Texas Stranger]

1 hour ago, DentonStang said:

Its just a business deal. 

Indeed it is.  The World's oldest profession.

[NT80]

1 hour 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.  

The BIG difference is all the previous programs EARNED their way to the P5 level.   Having to BUY your way into the club is just  wrong.....but you guys don't really care about wrong, and never have!

[Arkstfan]

When Andre Dawson became a free agent, he wanted to leave Montreal because he felt the turf was too hard on his knees. Couldn't get any offers because it was the year the owners colluded to kill free agency. Dawson wanted out. Went to the Cubs and said just name your price for a one year deal and I'll come. Got like $600,000 before incentives. Tears it up, gets three years and six million on next deal.

It's not unusual for people to say I'll take lesser compensation short-term to prove my worth.

In the case of SMU, I view it as a speculative deal. 

SMU doesn't bring a lot of proven. equity so has to pay a lot to get in. No different than what happens in law firms. Dude has been making it rain and law firm wants him to join, they let his book of business be the price he pays to join, in some cases, the firm will offer him added cash to join up. Meanwhile Billy Bookworm who isn't a proven rainmaker is a proven expert at writing appeals. he offers valuable skills that the rainmakers can market since he sucks at marketing. Billy will have to pay to become a partner. He might have to make a lump sum and might have to borrow money to pay it, or he may get a restricted partner share for a period of time to pay his way in.

SMU is a gamble. The gamble very simply is, will SMU's presence in the conference increase the number of people in Texas who watch because SMU is playing Pitt and does increase who will watch Virginia Tech play North Carolina?

Does SMU's presence make it easier for Clemson or UVA to recruit a kid from Texas?

No one can definitively answer those questions. Well I'm sure UNT fans believe they know a definitive answer and SMU fans believe they know a definitive answer. My guess is SMU long-term probably benefits as much as Cal simply by virtue of an old recognized name in a market that actually likes college football. SF market is much more pro oriented. The only issues pro sports have had in San Francisco and Los Angeles has been local governments have tended to say "You have a business that not only makes millions per year, the resale value rises by millions if not billions per year, you want a place to conduct business and have the rental income from concerts and other events, you need to pay all or most of the costs."

There is however no reliable data that can be used to extrapolate those answers with high confidence.

ACC requiring a fat buy in to insure against the possibility that they don't get the revenue and recruiting boost they hope to obtain makes plenty of sense.

It is also possible the size of the buy in is case of the telephone game. Someone says, "hell if we have to give up 7 years of revenue, I'd do it" and becomes "SMU has offered to give up 7 years revenue."

 

[greenminer]

4 hours ago, greenminer said:

7 years!

How much money is SMU giving up here, if this plays out?

[DentonStang]

38 minutes ago, greenminer said:

How much money is SMU giving up here, if this plays out?

Depends on how you look at it.

We're only actually LOSING the $7M/yr we get in AAC which is nothing.

ACC full share payouts are about $40M/yr

[MeanGreenTeeth]

3 hours ago, NT80 said:

"I'm told Cal, Stanford and SMU are in the process of finalizing a deal to join the ACC in football, men's basketball and women's basketball..."

That will be interesting to see where Smut tries to park the rest of their minor sports.  I think the Southland might have some openings!!

And Stanford sponsors like 30 sports, but were already talking about maybe cutbacks along with Cal.

I thought we established that you had to play the sports that your conference sponsors.  Are the any conferences that sponsor everything other than football and basketball?  Surely not.

[Green Otaku]

17 minutes ago, MeanGreenTeeth said:

I thought we established that you had to play the sports that your conference sponsors.  Are the any conferences that sponsor everything other than football and basketball?  Surely not.

I'd have to look it up, but I was certain I saw that you can't split sports between conferences. If the conference you are in sponsors that sport, you must play in that conference. For example Cal could put fb in the ACC and the rest of it's sports in the WCC since the WCC doesn't sponsor football. However it cannot put bb in the ACC while keeping the rest in the WCC since they do sponsor bb. 

As for your question I don't think a conference like that exists. 

[NT80]

40 minutes ago, MeanGreenTeeth said:

I thought we established that you had to play the sports that your conference sponsors.  Are the any conferences that sponsor everything other than football and basketball?  Surely not.

A lot of conferences have Associate or Affiliate members that play only some sports, usually because the conference doesn't have enough full members playing a sport.  

Did you know the AAC currently has 7 Affiliate members, including Florida, Vanderbilt, FIU, Cal-State-Sacramento, lol?

UNT was actually an Affiliate member of the AAC last year, maybe the past two years, in swimming I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Athletic_Conference

Edited August 24 by NT80

[NT80]

11 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

I'd have to look it up, but I was certain I saw that you can't split sports between conferences. If the conference you are in sponsors that sport, you must play in that conference. For example Cal could put fb in the ACC and the rest of it's sports in the WCC since the WCC doesn't sponsor football. However it cannot put bb in the ACC while keeping the rest in the WCC since they do sponsor bb. 

As for your question I don't think a conference like that exists. 

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.

[NT80]

1 hour ago, DentonStang said:

Depends on how you look at it.

We're only actually LOSING the $7M/yr we get in AAC which is nothing.

ACC full share payouts are about $40M/yr

What about when FSU unlocks the ACC jail and lets the 7 schools out that want to leave?

[outoftown]

8 hours ago, Hunter Green said:

Academic brethren. 

Not really. I don't know how teachers see it, and that may be fairly different from how researcher see it.

But as a researcher myself, SMU belongs nowhere near Stanford in any research related conversation. At least not in the fields I have been in. Frankly UNT is ahead of SMU in that regard, as indicated by Tier 1 status. And yet, UNT is also nowhere near Stanfords impact into research. In the maybe 30 international scientific conferences I have been to - spanning a broad variety of life science research (from basic to applied) and different medical and psychology fields - I have yet to see a single presentation (or poster) by anyone from SMU. Stanford you cannot miss if you go to an international conference. UNT you can miss often enough... but at least it hasn't been completely inexistent.

Edited August 24 by outoftown

[outoftown]

I truely do wonder: will SMU boosters spend not only to keep their  athletics afloat, but actually top that with enough money to thrive. I know everybody believes SMU is rich like that. But I keep having this hunch that the money is not going to be infinite, and that it is quite possible we will see 4-8 SMU teams for a while. And one has to wonder what that will do to engagment.

SMU doing this might actually be the way it is most easily to imagine how UNT overtakes them in the medium run.

[emmitt01]

4 hours ago, outoftown said:

I truely do wonder: will SMU boosters spend not only to keep their  athletics afloat, but actually top that with enough money to thrive. I know everybody believes SMU is rich like that. But I keep having this hunch that the money is not going to be infinite, and that it is quite possible we will see 4-8 SMU teams for a while. And one has to wonder what that will do to engagment.

SMU doing this might actually be the way it is most easily to imagine how UNT overtakes them in the medium run.

I think this brings up very interesting questions.  
 

Obviously, the main driving factor for SMU is their insatiable desire to feel “included” at the big boy table.  This is something they have sought for decades, ever since their SWC brethren left them (and they’ve been told “no” when they’ve asked to rejoin them repeatedly).  Does this get them back to being seen as one of Texas, aTm, Baylor, or TCU’s peers…especially when you consider that TCU’s path to a P5 conference was actually winning something in football (unlike SMU’s 38 year conference title drought)?  
 

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.  
 

I am sure they are banking on the bump they’ll see in recruiting.  There is no doubt recruits in DFW will be excited by the chance to play ACC teams.  Now what happens when the kid you want from Desoto finds out momma needs to travel to BOTH coasts to see her son play?  And don’t forget, those teams you were so eager to be associated with get to recruit that same kid…only they can show him tangible success that wasn’t during the Reagan administration.  
 

Most importantly, is it safe to assume FSU, Clemson and others are going to be in the ACC by the time SMU starts seeing revenue sharing?  These teams won’t magically forget how much more lucrative the SEC, Big10, and BigXII contracts are…and Stanford, Cal and SMU don’t make up that ground for the ACC.  You might argue that now ESPN can broadcast ACC content on the west coast and in DFW…but do they really capture those markets well enough to make up the $10M per school difference between the ACC deal and the deals in the BigXII, SEC and Big10?  

And SMU won’t be getting any of the TV revenue distribution during all of this to help offset the negatives.  Baylor grew its program on the rest of the Big XII’s coattails…because they were getting paid.  

 

[greenminer]

9 hours ago, DentonStang said:

Depends on how you look at it.

We're only actually LOSING the $7M/yr we get in AAC which is nothing.

ACC full share payouts are about $40M/yr

So you’re forfeiting the 7 mil/year from American, and then spending the next 7 years leaving maybe 40 mil/year on the table..

For a conference that probably disappears by year 7

got it

[wardly]

8 hours ago, Green Otaku said:

I'd have to look it up, but I was certain I saw that you can't split sports between conferences. If the conference you are in sponsors that sport, you must play in that conference. For example Cal could put fb in the ACC and the rest of it's sports in the WCC since the WCC doesn't sponsor football. However it cannot put bb in the ACC while keeping the rest in the WCC since they do sponsor bb. 

As for your question I don't think a conference like that exists. 

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

[El Paso Eagle]

9 hours ago, DentonStang said:

Depends on how you look at it.

We're only actually LOSING the $7M/yr we get in AAC which is nothing.

ACC full share payouts are about $40M/yr

Well, we know where the accountants from Enron ended up working

Edited August 24 by El Paso Eagle

[TIgreen01]

I wouldn't be surprised to see this ACC interest from dirty schmoo being less about football and more about basketball and aligning with more of the presumed elite academics in the ACC.  Duke, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Miami, Notre Dame, Boston College, Virginia.  Add Stanford and Cal to that and you have a pretty prestigious list of schools.  SMU belongs nowhere near that list academically.  With how they think of themselves, I can certainly see why they want in.  Rice is a much better fit, if you ask me, but they don't seem to possess alums with the same penchant for blowing money on losing sports teams.

With the basketball success they had a few years back, and by success I mean generating local interest, I can see where they may be thinking they can more easily thrust their name back into the national spotlight through basketball.  Especially if they are bringing in the likes of Duke and North Carolina to Dallas every year.  Not even Kansas is as big a draw as either of those school's basketball programs and it would instantly give them something the Big12 doesn't have.

I hate this move intensely.  It'll make it that much harder for us to gain relevance in this market.

[DentonStang]

43 minutes ago, greenminer said:

So you’re forfeiting the 7 mil/year from American, and then spending the next 7 years leaving maybe 40 mil/year on the table..

For a conference that probably disappears by year 7

got it

Yeah.....so?

For the next 7 years we are out the piddly AAC payout. That's easily covered in one donation. You could raise that money at UNT. It's not huge.

We miss out on the ACC payout we aren't getting anyway.

But we DO get the conference prestige, recruiting, and media coverage of a P4.  We will play real teams people have heard of, and establish ourselves as a P4 school.  That is invaluable and the media coverage alone is worth more than what we're paying. Its massive increases the profile of the school which will improve donations AND applications.  

More importantly the screw job with the playoff and the big split is coming very soon. We're buying our way on the last life raft. Being in a P4 when that happens is ultra critical because every who isn't is going to be totally screwed over and shut out of the playoff AND access to playing P4 teams unless you are a total guaranteed win.

They are already talking about trying to force too 12 teams and no auto bids.  So you have to be top 12, but you will always start the year ranked low, you won't have a chance to play anyone good, and you'll end the year outside the top 12 because you don't play anyone good. The fix is in.

And the absolute worst case is we end up right back here in the AAC.  So where's the downside?  

It's the end of the game, you're down by 1 score, and have 1 play left. Do you throw the hailmary or do you knee it out and take the loss to avoid the embarrassment of a failed hailmary?

Edited August 24 by DentonStang

[aprice]

11 hours ago, NT80 said:

The BIG difference is all the previous programs EARNED their way to the P5 level.   Having to BUY your way into the club is just  wrong.....but you guys don't really care about wrong, and never have!

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

Edited August 24 by aprice

[ntmeangreen11]

Money matters so props to SMU for using that to their advantage, we all want a seat at the table and they appear to be getting it. I  still can't help but laugh at the thought of a Florida State fan scheduling a trip to Dallas and watching a football game in a stadium with 13.5k fans.

[greenminer]

 

40 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

But we DO get the conference prestige, recruiting, and media coverage of a P4.  We will play real teams people have heard of, and establish ourselves as a P4 school.  That is invaluable and the media coverage alone is worth more than what we're paying. Its massive increases the profile of the school which will improve donations AND applications.  

My view on this: this lingo is all eerily similar to what programs say when changing to any conference.

I'm skeptical of anyone, anytime they say "this is what we've been missing.  this is what will take us over the top."

Historically, no one can say that with certainty.  In fact, we have plenty of evidence that it doesn't happen.

I can look inward, too, and say this has been the case in Denton.  Getting a new stadium and into CUSA didn't right our ship.  Not a single one of those coaches since Dickey has been the answer.  No high profile recruit has been "the answer."

CUSA didn't fix SMU after it left the WAC.  AAC didn't fix SMU when you left CUSA...etc.  So, IMO, how can anyone say with certainty that the ACC will be different?  You're not getting ACC money for 7 years, so the whole budget argument is skewed.  DFW fans will line up for new, shiny opponents but, if you aren't winning soon, how long with they hang around?

So I see the long game as this (which, apparently, we are. in agreement on): you're literally paying your way up to the top.  With zero equity/benefit to the others around you, you're buying SMU's product into the P2.   In 7-10 years, you hope the next realignment cycle you are in a position to level up again, so maybe we're looking at 10-20 years of zero conference payouts.  Totally relying on donor funds?  For a product that could never bring much else to the table.

Part of me recognizes that, at the P2 level, they have plenty of money to go around.  So, when SMU arrives, knocking at the door, and they don't have anything else but money to bring to the table, what will the P2 say?

[VideoEagle]

I still find it amazing that Florida State is saying they can't possibly compete without more money while SMU says they don't need any money at all. SMU is forgoing for seven years till 2031 and giving a grant of rights until 2035. That means they will only have four years of actual revenue! 

It does appear the Stanford professor who claims to be an expert on media rights and told Stanford they were worth $50 million a year is off by about $40 million. 

[DentonStang]

16 minutes ago, greenminer said:

 

My view on this: this lingo is all eerily similar to what programs say when changing to any conference.

I'm skeptical of anyone, anytime they say "this is what we've been missing.  this is what will take us over the top."

Historically, no one can say that with certainty.  In fact, we have plenty of evidence that it doesn't happen.

I can look inward, too, and say this has been the case in Denton.  Getting a new stadium and into CUSA didn't right our ship.  Not a single one of those coaches since Dickey has been the answer.  No high profile recruit has been "the answer."

CUSA didn't fix SMU after it left the WAC.  AAC didn't fix SMU when you left CUSA...etc.  So, IMO, how can anyone say with certainty that the ACC will be different?  You're not getting ACC money for 7 years, so the whole budget argument is skewed.  DFW fans will line up for new, shiny opponents but, if you aren't winning soon, how long with they hang around?

So I see the long game as this (which, apparently, we are. in agreement on): you're literally paying your way up to the top.  With zero equity/benefit to the others around you, you're buying SMU's product into the P2.   In 7-10 years, you hope the next realignment cycle you are in a position to level up again, so maybe we're looking at 10-20 years of zero conference payouts.  Totally relying on donor funds?  For a product that could never bring much else to the table.

Part of me recognizes that, at the P2 level, they have plenty of money to go around.  So, when SMU arrives, knocking at the door, and they don't have anything else but money to bring to the table, what will the P2 say?

Its not "fixing" anything. Its keeping us from being flushed into FCS with the rest of MWC Sunbelt and AAC.