OT: SMU Stanford Cal to the ACC
- Thread starter rutgersguy1
- Start date
This would be a mistake for Army.
They learned in CUSA that you can't run option vs same teams every year (lose element of surprise).
Then AD had Army switch to pro offense and that brought 15 years of losing
www.espn.com
They learned in CUSA that you can't run option vs same teams every year (lose element of surprise).
Then AD had Army switch to pro offense and that brought 15 years of losing
Sources: AAC targets Army as SMU replacement
The American has reached out to Army to discuss adding the service academy as a football-only member of the conference, sources told ESPN's Pete Thamel. SMU agreed Friday to leave the AAC for the ACC.
Legacies too. But in some cases, even if not alum/legacy, wealthy non-alums send their kid there with the promise of donations.
I really have to wonder about the Big Ten leaving America's best public university and its most elite, private, FBS school on the table for another conference to grab.
Cal & Stanford should've been in the Big Ten.
Cal & Stanford should've been in the Big Ten.
Agree . . . no matter what the short-term numbers were, it made sense to take both to maintain historic rivalries, to make scheduling easier for Pacific Coast teams, to get the enhanced carriage fees from having teams in the S.F. media market ( #7 in the country), and for the pure prestige of having Cal and Stanford. Similarly, no matter what the short-term numbers, the Regents of the University of California (which govern both Cal and UCLA) should have told the Big Ten that it would let UCLA join only with a promise that Cal would be part of the next expansion. But short-term thinking seems pervasive today, and not just in sports.
Yes, but they have separate budgets for athletics. UCLA was in a deep hole, and saw joining the Big Ten as a way to make a hell of a lot of money. The Regents, who run the system, were willing to let UCLA join the Big Ten and pay "Calimony" to Cal. But that backfired because the departure of UCLA and USC made the Pac-12's media rights much less valuable.
I'm not surprised that Fox wanted Oregon and Washington more than it wanted Cal and Stanford. But evidently the per-school payout from Fox would have been reduced if the Big Ten had taken all four, and the Big Ten schools didn't want to sacrifice that revenue.
SMU doesn't need the money. It is literally the local university for Highland Park, Tx and University Park, Tx. Walking distance to both neighborhoods. More billionaires per block than any other place in the USA. You know all those big boosters at Texa$ and Texa$ A&M? Odds are their bosses live in one of those two neighborhoods. Give it three years; my bet is SMU will be a contender in the conference in football and hoops.
I'm taking my wife's Crazy Uncle Rick's word over yours. No offense, of course.
Similar threads
