ACC mulling addition of SMU
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
When I lived in Dallas in the very early 90's, TCU was bigger...SMU is located in a swankey neighborhood in North Dallas Highland Park. Cute campus but small...SMU would match up well with Wake Forest, BC and Duke.It's a Dallas Cowboys market and don't you forget it!
That was after they were death penaltied. Hell, at that time North Texas was bigger. 80's? TCU was nothing compared to SMU.
ND is pushing hard for the ACC to add Stanford and Cal and that doesn't appear to be happening
It's convoluted and makes no logistical sense, but that hasn't deterred the B1G. The question now becomes, if the ACC demurs, is it because the idea is impractical or because they lack vision. I wouldn't bet against the latter, seeing the situation they have already navigated themselves into.
It would probably make more sense if the ACC picked up all four remaining Pac 12 teams, even if WSU and OSU don't add anything. The Big 10 added Oregon and Washington primarily because it made zero logistical sense to have only 2 west coast teams, not for any revenue reasons. They needed to ease the travel burden for SoCal and UCLA and those were the most desirable teams to do that.
Stanford and Cal are solid additions for the academics and overall sports and they've had strong moments in football. But the addition of just those two doesn't make much logistical sense. Problem, of course, is that OSU and WSU add nothing at all revenue-wise and would certainly impact per/team revenue. They could certainly be had at a bargain, though. The ACC could offer them considerably more than the $4 million they'd get from the MWC but still nothing close to a full share.
Last edited:
ACC should leverage ND's request against them. Lobby them to join the ACC along with Stanford and Cal and guarantee them the biggest revenue share of all the schools (b/c, as much as I hate it, they are ND and would bring by far the most eyeballs). Adding just ND would put the ACC right back in the thick of it. ND isn't giving up independence though.
Yeah, I know it would never work. It would be a home run move by the ACC though. It would be the most significant of all the expansion moves. If you've got ND, your conference isn't going anywhere, ever. It seals your financial security permanently.
True, but the blue bloods suddenly become less relevant and tobacco road becomes a highway to South Bend.
Last edited:
I laughed when I saw that ND is pushing for Stanford and Cal to join. ND hasn't even joined themselves. They are toying with the ACC, and I imagine when they do ever land in a conference, it will be the b10.
Are they ever. "We want to join...for every sport except football. Oh, and we still want full voting power. But we will want to join for football in 2020, but then go back to independent in 2021. Please and thank you."
Big 10 is certainly the most logical spot, but they've resisted it for so long it's now taken a life of its own. For them to join the Big 10 would be seen as a MAJOR concession by ND, and I think their pride is too big for that. And, even though it was like 100 years ago, ND still hasn't forgotten being blackballed by what would eventually become the Big 10.
For a LONG time, I've wanted the P5 conferences to get together and shun ND to force them to join a conference.
I know it would never happen, but it was a nice pipe dream.
Clemson FSU and UNC are 3 and it is not known who the 4th is. There is speculation that it was
That gives them nothing. This isn’t about markets it’s about matchups that get eyes on tv. That isn’t moving the needle.
I don't think at this point the ACC can be choosy about who they can get.
Actually there was not a vote after all.
The one vote that I stated I did know about, was actually an abstain, as were 3 others. I stand by educated guess's as to the two others votes.
While true, they're better off staying as is than adding those two. It would just dilute the per school take home.
Their problem is there's nobody available that's going to scratch that itch. The decision to raid the big east hasn't proved to be a good one in terms of matchups. It seems that all of their expansion efforts have been to target large media markets to capitalize on subscription revenue, not necessarily on who is actually watching the games. And I wouldn't necessarily say that's a bad strategy. It's served them well up until this point. The only reason we're talking about it is they signed a 20 year deal instead of 10. They should be planning their 2026 renegotiation on the backs of the SEC/B10 media deals that were just signed. But they're missing an entire renegotiation window. Just think how all this might be going if they were able to really engage in expansion as the B12/P12 deals were being planned. They could have been a bigger player in the P12 fallout, and maybe could have poached from the B12. As bad as we're saying the ACC deal is, the new B12 deal is worse on a per school basis.
If I'm going to make decisions to keep Daddy happy, then I need to be sure where Daddy stands concerning me as a child. Partial membership only goes so far.
From someone on TOS that has done more research on it than me, Clem, FSU, UNC, UVA. Also said FSU is pressuring ND to join the conference in exchange for changing their position on Cal/Stan.
Swarbrick has been vocal about how shameful it is for college sports that two institutions of Stanford's and Cal's stature are in danger of being left out of a conference. He said it's a black eye for the sport. We'll see how shameful he really thinks it is.
It's somewhat hypocritical, or at least ironic, viewed from a certain perspective.
That someone only need to google to find out there was not a vote on expansion.
ACC keeps Stanford, Cal in limbo as presidents choose not to vote on expansion
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/c...dents-choose-not-to-vote-on-western-expansion
I wonder which of the following Gamecock fans would prefer:
1. ND ends up joining the ACC along with Cal and Stanford (highly unlikely scenario): this gives the ACC the most prominent national brand in college football (probably college sports) and permanently secures the ACC's financial future. No conference with ND football is ever going under. Keeps Clemson out of the SEC.
OR
2. The ACC eventually implodes and Clemson ends up in the SEC (the most likely eventual outcome): puts our rival in our conference, which eases our scheduling a good bit but secures Clemson's long-term future though they likely become a 3 or 4 loss team.
I know Gamecock fans would love the scenario where the ACC implodes, Clemson is hung out to dry without a conference home, but that's obviously just highly wishful thinking.
I'm partial to option #2 for the obvious scheduling advantage., particularly when the SEC eventually moves to a 9 game schedule. 9 conference games + Clemson will be brutal.
1. ND ends up joining the ACC along with Cal and Stanford (highly unlikely scenario): this gives the ACC the most prominent national brand in college football (probably college sports) and permanently secures the ACC's financial future. No conference with ND football is ever going under. Keeps Clemson out of the SEC.
OR
2. The ACC eventually implodes and Clemson ends up in the SEC (the most likely eventual outcome): puts our rival in our conference, which eases our scheduling a good bit but secures Clemson's long-term future though they likely become a 3 or 4 loss team.
I know Gamecock fans would love the scenario where the ACC implodes, Clemson is hung out to dry without a conference home, but that's obviously just highly wishful thinking.
I'm partial to option #2 for the obvious scheduling advantage., particularly when the SEC eventually moves to a 9 game schedule. 9 conference games + Clemson will be brutal.
Last edited:
The rivalry was way better when we were in a conference together. Anyone who has been living long enough knows this.
There was no vote. I already said that. It was an exploratory call in which at least 4 members expressed their objections to the move. Keep up...that was so 2 days ago.
Says the guy that apparently doesn't value membership to a conference.
I'm assuming he distinguishes their situation from Stanford's/Cal's (i.e. choosing independence between being left out in the cold).
It would certainly be something for the ages if we had a game against Clemson to determine who made it to the SECCG.
There was no vote. I already said that. It was an exploratory call in which at least 4 members expressed their objections to the move. Keep up...that was so 2 days ago.
Actually you did not say that. You mentioned someone on TOS and 4 schools. Nothing in your post # 64 alludes to a "no vote"
Last edited:
Yesterday you referenced a vote, and I replied to you that it wasn't a vote, but 4-5 teams expressed that they would be against it. Check my post #35.
It's probably just semantics on the use of the word "vote" in that there was no formal vote, but it's as good as a vote if a enough programs voice their opposition.
I never said votes were involved either because they weren’t. It was all done by word of mouth and they only needed 4 to be against it. They found out real quick Clemson, FSU, and unc were all hard no’s.