Rg6 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

I read that a few weeks ago when it came out.

My takeaway from it was that the people putting up that money love risk.

I don't see how the ACC makes it as far as smu would need, to start getting paid. It's likely by the time they start cashing checks, that conference breaks up.

---

I'm not sure why you think the acc would break up if it loses Clemson, fsu, and unc. That's why they added the three new schools anticipating these losses and they would still have 14 schools that probably would want to stay together. They might even grab Oregon state and Washington state, making the name acc an even more misnomer, more like aac. Anyway, is the new big 12 any better than the new ACC? Y'all boast that it is through your big 12 colored glasses but I don't think so.

---

It would depend on whether the networks want any ACC members in the XII. If the ACC gets basically the same deal as the XII post losing those 3, then I guess they don't. In which case no big deal we would have the status quo of a P4 landscape.

Rg6 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

I read that a few weeks ago when it came out.

My takeaway from it was that the people putting up that money love risk.

I don't see how the ACC makes it as far as smu would need, to start getting paid. It's likely by the time they start cashing checks, that conference breaks up.

---

I'm not sure why you think the acc would break up if it loses Clemson, fsu, and unc. That's why they added the three new schools anticipating these losses and they would still have 14 schools that probably would want to stay together. They might even grab Oregon state and Washington state, making the name acc an even more misnomer, more like aac. Anyway, is the new big 12 any better than the new ACC? Y'all boast that it is through your big 12 colored glasses but I don't think so.

---

This. Plus a report came out that if the ACC maintains at least 15 members, the media payouts won't decrease. As a secondary item, the ACC planting a membership flag in Texas may have interesting ramifications in 2031.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

I read that a few weeks ago when it came out.

My takeaway from it was that the people putting up that money love risk.

I don't see how the ACC makes it as far as smu would need, to start getting paid. It's likely by the time they start cashing checks, that conference breaks up.

---

It's really a can't lose situation for SMU, though, as they'll make enough in bowl/playoff money, NCAA tournament credits and other revenue streams to offset what they're leaving behind in the AAC. They can forgo all TV money and still come out ahead.

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

I read that a few weeks ago when it came out.

My takeaway from it was that the people putting up that money love risk.

I don't see how the ACC makes it as far as smu would need, to start getting paid. It's likely by the time they start cashing checks, that conference breaks up.

---

It's really a can't lose situation for SMU, though, as they'll make enough in bowl/playoff money, NCAA tournament credits and other revenue streams to offset what they're leaving behind in the AAC. They can forgo all TV money and still come out ahead.

---

Yep, that is a huge win for SMU and not just for sports. THey are recognized with some of the best schools in the world now...Duke, UNC, Wake Forest, Notre Dame (football independent), Syracuse, etc. From an academic reputation, the ACC blows away the Big 12. We get stuck with the likes of UH and Tech.

With how down the Big 12 is in football, I don't know if the Big 12 is any stronger than the ACC.

Ghostrider said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

I read that a few weeks ago when it came out.

My takeaway from it was that the people putting up that money love risk.

I don't see how the ACC makes it as far as smu would need, to start getting paid. It's likely by the time they start cashing checks, that conference breaks up.

---

It's really a can't lose situation for SMU, though, as they'll make enough in bowl/playoff money, NCAA tournament credits and other revenue streams to offset what they're leaving behind in the AAC. They can forgo all TV money and still come out ahead.

---

Yep, that is a huge win for SMU and not just for sports. THey are recognized with some of the best schools in the world now...Duke, UNC, Wake Forest, Notre Dame (football independent), Syracuse, etc. From an academic reputation, the ACC blows away the Big 12. We get stuck with the likes of UH and Tech.

With how down the Big 12 is in football, I don't know if the Big 12 is any stronger than the ACC.

---

A month or so ago it seemed like we were the clear #3 behind SEC and B1G. The way this season has started it doesn't feel that way right now.

If you take UT/OU out of the B12 the only team we have ranked is KU at #24. That may be a short stay for KU as they face UT this week.

If you take Clem/FSU out of the ACC they have UNC #15, Duke #17, Miami #18.

Rg6 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

I read that a few weeks ago when it came out.

My takeaway from it was that the people putting up that money love risk.

There is a chance the ACC breaks up and SMU won't get paid. It's likely by the time they start cashing checks, if it does break up.

---

is the new big 12 any better than the new ACC? Y'all boast that it is through your big 12 colored glasses but I don't think so.

---

I never said that, nor did I infer it.

boognish_bear said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

I read that a few weeks ago when it came out.

My takeaway from it was that the people putting up that money love risk.

I don't see how the ACC makes it as far as smu would need, to start getting paid. It's likely by the time they start cashing checks, that conference breaks up.

---

It's really a can't lose situation for SMU, though, as they'll make enough in bowl/playoff money, NCAA tournament credits and other revenue streams to offset what they're leaving behind in the AAC. They can forgo all TV money and still come out ahead.

---

Yep, that is a huge win for SMU and not just for sports. THey are recognized with some of the best schools in the world now...Duke, UNC, Wake Forest, Notre Dame (football independent), Syracuse, etc. From an academic reputation, the ACC blows away the Big 12. We get stuck with the likes of UH and Tech.

With how down the Big 12 is in football, I don't know if the Big 12 is any stronger than the ACC.

---

A month or so ago it seemed like we were the clear #3 behind SEC and B1G. The way this season has started it doesn't feel that way right now.

If you take UT/OU out of the B12 the only team we have ranked is KU at #24. That may be a short stay for KU as they face UT this week.

If you take Clem/FSU out of the ACC they have UNC #15, Duke #17, Miami #18.

---

ACC has more history, more connections in the media and more population based they are a real threat to the B12 as a third conference. It doesn't help that they are better on the field right now. But, the on field is cyclical at these level programs.

To think they will not get the contract issue straightened out would not be wise.

They may have an Allie in the SEC. SEC may take Clemson and FSU, but I can see a deal protecting the ACC. The ACC is deep south football. At the end of the day the earth of Miss deep south football boys stick together, they all come from same lines.

With its ACC move, SMU expected to get a full $6M annual payout from the CFP like any other Power 5 school.

However, as CFP leaders meet Monday in Houston, that is in question.

Inside a CFP money fight & moratorium that will impact future G5-to-P5 moves https://t.co/C9AuX5Yfd0

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) January 5, 2024

Are Cal and Stanford getting it? Strange if SMU is singled out. Perhaps they see signs that the ACC as it is now is not long for this world and that SMU's time in a power conf is fleeting.

When were Cal and Stanford G5 schools getting elevated to P5 status? That's what the discussion is about. An appropriate approval process went forth for BYU, UH, UC and UCF in 2022 for approval to share.

Correct I didn't really read it and didn't catch that was the ruling and the issue was elevation from G5 and why SMU was singled out.

I'm sure the way SMU got into the ACC left a bad taste in some other AD's mouths, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the CFP agreement itself. Seems to me SMU was accepted under mutual terms granted by the ACC, and that is separate and distinct from the CFP agreement. Given that UH, BYU, UC and UCF were approved, I'm not sure how you say No to SMU. SMU would likely lawyer up and potentially win that battle.

It still could be they see SMU's time in a power conf as fleeting and it would be more controversial to take away their payout at that point should it occur.

From the article:

SMU, the latest Group of Five program to elevate to the Power Five next year with its jump to the ACC, is at the heart of a CFP money fight.

In the past, schools making the jump from Group of Five to Power Five also saw a leap in their distribution from the College Football Playoff. The difference in annual payout between G5 teams ($1 million) and P5 teams ($6 million) is substantial.

However, after a discussion among CFP commissioners on Nov. 9, SMU did not garner the necessary support for additional revenue distribution. The issue has now been shifted to the commissioners' corresponding presidents on the CFP Board of Managers, the playoff's highest governing body made up of a school president from each FBS conference and Notre Dame.

Multiple conference commissioners declined comment on the matter as well as CFP executive director Bill Hancock. In a brief interview with Yahoo Sports, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips expressed disappointment on the issue but declined to elaborate on the details. SMU athletic director Rick Hart declined comment when reached this week.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey pointed toward the CFP's long-standing rules around modifications to revenue policies. "You have to have a unanimous vote to alter revenue distribution and diminish somebody else's revenue," Sankey said. "That's it."

But didn't they do just that -- alter the revenue distribution -- when they approved the 4 Big 12 schools for full distribution in 2022? Why would SMU be any different? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting something in the article.

I think they did but those schools had the unanimous votes of support to get the income. SMU doesn't right now for some reason. Unless I'm not understanding the article.

Yes, I'm probably confusing myself and everyone else, but my point is that how can they NOT approve SMU just like they did the 4 Big 12 schools as SMU met whatever requirements the ACC had placed for admission just like the 4 schools met the Big 12's requirements? Of course maybe the 4 in the Big 12 faced similar questions in '22 before the CFP committee granted them full shares and I just don't remember them. That's always a possibility too.

As much as you (just putting words into your mouth to illustrate the point) or I or Bama's AD or SEC commish don't like the way SMU bought their way into the ACC, at the end of the day the ACC agreed to it and all of that has nothing to do with the CFP agreement, unless of course they believe Bama's AD, Ohio St's AD or the SEC Commish should be opining on how the ACC admits new members. It will be interesting to see what is included in the new agreement and what powers are bestowed upon others to determine parts of the CFP after 2025.

Quote:

---

1. If Baylor can't compete with SMU, we're in much bigger trouble than any of us think.

2. Why are Baylor fans so damn afraid of competition? If you don't want to get passed, get/be better. This isn't difficult.

---

1. We are in much bigger trouble than we think.

2. This a question for the BOR, Linda, and Mack - not us.

It actually makes me sad that programs like Cal, Stanford and SMU all can’t even halfway fill their stadiums and get the ACC invite. Meanwhile Wazzu and OSU can fill their stadiums to full capacity in almost negative degree temperatures: pic.twitter.com/yGiRzmiX4w

— CFB MZ 🌵 (@CFB_Memezone) February 5, 2024

Commissioners have wrapped up their CFP meeting here in Dallas: Bill Hancock says they have reached a compromise on SMU’s P5 revenue distribution. Commissioners made a recommendation to the board for SMU to receive some sort of distribution but not the full P5 amount.

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) February 6, 2024

SMU’s CFP share will go from $1M to somewhere up to $6M as a result of a compromise on their move to the ACC. Helpful since they’re going without ACC media revenue. https://t.co/BUhw74yjms

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) February 6, 2024

DanaDane said:

---

Yes, I'm probably confusing myself and everyone else, but my point is that how can they NOT approve SMU just like they did the 4 Big 12 schools as SMU met whatever requirements the ACC had placed for admission just like the 4 schools met the Big 12's requirements? Of course maybe the 4 in the Big 12 faced similar questions in '22 before the CFP committee granted them full shares and I just don't remember them. That's always a possibility too.

As much as you (just putting words into your mouth to illustrate the point) or I or Bama's AD or SEC commish don't like the way SMU bought their way into the ACC, at the end of the day the ACC agreed to it and all of that has nothing to do with the CFP agreement, unless of course they believe Bama's AD, Ohio St's AD or the SEC Commish should be opining on how the ACC admits new members. It will be interesting to see what is included in the new agreement and what powers are bestowed upon others to determine parts of the CFP after 2025.

---

The articles imply that the distribution rules for new members was changed in the last 4-5 months, so that is where the distinction is made between SMU vs. BYU/Houston/Cincinnati/UCF. The long and the short of it is that revenue is becoming more restricted, and any future additions to the Big 12 or ACC from the G5 will probably be in an even worse spot than SMU in that regard.

BearFan33 said:

---

I think ACC is eventually raided by the B2 but their pre raid expansion will help them survive as a P4. I think they will be the weakest P4, but P4 nonetheless. SMU bought their way in but had the ponies to do it.

---

If SMU has had the bags of money all along why did they wait 30 years after the SWC was dissolved to buy themselves into another conference?

BREAKING NEWS: One year from now @ESPN can virtually end the #ACC by cancelling the media contract, thus ending the Grant of Rights.

Why would ESPN do this? Because then they can pay for the current ACC teams they want in other conferences and dumping the schools they now lose…

— GREG SWAIM SHOW (@GSwaim) February 13, 2024