Not a Big 12 candidate. Not on the radar to add to the ACC's GOR. And if the Pac-12 pivots to MWC acquisitions, it may not even be a top tier Pac-12 candidate, either. Where does SMU stand at this point?

The Mustangs may no longer be the topic du jour on message boards, but that doesn't mean SMU has lost any ground in the real world.

Attention spans are short, PAC media negotiations are eternal.
– The Dude of Kos

Networks & streamers won't pay for SMU. Pac 12 tried, Big 12 has enough Texas, ACC is experiencing a revolt.

I think Corporal Kliavkof realizes that his best case scenario is he keeps the 10 teams he has now and doesn't expand.

The TV contract will not go up much at all with expansion teams, and the amount per school will be reduced.

His 2nd best scenario is that he only loses either Arizona or Colorado (one, not both) and plugs in San Diego State.

If he loses 2 or more schools, he has major problems and SMU would just be one of many schools considered to plug the holes along with virtually every Mountain West school, Gonzaga, maybe some Big West schools, service academies, etc.

(06-04-2023 04:50 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Not a Big 12 candidate. Not on the radar to add to the ACC's GOR. And if the Pac-12 pivots to MWC acquisitions, it may not even be a top tier Pac-12 candidate, either. Where does SMU stand at this point?

"Why Has SMU Talk Gone Quiet?"

It could be because they still under discussion (or even discussing) behind-the-scenes.

"Going quiet" can mean nothing's going on, or something's going on. There's no way for us to know at this point.

It may be all relative. The SMU talk was so directly loud with Kliavkoff visiting the campus that it’s natural to have a pullback.

Because when you are in serious discussions, you sign an NDA and are told to shut your pie hole.

It means nothing, other than they have likely signed an NDA with the PAC, as have other schools. If you hear about a school publically saying anything, or if you know that a commissioner has visited a campus, it almost always means much less than when you arent hearing those things.

(06-04-2023 05:29 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 04:50 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Not a Big 12 candidate. Not on the radar to add to the ACC's GOR. And if the Pac-12 pivots to MWC acquisitions, it may not even be a top tier Pac-12 candidate, either. Where does SMU stand at this point?

"Why Has SMU Talk Gone Quiet?"

It could be because they still under discussion (or even discussing) behind-the-scenes.

"Going quiet" can mean nothing's going on, or something's going on. There's no way for us to know at this point.

You may be correct. As the saying goes, “no news is good news”.

(06-04-2023 05:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Because when you are in serious discussions, you sign an NDA and are told to shut your pie hole.

It means nothing, other than they have likely signed an NDA with the PAC, as have other schools. If you hear about a school publically saying anything, or if you know that a commissioner has visited a campus, it almost always means much less than when you arent hearing those things.

The Athletic article last summer said less than a dozen people on USC's campus knew up until the day before the announcement. Presumably, that was true on UCLA's campus as well.

(06-04-2023 06:01 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 05:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Because when you are in serious discussions, you sign an NDA and are told to shut your pie hole.

It means nothing, other than they have likely signed an NDA with the PAC, as have other schools. If you hear about a school publically saying anything, or if you know that a commissioner has visited a campus, it almost always means much less than when you arent hearing those things.

The Athletic article last summer said less than a dozen people on USC's campus knew up until the day before the announcement. Presumably, that was true on UCLA's campus as well.

Thats how you have to do it to keep it quiet. Especially if state politics could get involved, as it certainly could have with UCLA/USC. That could have gotten ugly really quickly if that had leaked.

Everyone knows if a suitable deal is done they are being added. No need for SMU to leak things, no need for the PAC to leak things

(06-04-2023 05:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It may be all relative. The SMU talk was so directly loud with Kliavkoff visiting the campus that it’s natural to have a pullback.

SMU has a history of not keeping things quiet and getting egg on their face because of it.

(06-04-2023 06:38 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  Everyone knows if a suitable deal is done they are being added. No need for SMU to leak things, no need for the PAC to leak things

Everyone? Who is your source? It is my understanding that the PAC would prefer to stay with just their current 10 members, and SMU only becomes an option should they lose at least two members.

And for the record, I have maintained this claim since about early March. You can research my posts if you like.

Been saying for a couple of months now that IF the remaining Pac members are able to hold together, they will most likely stand pat.

The second most likely outcome is expanding to 11 with SDSU only. I've never been sold on SMU being added if none of the existing members leave.

(06-04-2023 05:09 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Networks & streamers won't pay for SMU. Pac 12 tried, Big 12 has enough Texas, ACC is experiencing a revolt.

We are?

Yeah, not hearing much from Klavikoff right now. Cannot believe he isn't negotiating in public like the B1G did with USCLA.

(06-04-2023 07:07 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(06-04-2023 06:38 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  Everyone knows if a suitable deal is done they are being added. No need for SMU to leak things, no need for the PAC to leak things

Everyone? Who is your source? It is my understanding that the PAC would prefer to stay with just their current 10 members, and SMU only becomes an option should they lose at least two members.

And for the record, I have maintained this claim since about early March. You can research my posts if you like.

Who is your source that the PAC wants to stay at 10? They want the 10 to remain together, but that doesn't mean they will not look to replace the two that left.

(06-04-2023 05:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Because when you are in serious discussions, you sign an NDA and are told to shut your pie hole.

It means nothing, other than they have likely signed an NDA with the PAC, as have other schools. If you hear about a school publically saying anything, or if you know that a commissioner has visited a campus, it almost always means much less than when you arent hearing those things.

Especially when it appears Apple is the one you are negotiating with.

Until the PAC12 can get a deal done, there will not be any talk about expansion or SDSU/SMU adds. If the PAC can get a deal there is a chance they stay at 10.

(06-04-2023 08:47 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Until the PAC12 can get a deal done, there will not be any talk about expansion or SDSU/SMU adds. If the PAC can get a deal there is a chance they stay at 10.

Well, you can think that. You'd be wrong, but you can think that. Nothing wrong with you being wrong, of course.