At best smu is the 10th most popular team in Texas. At best…far far behind OU, A&M, UT, TT, BU, LSU, TCU, UH, Arkansas. Ou, Arky and LSU have more of their fans in Texas than SMU…not quite the toe-hold the acc would love to think it has here in Texas…not even close
So schools from either coast will have to uncomfortable meet in Dallas for some sort of “conference” tourney just to reduce travel (actually increase it for some)? I’m sure schools from the actual Atlantic coast will love to lose home games to placate the CA schools.
And don't forget the away games in South Bend with Touchdown Jesus blessing the proceedings from beyond the North end zone!
And a bit of irony. Sonny Dykes coached Cal, and he never really wanted to be there. Was he fired, or he left for SMU, where he did well close to home, and moved to TCU, where he got them to the CFP. Now the two ex-Dykes coached schools can duke it out for who's the better ex-Dyke.
Well they were always going to make less regardless because the new PAC deal wasn’t going to get them the same money. Don’t forget they also lost USC and UCLA. So it’s somewhat an apples and oranges comparison right off the bat comparing old tv deal numbers to new tv deal numbers.
The SEC and ACC are exclusively eSPIN Disney…both in significant decline…the brilliance of what the B1G pulled off is diversifying it’s rights across multiple platforms. That was genius. For better or worse the SEC and ACC are stuck with eSPIN. Could this get way better in the future? Maybe…?
This is the beginning of the end for the ACC. It won't exist by the end of the decade. Look for the big boys to start jumping ship.
If FSU, Clemson & UNC bolt as expected UConn will be invited. You can write that down as George Strait would say.
That $37M is gone. How much would they get in the Mountain West?
Why? Both teams are a lick for the conference championship game each year
unlike the Big Ten Network, the ACC network is fully owned by ESPN so the conference doesn’t benefit from increased carriage the same way the B1G does.
They don’t have equity ownership but the profits are split too just like the BTN iirc. It’s probably 50-50
It's been reported that the Big 12 decided it didn't want Cal and Stanford. https://www.si.com/college/stanford...sted-in-stanford-or-remaining-pac-12-programs
SMU, like Duke, might be "religious" but in reality, it's probably a less conservative school than say Texas A&M. SMU isn't like Baylor.
1) wrong…you clearly have not interacted much with SMU types…that is a very churchy conservative (albeit super wealthy bunch). 2) now cal and stanny have to be in a conference with the Methodists…
This is what I don’t understand. If this is the case why did they not add JMU and App State or USF & UConn instead of Cal and Stanford? Better atmospheres, more eyeballs, more fans in the stands, and WAY less travel for all sports. They added SMU so nothing about G5 vs P5
It's not them, it's the administration and bot. None have long term visions or goals, no plan. All of this should force a reset, redress, and meeting of the minds. We could be cal and Stanford
Didn't RU experience a significant spike in student applications in 2006? Wonder what happened that year. :)
Once the ACC implodes, or the cherry-picking of it begins in a few years, Cal and Stanford will be there for the taking again by the B1G. They would jump ship in a heartbeat if the opportunity presents itself to be with 4 West Coast former members. They don’t bring enough value for that to matter right now. Unfortunately, I don’t think they will improve in the ACC to be any more valuable to the B1G…unless Stanford can entice ND to join…which I doubt.
Will take a crack at the OSU/WSU plan:
