Rg6 said:

---

If 2-3 acc schools get raided by the big 2, and the current big 2 and next 2 remain as they are, Baylor is safe in the big 12.

My fear is if the big 2 decide they don't want to pay the Vanderbilts and northwesterns and Minnesotas 100-150 million a year and decide to blow everything up. They decide to have a 30 team blue blood league and then there are a couple of newly formed second tier conferences behind that with 1 guaranteed playoff spot in a 12 team playoff. We might be behind tcu and smu in the pecking order for a spot in those second teirs, we don't have Ann richards to protect us this time.

Perhaps the only thing keeping the big 2 from doing this is that everyone can't win and and there will be a lot of .500 or below blue bloods with unhappy fan bases like Nebraska has been. It would be like the nfl where the national champion is 10-4.

---

How about we be the consistent big bear in the Big 12 and not just safe in the Big 12?

PartyBear said:

---

Ok well I guess you guys can be afraid of them and its cool with me. But they have been this wealthy for the past 30 years and again they arent getting into the ACC because the ACC thought this is a "powerful program that attracts eyes nationwide how have they not been taken?" They were taken by the ACC to be a vote against disbanding when the Big 2 raids them and that is it, On top of that they arent getting any money from the TV contract to come in and be that vote. They are essentially still a Tulane or Tulsa.

---

The difference is over the past 30 years they were restricted by the past. All bets are off now. What they did and were so ashamed of IS the new business model for CFB powerhouses. This article and Boosters actions show me, they are back... The don't have to be ashamed to buy players. Now, it is the sign of a top program...

FLBear5630 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Ok well I guess you guys can be afraid of them and its cool with me. But they have been this wealthy for the past 30 years and again they arent getting into the ACC because the ACC thought this is a "powerful program that attracts eyes nationwide how have they not been taken?" They were taken by the ACC to be a vote against disbanding when the Big 2 raids them and that is it, On top of that they arent getting any money from the TV contract to come in and be that vote. They are essentially still a Tulane or Tulsa.

---

The difference is over the past 30 years they were restricted by the past. All bets are off now. What they did and were so ashamed of IS the new business model for CFB powerhouses. This article and Boosters actions show me, they are back... The don't have to be ashamed to buy players. Now, it is the sign of a top program...

---

They were only restricted by their own futility. UTSA created a program from scratch and posted two 10-win seasons in half the time it has taken SMU to recover from the death penalty.

To continue to use that as an excuse 30-plus years later is a crutch that doesn't hold weight in modern college football. If SMU was the sleeping giant you believe it to be, it would have shown some sign of that in the last 35 years. Instead, it floundered for decades in front of 15,000 apathetic fans.

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Ok well I guess you guys can be afraid of them and its cool with me. But they have been this wealthy for the past 30 years and again they arent getting into the ACC because the ACC thought this is a "powerful program that attracts eyes nationwide how have they not been taken?" They were taken by the ACC to be a vote against disbanding when the Big 2 raids them and that is it, On top of that they arent getting any money from the TV contract to come in and be that vote. They are essentially still a Tulane or Tulsa.

---

The difference is over the past 30 years they were restricted by the past. All bets are off now. What they did and were so ashamed of IS the new business model for CFB powerhouses. This article and Boosters actions show me, they are back... The don't have to be ashamed to buy players. Now, it is the sign of a top program...

---

They were only restricted by their own futility. UTSA created a program from scratch and posted two 10-win seasons in half the time it has taken SMU to recover from the death penalty.

To continue to use that as an excuse 30-plus years later is a crutch that doesn't hold weight in modern college football. If SMU was the sleeping giant you believe it to be, it would have shown some sign of that in the last 35 years. Instead, it floundered for decades in front of 15,000 apathetic fans.

---

Baylor have anyone spending that type of money? I know Miami did and now does again. I know SMU has thrown their hat in the ring, even after 30 years of futility.

What have you got for me on Baylor? Since Briles left, what big donors have stepped up to join the cuddle session? What big NILs have we had to attract top talent? What big time Coaches or even Coordinators have we hired? What has Baylor done that comes close to this type of investment since McClane was built, which was now a decade ago...

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Ok well I guess you guys can be afraid of them and its cool with me. But they have been this wealthy for the past 30 years and again they arent getting into the ACC because the ACC thought this is a "powerful program that attracts eyes nationwide how have they not been taken?" They were taken by the ACC to be a vote against disbanding when the Big 2 raids them and that is it, On top of that they arent getting any money from the TV contract to come in and be that vote. They are essentially still a Tulane or Tulsa.

---

The difference is over the past 30 years they were restricted by the past. All bets are off now. What they did and were so ashamed of IS the new business model for CFB powerhouses. This article and Boosters actions show me, they are back... The don't have to be ashamed to buy players. Now, it is the sign of a top program...

---

They were only restricted by their own futility. UTSA created a program from scratch and posted two 10-win seasons in half the time it has taken SMU to recover from the death penalty.

To continue to use that as an excuse 30-plus years later is a crutch that doesn't hold weight in modern college football. If SMU was the sleeping giant you believe it to be, it would have shown some sign of that in the last 35 years. Instead, it floundered for decades in front of 15,000 apathetic fans.

---

Continued denial of the new life that comes to programs that move from lower echelons to P5, with its much enhanced media exposure for schools, coaches and most of all, more talented players.

Good for SMU.

They are flexing their muscle in the only way that matters in this NIL world of professional college football.

Money

And SMU has loads to it to spend.

Might take a couple of years but expect SMU to be in the nations top 20 rankings on a regular basis.

KaiBear said:

---

Good for SMU.

They are flexing their muscle in the only way that matters in this NIL world of professional college football.

Money

And SMU has loads to it to spend.

Might take a couple of years but expect SMU to be in the nations top 20 rankings on a regular basis.

---

I agree.

My question is does Baylor have similar donors?

canoso said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Ok well I guess you guys can be afraid of them and its cool with me. But they have been this wealthy for the past 30 years and again they arent getting into the ACC because the ACC thought this is a "powerful program that attracts eyes nationwide how have they not been taken?" They were taken by the ACC to be a vote against disbanding when the Big 2 raids them and that is it, On top of that they arent getting any money from the TV contract to come in and be that vote. They are essentially still a Tulane or Tulsa.

---

The difference is over the past 30 years they were restricted by the past. All bets are off now. What they did and were so ashamed of IS the new business model for CFB powerhouses. This article and Boosters actions show me, they are back... The don't have to be ashamed to buy players. Now, it is the sign of a top program...

---

They were only restricted by their own futility. UTSA created a program from scratch and posted two 10-win seasons in half the time it has taken SMU to recover from the death penalty.

To continue to use that as an excuse 30-plus years later is a crutch that doesn't hold weight in modern college football. If SMU was the sleeping giant you believe it to be, it would have shown some sign of that in the last 35 years. Instead, it floundered for decades in front of 15,000 apathetic fans.

---

Continued denial of the new life that comes to programs that move from lower echelons to P5, with its much enhanced media exposure for schools, coaches and most of all, more talented players.

---

All of the previous schools that have successfully made such moves -- TCU, Utah, Louisville, etc. -- had serious success before their promotions. They fixed their own yards where they were before upgrading. SMU wandered in the wilderness for 35 years before buying its way into a conference that half of its current members were trying to get out of two months ago.

I think SMU will be fine. They'll likely field consistent bowl teams and occasionally field a really good one. But I'm not afraid at all of SMU becoming a national power. They're building right now on the same shaky foundation all non-bluebloods do. And theirs is even less structurally sound because they did very little to fix the cracks before their move to the ACC.

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Ok well I guess you guys can be afraid of them and its cool with me. But they have been this wealthy for the past 30 years and again they arent getting into the ACC because the ACC thought this is a "powerful program that attracts eyes nationwide how have they not been taken?" They were taken by the ACC to be a vote against disbanding when the Big 2 raids them and that is it, On top of that they arent getting any money from the TV contract to come in and be that vote. They are essentially still a Tulane or Tulsa.

---

The difference is over the past 30 years they were restricted by the past. All bets are off now. What they did and were so ashamed of IS the new business model for CFB powerhouses. This article and Boosters actions show me, they are back... The don't have to be ashamed to buy players. Now, it is the sign of a top program...

---

They were only restricted by their own futility. UTSA created a program from scratch and posted two 10-win seasons in half the time it has taken SMU to recover from the death penalty.

To continue to use that as an excuse 30-plus years later is a crutch that doesn't hold weight in modern college football. If SMU was the sleeping giant you believe it to be, it would have shown some sign of that in the last 35 years. Instead, it floundered for decades in front of 15,000 apathetic fans.

---

Baylor have anyone spending that type of money? I know Miami did and now does again. I know SMU has thrown their hat in the ring, even after 30 years of futility.

What have you got for me on Baylor? Since Briles left, what big donors have stepped up to join the cuddle session? What big NILs have we had to attract top talent? What big time Coaches or even Coordinators have we hired? What has Baylor done that comes close to this type of investment since McClane was built, which was now a decade ago...

---

If NIL money was all it took to be good, A&M wouldn't suck year in and year out.

NIL isn't the only way to build a successful team/program. Nor is it a guarantee of success.

Our struggles right now aren't in any way a product of our NIL program or lack thereof. It's a product of our failure to develop the talent we're bringing to campus.

If we're going to be successful in the future, talent evaluation and player development will be the two biggest keys -- as they always have been for us. Not how much money we're giving to 18-year-olds that are as likely as not to transfer after cashing their checks.

Incidentally I just checked, Baylor's endowment is larger than that of the wealthy sleeping giant in Dallas.

That said I am more concerned about mismanagement within than I am about what SMU does. Particularly Baylor getting that NIL is a big deal. You have to play that damn game even if you are opposed to it being this way for the time being. Just like facilities and paying coaching staffs big money, I'm afraid Baylor is being slow to grasp that the new world isnt going to make an exception for them and that they have to do it all as well.

PartyBear said:

---

Ok well I guess you guys can be afraid of them and its cool with me. But they have been this wealthy for the past 30 years and again they arent getting into the ACC because the ACC thought this is a "powerful program that attracts eyes nationwide how have they not been taken?" They were taken by the ACC to be a vote against disbanding when the Big 2 raids them and that is it, On top of that they arent getting any money from the TV contract to come in and be that vote. They are essentially still a Tulane or Tulsa.

---

Let's hit NIL first. From the review of information that's either publicly available or been published/shared by reasonably trustworthy sources, are you of the opinion that any of Tulane, Tulsa or Baylor currently maintain a NIL program of a similar size or scale of SMU's, and, if not, do you believe (1) that those programs could easily build one given their existing infrastructure? and (2) that quality recruits (including transfers), on average, won't mind accepting much less money just so they can play for those programs?

Did you see where I said we need to up our game on NIL and that I am more concerned about what our administration is doing in managing athletics than what SMU is doing?

Incidentally you keep talking about SMU of the 80s. SMU of the 80s is what they were because they were one of the few programs doing it back then by breaking rules. Miami was one as well and they were at the level SMU was on the field at that time. Miami also in the ACC is not way ahead of everyone else now because of NIL, due to most other programs doing the same thing. I did say we need to be doing the same thing. But that has nothing to do with SMU or what conference they are in.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

SMU being elevated to a P4 isn't a threat to Baylor recruiting at all. Heck, the fact that every SMU football (and basketball) player is guaranteed at least $36k/year isn't a threat either.

(sarcasm)

---

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.

---

100 with bear2 on #1. I also agree with the sentiment overall and think the fanbase is soft. But it will be an experiment.

No other state has so many high D1 programs now. FL and CA have considerably less but with near equal or even larger talent pools. The jockeying for position will be different but I agree Bu should be fine if you could trust the admin to strike the right chord. Try less corn, more meat. But it simply is not something that has been done or observed before so we can't be sure.

PartyBear said:

---

Incidentally I just checked, Baylor's endowment is larger than that of the wealthy sleeping giant in Dallas.

That said I am more concerned about mismanagement within than I am about what SMU does. Particularly Baylor getting that NIL is a big deal. You have to play that damn game even if you are opposed to it being this way for the time being. Just like facilities and paying coaching staffs big money, I'm afraid Baylor is being slow to grasp that the new world isnt going to make an exception for them and that they have to do it all as well.

---

SMU has done it before. Don't underestimate that ability.

In addition to the existing Texas power schools, We have two new Texas schools elevated to Power conference status. With NIL, they will be competing for the same recruits. Definitely makes recruiting tougher, and it was already tough to begin with.

SMU will be very motivated and hungry after being a lowly dog for so long. I suspect that they will do well.

Certainly that should concern us, but I'm more concerned by our lack of improvement as a football program. We're on our way to the basement and none of it is due to SMU.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

In addition to the existing Texas power schools, We have two new Texas schools elevated to Power conference status. With NIL, they will be competing for the same recruits. Definitely makes recruiting tougher, and it was already tough to begin with.

SMU will be very motivated and hungry after being a lowly dog for so long. I suspect that they will do well.

Certainly that should concern us, but I'm more concerned by our lack of improvement as a football program. We're on our way to the basement and none of it is due to SMU.

---

Cogent. Scintillating. Sincere thanks !

PartyBear said:

---

Incidentally I just checked, Baylor's endowment is larger than that of the wealthy sleeping giant in Dallas.

That said I am more concerned about mismanagement within than I am about what SMU does. Particularly Baylor getting that NIL is a big deal. You have to play that damn game even if you are opposed to it being this way for the time being. Just like facilities and paying coaching staffs big money, I'm afraid Baylor is being slow to grasp that the new world isnt going to make an exception for them and that they have to do it all as well.

---

both schools have an endowment at 2 billion.

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Ok well I guess you guys can be afraid of them and its cool with me. But they have been this wealthy for the past 30 years and again they arent getting into the ACC because the ACC thought this is a "powerful program that attracts eyes nationwide how have they not been taken?" They were taken by the ACC to be a vote against disbanding when the Big 2 raids them and that is it, On top of that they arent getting any money from the TV contract to come in and be that vote. They are essentially still a Tulane or Tulsa.

---

The difference is over the past 30 years they were restricted by the past. All bets are off now. What they did and were so ashamed of IS the new business model for CFB powerhouses. This article and Boosters actions show me, they are back... The don't have to be ashamed to buy players. Now, it is the sign of a top program...

---

They were only restricted by their own futility. UTSA created a program from scratch and posted two 10-win seasons in half the time it has taken SMU to recover from the death penalty.

To continue to use that as an excuse 30-plus years later is a crutch that doesn't hold weight in modern college football. If SMU was the sleeping giant you believe it to be, it would have shown some sign of that in the last 35 years. Instead, it floundered for decades in front of 15,000 apathetic fans.

---

Baylor have anyone spending that type of money? I know Miami did and now does again. I know SMU has thrown their hat in the ring, even after 30 years of futility.

What have you got for me on Baylor? Since Briles left, what big donors have stepped up to join the cuddle session? What big NILs have we had to attract top talent? What big time Coaches or even Coordinators have we hired? What has Baylor done that comes close to this type of investment since McClane was built, which was now a decade ago...

---

If NIL money was all it took to be good, A&M wouldn't suck year in and year out.

NIL isn't the only way to build a successful team/program. Nor is it a guarantee of success.

Our struggles right now aren't in any way a product of our NIL program or lack thereof. It's a product of our failure to develop the talent we're bringing to campus.

If we're going to be successful in the future, talent evaluation and player development will be the two biggest keys -- as they always have been for us. Not how much money we're giving to 18-year-olds that are as likely as not to transfer after cashing their checks.

---

a&m has won 8, 9, 8, 5 games over the past 4 years. They play in the sec. Consistently have a top 10 to 15 recruiting class. Since NIL, they have gotten even more recruits. Their issue getting over 8 wins a season is Jimbo. I would love to have A&M's financial resources for football.

Also, more competition for recruits for Baylor doesn't make us better. It dilutes the pool.

What top 10 team has a worse NIL than us?

Rg6 said:

---

If 2-3 acc schools get raided by the big 2, and the current big 2 and next 2 remain as they are, Baylor is safe in the big 12.

My fear is if the big 2 decide they don't want to pay the Vanderbilts and northwesterns and Minnesotas 100-150 million a year and decide to blow everything up. They decide to have a 30 team blue blood league and then there are a couple of newly formed second tier conferences behind that with 1 guaranteed playoff spot in a 12 team playoff. We might be behind tcu and smu in the pecking order for a spot in those second teirs, we don't have Ann richards to protect us this time.

Perhaps the only thing keeping the big 2 from doing this is that everyone can't win and and there will be a lot of .500 or below blue bloods with unhappy fan bases like Nebraska has been. It would be like the nfl where the national champion is 10-4.

---

That's exactly my fear. It's why I don't care much about expanding east/raiding the ACC unless we can get their top dogs for insurance against a Big 2 scenario. We needed to expand last year and this year for stability. Now we need to show that we deserve a seat at the table. I hope BY (for the Big 12) and Roads (for BU) is thinking about that, too.

Why would there be 2 newly formed 2nd tier conferences in that scenario? In that hypo, why wouldn't the XII and ACC absorb the cast offs from the SEC and B10 and continue to be the 2 second tier conferences just like they are today.

I think some of y'all way over think things and then worry yourselves too much about some of these wild hypos you dream up.

PartyBear said:

---

Why would there be 2 newly formed 2nd tier conferences in that scenario? In that hypo, why wouldn't the XII and ACC absorb the cast offs from the SEC and B10 and continue to be the 2 second tier conferences just like they are today.

I think some of y'all way over think things and then worry yourselves too much about some of these wild hypos you dream up.

---

IMO, this is all a power struggle. Eventually, the Big 2 will look for ways to exert their dominance and May start to exclude the remaining conferences (eg, number of guaranteed playoff spots, breaking from the NCAA, etc).

I hope I'm wrong, but I've definitely heard rumors about it.

PartyBear said:

---

Why would there be 2 newly formed 2nd tier conferences in that scenario? In that hypo, why wouldn't the XII and ACC absorb the cast offs from the SEC and B10 and continue to be the 2 second tier conferences just like they are today.

I think some of y'all way over think things and then worry yourselves too much about some of these wild hypos you dream up.

---

Here's the other thing, why would the SEC want to change anything at all? That league currently gets a ton of money and dominates the sport. Why would it elevate the Big Ten to its level, when there's no incentive whatsoever to do so?

I can see why the Big Ten would be interested in a Power 2 scenario. But the SEC has its cake and gets to eat it, too, currently. Why would they want to change a thing?

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Why would there be 2 newly formed 2nd tier conferences in that scenario? In that hypo, why wouldn't the XII and ACC absorb the cast offs from the SEC and B10 and continue to be the 2 second tier conferences just like they are today.

I think some of y'all way over think things and then worry yourselves too much about some of these wild hypos you dream up.

---

Here's the other thing, why would the SEC want to change anything at all? That league currently gets a ton of money and dominates the sport. Why would it elevate the Big Ten to its level, when there's no incentive whatsoever to do so?

I can see why the Big Ten would be interested in a Power 2 scenario. But the SEC has its cake and gets to eat it, too, currently. Why would they want to change a thing?

---

there are people that always want more $

Ghostrider said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Why would there be 2 newly formed 2nd tier conferences in that scenario? In that hypo, why wouldn't the XII and ACC absorb the cast offs from the SEC and B10 and continue to be the 2 second tier conferences just like they are today.

I think some of y'all way over think things and then worry yourselves too much about some of these wild hypos you dream up.

---

Here's the other thing, why would the SEC want to change anything at all? That league currently gets a ton of money and dominates the sport. Why would it elevate the Big Ten to its level, when there's no incentive whatsoever to do so?

I can see why the Big Ten would be interested in a Power 2 scenario. But the SEC has its cake and gets to eat it, too, currently. Why would they want to change a thing?

---

there are people that always want more $

---

Not in the SEC, which seems to be fine making less than the Big Ten while kicking its ass on the field.

As long as that league is in the ballpark of the Big Ten, and it is, those schools will likely remain content to pile up national title trophies.

The SEC is backwards in a lot of ways, but the one thing those guys have right is prioritizing winning over all the other bull**** in college football. OU will fit in well in that league. Texas will stick out like a sore thumb.

SMU is now 0-1 following weeks when they raise $100M.

— Jamie Plunkett (@FrogPreacher) September 23, 2023

smu isn't a threat to us.

Our biggest threat is Rhoades

SMU raises 100 million like it's nothing, and we are wringing our hands wondering where the 40 million to buyout Aranda will come from. That really is the tale of two cities.

No Quarterback said:

---

SMU raises 100 million like it's nothing, and we are wringing our hands wondering where the 40 million to buyout Aranda will come from. That really is the tale of two cities.

---

That is the era we are in.

FLBear5630 said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

SMU raises 100 million like it's nothing, and we are wringing our hands wondering where the 40 million to buyout Aranda will come from. That really is the tale of two cities.

---

That is the era we are in.

---

It's scary stuff. If Baylor has truly ran off a lot of the big money donors like people are claiming, it's game over for us. Fully embrace the YMCA 1950s clean-cut vibe and accept our fate in the AAC

No Quarterback said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

SMU raises 100 million like it's nothing, and we are wringing our hands wondering where the 40 million to buyout Aranda will come from. That really is the tale of two cities.

---

That is the era we are in.

---

It's scary stuff. If Baylor has truly ran off a lot of the big money donors like people are claiming, it's game over for us. Fully embrace the YMCA 1950s clean-cut vibe and accept our fate in the AAC

---

I am afraid that is where we are heading. I don't see Rhodes or Aranda taking chances on players that programs like Baylor have to do to compete. Used to joke about Bobby Bowden, everyone deserves a 2nd chance, especially if you can run... He knew FSU had to take risks on players Bama and ND didn't have to take. It is part of breaking in. Briles knew it, it but him bad. But he was not the first or last. FSU, Miami, Switzer, Sherrill, Meyers I can go on. Rhodes will move to AAC before increasing risk tolerance.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/01/06/bobby-bowden-florida-state-documentary/96258544/

FLBear5630 said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

SMU raises 100 million like it's nothing, and we are wringing our hands wondering where the 40 million to buyout Aranda will come from. That really is the tale of two cities.

---

That is the era we are in.

---

It's scary stuff. If Baylor has truly ran off a lot of the big money donors like people are claiming, it's game over for us. Fully embrace the YMCA 1950s clean-cut vibe and accept our fate in the AAC

---

I am afraid that is where we are heading. I don't see Rhodes or Aranda taking chances on players that programs like Baylor have to do to compete. Used to joke about Bobby Bowden, everyone deserves a 2nd chance, especially if you can run... He knew FSU had to take risks on players Bama and ND didn't have to take. It is part of breaking in. Briles knew it, it but him bad. But he was not the first or last. FSU, Miami, Switzer, Sherrill, Meyers I can go on. Rhodes will move to AAC before increasing risk tolerance.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/01/06/bobby-bowden-florida-state-documentary/96258544/

---

all successful programs do it.

There was an article earlier today that indicated Clemson, FSU and UNC would try and leave the ACC starting as early as October. Other members of the media such as Brett McMurphy say it’s not a matter of if but of when. Something to keep an eye on. pic.twitter.com/5TzeD3aHlS

— CFB+ (@CFBN_Plus) September 28, 2023

I don't know that it's going to happen, but SMU making dramatic financial concessions to join the ACC, only to have Clemson and or FSU jump ship merely weeks later would be cosmic hilarity. Off the charts.

— parker fleming (@statsowar) September 27, 2023

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.

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.

Worst deal in the history deals, maybe ever