(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:28 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:58 AM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:40 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if they've passed the window of keeping their NCAA Member Conference status.

If they have, maybe there's an appeal/exception process.

They still have their existing members until next football season, if I'm not mistaken. So it's starting in 2024 that they would have an issue with not having enough teams to be a conference. That's why the talk of adding AAC teams immediately to meet the minimum requirement, then adding MWC schools the following year to limit fees for leaving.

I just don't see how a conference of AAC/MWC + Wazzu/OSU = higher money then what AAC deal is right now? At least not high enough to compensate for increase travel costs, etc. That's why the SMU deal is bonkers to me. What's the upside of being in a P5 if you receive none of the P5 money for seven years?! They're not in a position to compete in any major sports from the jump so not like they're banking on playoff money or NCAA tourney credits. Hell, in seven years elite of B10/SEC + FSU/Clemson could get smart and start their own damn league by then.

SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

That's just the media money. SMU will get it's share of Bowl, Playoff, and NCAA tournament credit money that the conference generates.

In this case - 0 isn't really 0.

Yeah, let's join the PAC......

No TV Deal except streaming = Weak exposure.

An idiot for a Commisioner.

40-50% or our games starting at 9-10pm CST

Brilliant idea.....

(08-30-2023 05:27 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 02:15 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 01:26 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 12:55 PM)memtiger1987 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 12:52 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  If they were to join the MWC it may strengthen the MWC, but it lessens the chance of a team running the table in conference.

It is the highest ranked conference champion.

A slightly weaker conference would make it more likely to be the topped ranked G5 champion.

So, let’s join up with the worst teams in the country so we might go undefeated. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard lately.

As long as you're the highest ranked G5 champion the strength of your conference is irrelevant.

Probably be tough to be the highest ranked G5 champion if your conference sucks and your schedule is filled with cupcakes.

Believe me the voters in the polls don't go that far into details when you're talking G5 school. In the coaches polls many of the polls are filled out by grad assistants.
In the writers they look at records. No one does any indepth research of league or schedule.

Well, for f’s sake, let’s get in a conference with the worst of D-1 teams so we can win more. Again, this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen on this site lately, and that’s saying something.

How about we play good teams and enjoy quality matchups rather than teams like UMASS? Who wants that?

If we joined the PAC-whatever and it was still considered P5, it could be a stepping stone into the Big 12 - since they would be adding another P5 team

(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:28 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:58 AM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:40 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if they've passed the window of keeping their NCAA Member Conference status.

If they have, maybe there's an appeal/exception process.

They still have their existing members until next football season, if I'm not mistaken. So it's starting in 2024 that they would have an issue with not having enough teams to be a conference. That's why the talk of adding AAC teams immediately to meet the minimum requirement, then adding MWC schools the following year to limit fees for leaving.

I just don't see how a conference of AAC/MWC + Wazzu/OSU = higher money then what AAC deal is right now? At least not high enough to compensate for increase travel costs, etc. That's why the SMU deal is bonkers to me. What's the upside of being in a P5 if you receive none of the P5 money for seven years?! They're not in a position to compete in any major sports from the jump so not like they're banking on playoff money or NCAA tourney credits. Hell, in seven years elite of B10/SEC + FSU/Clemson could get smart and start their own damn league by then.

SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

The assumption here is that the ACC is still in tact in 7 years. And that’s a big fat nope. SMU gonna play for free for 7 years and still end up on the outside.

(08-30-2023 05:27 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 02:15 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 01:26 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 12:55 PM)memtiger1987 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 12:52 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  If they were to join the MWC it may strengthen the MWC, but it lessens the chance of a team running the table in conference.

It is the highest ranked conference champion.

A slightly weaker conference would make it more likely to be the topped ranked G5 champion.

So, let’s join up with the worst teams in the country so we might go undefeated. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard lately.

As long as you're the highest ranked G5 champion the strength of your conference is irrelevant.

Probably be tough to be the highest ranked G5 champion if your conference sucks and your schedule is filled with cupcakes.

Believe me the voters in the polls don't go that far into details when you're talking G5 school. In the coaches polls many of the polls are filled out by grad assistants.
In the writers they look at records. No one does any indepth research of league or schedule.

But with the poll that matters the most, the CFP poll, they definitely put in the effort.

(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:28 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:58 AM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:40 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if they've passed the window of keeping their NCAA Member Conference status.

If they have, maybe there's an appeal/exception process.

They still have their existing members until next football season, if I'm not mistaken. So it's starting in 2024 that they would have an issue with not having enough teams to be a conference. That's why the talk of adding AAC teams immediately to meet the minimum requirement, then adding MWC schools the following year to limit fees for leaving.

I just don't see how a conference of AAC/MWC + Wazzu/OSU = higher money then what AAC deal is right now? At least not high enough to compensate for increase travel costs, etc. That's why the SMU deal is bonkers to me. What's the upside of being in a P5 if you receive none of the P5 money for seven years?! They're not in a position to compete in any major sports from the jump so not like they're banking on playoff money or NCAA tourney credits. Hell, in seven years elite of B10/SEC + FSU/Clemson could get smart and start their own damn league by then.

SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

Speaking only as a fan, I would want to know what the results are. Wins and losses so to speak. Does this model affect our NIL money and our competing for wins? And does it affect our ability to compete with the top teams in the conference for the next decade?

(08-30-2023 09:37 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:28 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:58 AM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:40 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if they've passed the window of keeping their NCAA Member Conference status.

If they have, maybe there's an appeal/exception process.

They still have their existing members until next football season, if I'm not mistaken. So it's starting in 2024 that they would have an issue with not having enough teams to be a conference. That's why the talk of adding AAC teams immediately to meet the minimum requirement, then adding MWC schools the following year to limit fees for leaving.

I just don't see how a conference of AAC/MWC + Wazzu/OSU = higher money then what AAC deal is right now? At least not high enough to compensate for increase travel costs, etc. That's why the SMU deal is bonkers to me. What's the upside of being in a P5 if you receive none of the P5 money for seven years?! They're not in a position to compete in any major sports from the jump so not like they're banking on playoff money or NCAA tourney credits. Hell, in seven years elite of B10/SEC + FSU/Clemson could get smart and start their own damn league by then.

SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

The assumption here is that the ACC is still in tact in 7 years. And that’s a big fat nope. SMU gonna play for free for 7 years and still end up on the outside.

FSU offered $300 million split over 10 years in ab attempt to get out. If they thought they could get around the GOR they wouldn't have made the offer.

Unless the schools vote to dissolve the conference, the ACC will be around.

If new schools are added it will make it harder to dissolve the conference.

(08-31-2023 04:48 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:37 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:28 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:58 AM)aardWolf Wrote:  They still have their existing members until next football season, if I'm not mistaken. So it's starting in 2024 that they would have an issue with not having enough teams to be a conference. That's why the talk of adding AAC teams immediately to meet the minimum requirement, then adding MWC schools the following year to limit fees for leaving.

I just don't see how a conference of AAC/MWC + Wazzu/OSU = higher money then what AAC deal is right now? At least not high enough to compensate for increase travel costs, etc. That's why the SMU deal is bonkers to me. What's the upside of being in a P5 if you receive none of the P5 money for seven years?! They're not in a position to compete in any major sports from the jump so not like they're banking on playoff money or NCAA tourney credits. Hell, in seven years elite of B10/SEC + FSU/Clemson could get smart and start their own damn league by then.

SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

The assumption here is that the ACC is still in tact in 7 years. And that’s a big fat nope. SMU gonna play for free for 7 years and still end up on the outside.

FSU offered $300 million split over 10 years in ab attempt to get out. If they thought they could get around the GOR they wouldn't have made the offer.

Unless the schools vote to dissolve the conference, the ACC will be around.

If new schools are added it will make it harder to dissolve the conference.

FSU is not committed to long term ACC if they believe they can get considerable more money elsewhere. I am going to assume your $300M is true, & if that’s the case $300M is not enough to buy out the GOR 10 years early, but as the # of years on the GOR get shorter, the cost to buy it out gets smaller, so that $300M might be enough to buy it out when they get to the 5 year mark or so.
My opinion is FSU & a couple more schools are stuck waiting for the math to work out for when it makes sense to pay the penalty of leaving early.
Given their leaving will also damage the ACCN which ESPN partly owns I suspect there will be multiple components to any early exit deal to make all impacted parties whole. Anyone who thinks ESPN wants to pay FSU twice as much money to be in the SEC while also damaging the investment in the ACCN has not been keeping up with Disney’s current focus on profits.

In the meantime FSU will continue to be the squeaky wheel for more money & try to squeeze as much out of ACC with unequal revenue sharing as they can, but still leave once the math works out.

(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:28 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:58 AM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:40 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if they've passed the window of keeping their NCAA Member Conference status.

If they have, maybe there's an appeal/exception process.

They still have their existing members until next football season, if I'm not mistaken. So it's starting in 2024 that they would have an issue with not having enough teams to be a conference. That's why the talk of adding AAC teams immediately to meet the minimum requirement, then adding MWC schools the following year to limit fees for leaving.

I just don't see how a conference of AAC/MWC + Wazzu/OSU = higher money then what AAC deal is right now? At least not high enough to compensate for increase travel costs, etc. That's why the SMU deal is bonkers to me. What's the upside of being in a P5 if you receive none of the P5 money for seven years?! They're not in a position to compete in any major sports from the jump so not like they're banking on playoff money or NCAA tourney credits. Hell, in seven years elite of B10/SEC + FSU/Clemson could get smart and start their own damn league by then.

SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

From what I read yesterday SMU is only offering not to take a share of the ACC media revenue but they will still share in CFP revenue, NCAA credits & some smaller payments. Those revenues in which they will share are more than SMU will make in total payments in the AAC. So even taking no media revenue, SMU increases their total revenues in the ACC over their current position in the AAC.

Not that it would get Memphis into the ACC but we would come out ahead each year by offering to accept the same deal.

i found a pac12 channel on roku live tv

i think it was channel 248

(08-31-2023 04:48 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:37 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:28 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:58 AM)aardWolf Wrote:  They still have their existing members until next football season, if I'm not mistaken. So it's starting in 2024 that they would have an issue with not having enough teams to be a conference. That's why the talk of adding AAC teams immediately to meet the minimum requirement, then adding MWC schools the following year to limit fees for leaving.

I just don't see how a conference of AAC/MWC + Wazzu/OSU = higher money then what AAC deal is right now? At least not high enough to compensate for increase travel costs, etc. That's why the SMU deal is bonkers to me. What's the upside of being in a P5 if you receive none of the P5 money for seven years?! They're not in a position to compete in any major sports from the jump so not like they're banking on playoff money or NCAA tourney credits. Hell, in seven years elite of B10/SEC + FSU/Clemson could get smart and start their own damn league by then.

SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

The assumption here is that the ACC is still in tact in 7 years. And that’s a big fat nope. SMU gonna play for free for 7 years and still end up on the outside.

FSU offered $300 million split over 10 years in ab attempt to get out. If they thought they could get around the GOR they wouldn't have made the offer.

Unless the schools vote to dissolve the conference, the ACC will be around.

If new schools are added it will make it harder to dissolve the conference.

Which is why Stanford, Cal, and SMU have been struggling to gets the votes.

(08-31-2023 08:16 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-31-2023 04:48 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:37 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:28 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  I just don't see how a conference of AAC/MWC + Wazzu/OSU = higher money then what AAC deal is right now? At least not high enough to compensate for increase travel costs, etc. That's why the SMU deal is bonkers to me. What's the upside of being in a P5 if you receive none of the P5 money for seven years?! They're not in a position to compete in any major sports from the jump so not like they're banking on playoff money or NCAA tourney credits. Hell, in seven years elite of B10/SEC + FSU/Clemson could get smart and start their own damn league by then.

SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

The assumption here is that the ACC is still in tact in 7 years. And that’s a big fat nope. SMU gonna play for free for 7 years and still end up on the outside.

FSU offered $300 million split over 10 years in ab attempt to get out. If they thought they could get around the GOR they wouldn't have made the offer.

Unless the schools vote to dissolve the conference, the ACC will be around.

If new schools are added it will make it harder to dissolve the conference.

Which is why Stanford, Cal, and SMU have been struggling to gets the votes.

ND is pushing that because they don't want the ACC to dissolve. FSU and Clemson are against it want that to happen. UNC and NC State are the 2 swing votes that both side are working.. At least that what the rumor mill is saying.

Joining the PAC remnants is a gamble but one id be willing to take. Looking at tonight’s schedule I’m literally having to look and see if some of these teams are in our conference.

A Hail Mary may have a low probability of working out but it beats the hell out of standing on the sideline watching the clock slowly run out.

(08-31-2023 09:17 AM)dcg141 Wrote:  

(08-31-2023 08:16 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-31-2023 04:48 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:37 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

The assumption here is that the ACC is still in tact in 7 years. And that’s a big fat nope. SMU gonna play for free for 7 years and still end up on the outside.

FSU offered $300 million split over 10 years in ab attempt to get out. If they thought they could get around the GOR they wouldn't have made the offer.

Unless the schools vote to dissolve the conference, the ACC will be around.

If new schools are added it will make it harder to dissolve the conference.

Which is why Stanford, Cal, and SMU have been struggling to gets the votes.

ND is pushing that because they don't want the ACC to dissolve. FSU and Clemson are against it want that to happen. UNC and NC State are the who both sides are working. At least that what the rumor mill is saying.

Yep, heard that, too.

UNC and NCS vote together as a block. UNC is desirable to other conference, more so than NCS. But the feel that their political strength can keep them together wherever they might end up.


Also, suggestions are out there that the B1G will probably look to pull from Big 12 not too far down the road.

(08-31-2023 09:40 AM)bluecrew Wrote:  Joining the PAC remnants is a gamble but one id be willing to take. Looking at tonight’s schedule I’m literally having to look and see if some of these teams are in our conference.

A Hail Mary may have a low probability of working out but it beats the hell out of standing on the sideline watching the clock slowly run out.

Pretty sure none of this will happen wo a media deal in place.

(08-30-2023 09:40 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if they've passed the window of keeping their NCAA Member Conference status.

If they have, maybe there's an appeal/exception process.

Who exactly votes on that ? The tv networks?

(08-30-2023 10:57 AM)Tigx Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 10:28 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:58 AM)aardWolf Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:40 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if they've passed the window of keeping their NCAA Member Conference status.

If they have, maybe there's an appeal/exception process.

They still have their existing members until next football season, if I'm not mistaken. So it's starting in 2024 that they would have an issue with not having enough teams to be a conference. That's why the talk of adding AAC teams immediately to meet the minimum requirement, then adding MWC schools the following year to limit fees for leaving.

I just don't see how a conference of AAC/MWC + Wazzu/OSU = higher money then what AAC deal is right now? At least not high enough to compensate for increase travel costs, etc. That's why the SMU deal is bonkers to me. What's the upside of being in a P5 if you receive none of the P5 money for seven years?! They're not in a position to compete in any major sports from the jump so not like they're banking on playoff money or NCAA tourney credits. Hell, in seven years elite of B10/SEC + FSU/Clemson could get smart and start their own damn league by then.

SMU Options

• American
  Year
  
  1. $7M (running total $7M)
  2. $7M (running total $14M)
  3. $7M (running total $21M)
  4. $7M (running total $28M)
  5. $7M (running total $35M)
  6. $7M (running total $42M)
  7. $7M (running total $49M)
  8. $7M (running total $56M)
  9. $7M (running total $63M)
  10. $7M (running total $70M)
      
• ACC
  Year
  
  1. $0 (running total $0)
  2. $0 (running total $0)
  3. $0 (running total $0)
  4. $0 (running total $0)
  5. $0 (running total $0)
  6. $0 (running total $0)
  7. $0 (running total $0)
  8. $39.4M (running total $39.4M)
  9. $39.4M (running total $78.8M)
  10. $39.4M (running total $118.2M)
      

Assuming you can weather the first 7 years, which option would you choose?

Great post, umbluegray. And also, from reports, SMU's conference money won't be zero. They would forego money from the media deal, but SMU would get their share of ACC distributions from the CFP and the NCAA Tournament.

Also, one would assume their attendance would increase with the improved schedule, and SMU likely would be able to increase ticket prices and student fees.

Imo, we shouldn't be criticizing SMU for "buying" their way in, we should be asking our leadership why they haven't been being creative like SMU's leadership.

SMU has a money tree in their backyard. We do not. We never have and probably never will.

(08-31-2023 09:50 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(08-30-2023 09:40 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if they've passed the window of keeping their NCAA Member Conference status.

If they have, maybe there's an appeal/exception process.

Who exactly votes on that ? The tv networks?

Those are NCAA bylaws.

when fresh water becomes more valuable than oil, we will be gold