SMU Pony

I believe their exit fee would be around 1/2 of what full members pay, as that's consistent with them getting paid approximately 1/2 of a full share in conference distributions as their football contract is separate. Again (and I've explained this to you before, but apparently it didn't register), the Big East schools get around $7.5M from their TV deal annually, so call total conference distribution around $9-10M. That's about half of what ND gets from the ACC. So unless they've forgotten how to count, they're not paying the ACC an exit fee (and forgoing their share of other schools' exit fees) to take a 50% revenue haircut in the Big East. Regardless of what happens to the ACC's top brands, Notre Dame is going to need to fill their schedule in October and November. If history is any indication, I think they'd still want to play schools like Stanford, BC, Georgia Tech, and Pitt, as they played all of those schools with some regularity even before joining the ACC as a partial member, and they're all located in metro areas with either sizeable numbers of ND alums and/or areas where ND recruits hard. They've always wanted to play a national schedule with a focus towards the East Coast, which the ACC affiliation allows them to do. I don't think they've ever scheduled any Big 12 program with any regularity; although a new "Holy War" with BYU might make sense for both sides. So after any ACC departures, I could see them filling ten P4 games each year with five ACC games, BYU, maybe one other Big 12 school (TCU, ASU, Colorado), 1-2 Big Ten (hopefully USC series is revived) games and 1-2 SEC games. Or maybe they break Terry D's heart and finally join the Big Ten!

...you said, and I quote, "If SMU plays LSU first game of the year in Baton Rouge, the game is going on SEC Network Xtra and drags LSU's numbers down." And I correctly pointed out that SMU is playing a team that has *less* brand value than LSU first game of the year (Florida State), and that game is not on "SEC Network Xtra" or the ACC Network...it's the standalone game on Monday night on ESPN. It's always the same song and dance with you -- you make some comical claim about SMU, it's refuted with actual facts, and then you resort to sophomoric insults ("G5 trash") because you're incapable of defending anything you say. You are a mental midget. You amuse me.

I do have to ask, what did SMU ever do to you? SMU has spent a dozen or so weeks ranked in the Top 25 in past two seasons, will likely be Top 25 preseason, and you think if VT loses to us this year it's "America's embarrassing loss of the week for everyone to make fun of"? These aren't things that people who are mentally stable post on the internet.

SMU is playing in a national time slot on Labor Day, standalone game, Monday night against FSU. And it's not on ACC Network (or SEC Network Xtra as you put it in your LSU example), it's on ESPN. Also, NBC flexed three of their Notre Dame games to primetime this year to preempt their Big Ten Saturday Night game. And you're not going to believe this, but one of them is little ol' SMU! Do you ever get tired of being wrong about SMU? Surely you're becoming embarrassed by everyone roasting you in this thread

DFW has a population of 8.5 million people....that's almost as many as Virginia (8.8 million) and more than: Washington Arizona Tennessee Indiana Missouri Maryland Colorado Wisconsin ...and a whole lot more states. I realize you suffer from a terminal case of PDS (Pony Derangement Syndrome) but SMU getting DFW in at in-market subscriber rates for the ACCN was more lucrative for the ACC than adding a whole host of other P4 schools. But yes, we're the ones that ruined the conference by getting a CFP at-large bid in our first year, winning the Holiday Bowl last year, going 3-1 against Miami, Clemson, and FSU in our first two seasons and being one of 3-4 ACC schools projected in the Top 25 going into 2026. I know you're just doing a bit at this point, but the truth is we're one of the few schools in the conference who actually give a rip about competing at a high level in both football and basketball - not sure what else you want us to do?

Following the Big 12 media days today, it appears Texas Tech fans have reached 2023 Florida State levels of hatred for their conference, and I’m reminded that the ACC has one pro rata addition from ESPN remaining. Reasons why the ACC would do it: Money – Texas Tech likely brings the rest of Texas outside of DFW in-market for the ACC Network, which along with the pro rata Tier 1 addition makes them accretive to the conference financially. Competitiveness – Texas Tech has boatloads of money and is obviously trying to win big and spend what it takes to do it. They would immediately be one of the top football and basketball programs in the ACC. Stability – Adding Texas Tech would be a huge boon to the ACC’s stability even if/when a number of schools end up leaving for the SEC/Big Ten. And I don’t think there’s any chance Texas Tech would be one of those schools being poached, so you’re getting a long-term member who is committed to competing at the highest level. Kneecap the Big 12 – Poaching its top brand would be a devastating blow to the Big 12 as they try to negotiate a new TV deal. It would create unrest within the conference as other schools would be wondering where they sit in the ACC pecking order if the Big 12 cannot secure a suitable deal, and perhaps looking to bolt before it's too late. Would leave BYU as perhaps the only school in the conference that has the resources to compete at a high level in football. Travel – Would give Cal and Stanford another opponent that they don’t have to travel all the way across the country to play. Also, non-football sports could hit up away games with SMU and Texas Tech back-to-back in one trip. Reasons why the ACC wouldn’t do it: Travel – Another school well outside the ACC’s traditional footprint, and one that is much harder to get to than Dallas or the Bay Area. Also, Lubbock is a certified dump. No one is going to enjoy traveling to an away game there. Academics – Texas Tech is about 40 spots behind Louisville in the USNWR rankings. Culture Fit – Texas Tech would immediately be the worst fanbase in the ACC. The folks in Charlottesville and Chapel Hill would not approve of their game day behavior. Reputation – Texas Tech did itself no favors reputationally with the Sorsby situation. That stain might be a bridge too far for the folks in Charlottesville and Chapel Hill. Reasons why Texas Tech would do it: Spite – They’re furious at the Big 12 right now. Leaving the conference and simultaneously stabilizing the ACC could light the fuse that eventually blows the Big 12 up altogether. Fairness – Texas Tech feels as though they’ve been wronged by the Big 12 and its fifteen other members. The ACC provides them a fresh start and a clean slate. Perception – Today, the Big 12 announced a deal to put Monster Energy logos on every jersey and football and basketball playing surface in the conference. Each school’s take from that? A paltry $1.25M annually. The Big 12 is increasingly viewed as a gimmicky, unserious league. Stability – Stabilizing the ACC now ensures Texas Tech a long term home. If the Big 12 goes the way of the Pac-12 in 2030, does Texas Tech still have a seat at the table in the ACC, or would the ACC then prefer other Big 12 schools over them, risking potential relegation to G6 status? Academics – Perhaps not as important in the grand scheme of things, but obviously a huge step up from the Big 12. Reasons why Texas Tech wouldn’t do it: Money – While the ACC pays more per school than the Big 12, I believe the Big 12 has an exit fee around $80 million. Could Texas Tech get that reduced in a lawsuit by claiming the Big 12 wronged them with the Sorsby lawsuit and other measures? Perhaps. FSU, Clemson and Maryland were successful in getting exit fees reduced. Rivalries – Would rekindle the SWC rivalry with SMU, but leave behind the other Texas schools. Travel – Obviously more difficult in the ACC, although perhaps not by much as places like K-State, Iowa State, and West Virginia are not easy to get to.

Was always going to be a smaller class but there were a few guys I thought we had in the bag that are headed to bigger programs - Texas, A&M, Michigan, Miami. Ismael Camara looks like he'll be another whiff which sucks because we spent a lot of time on him. Spoke with a member of the staff last week who didn't seem too worried about it and said we'll just pivot and allocate more $ to the portal this offseason, but I don't know if that's supposed to be comforting or just coach-speak. One of the things that's paid off for us in the past has been planting seeds with blue chip DFW and Houston guys out of HS who circle back in portal a year or two later.

Also, his second stint at Rutgers hasn't gone nearly as well as his first.

Just not a fit at all. Tennessee fans went off the rails with the allegations against him to sink the hire, but that was a huge blunder by Currie.

She may have left when the new AD was hired, as he brought a lot of his own people in. Or she may have stepped back to spend time with her family.

Who produced two top-ten finishes in three years. Last time that happened at Tennessee was 1998-1999. Tennessee football was a dumpster fire for most of the 15 years before White was hired. And football is the only thing that really matters there.

Taxpayers won't be thrilled about floating the cost of operating universities that aren't sustainable. Big challenge for all schools is offering legitimate ROI in an AI-dominated world. Gone are the days of kids taking out six figures in student loans to spend four years to get a "check the box" bachelor's degree at a college, whether it's public or private. Flagship public schools like UVA and VT probably won't feel much effect, but I wouldn't want to be calling the shots at ODU or Longwood right now.

I certainly wouldn't want SMU playing a guy who bet on his own games. I don't care how good he is. Any win you acheive is tainted and any loss in which the player in question makes mistakes raises questions. And is Sorsby even that good? I struggle to see how all of the blowback TT has and will receive is worth it for a player of his caliber. We're not talking 2019 Joe Burrow here. It looks like he largely stuffed the stat sheet vs mediocre competition last year. 13-25 for 69 yards and 1 INT vs Nebraska (loss) 13-25 for 214 yards and 2 TDs vs Iowa State 12-21 for 191 yards and 2 TDs vs UCF 13-21 for 111 yards and 2 TDs vs Baylor 11-33 for 221 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT vs Utah (loss) 15-28 for 154 yards, 1 TD and 2 INT vs Arizona (loss) 25-38 for 300 yards, 3 TDs and 1 INT vs BYU (loss - but admittedly not a bad stat line) 23-33 for 282 yards, 3 TDS vs TCU (loss - but admittedly not a bad stat line)

...all of the judges that would hear the appeal are Texas Tech Law grads.

The gap between the B10 and SEC is bigger than the gap between the gap between the SEC and ACC And the gap between the SEC and ACC is *smaller* than the gap between the ACC and the Big 12 The ACC had almost as much TV revenue ($588M) as the Big 12 had total revenue. ACC TV revenue was up just over $100M YoY with additions of Cal, Stanford and SMU.

As far as airports go, DAL (Love Field) is about 10 minutes from campus, but has less direct flights, mostly on Southwest. DFW has direct flights to and from just about everywhere and is about 25-30 minutes from campus, which isn't terrible. I'd probably just go with whichever airport suits your flight itinerary the best. I mentioned in another reply that Hotel Mockingbird is a newly renovated/rebranded Marriott concept that's just across the expressway from campus. There's also a Graduate Hotel just across the street from campus, and you can probably hit the stadium with a golf ball from The Highland hotel, but it's probably a bit pricier. The Park Cities Hilton is also nice and usually fairly reasonably priced; it's about a five minute drive from campus. As far as things to do, the George W. Bush Presidential Library on campus is one I always recommend. Regardless of your political persuasion, it's an interesting look into a consequentual time in our history - I thought the 9/11 exhibit was particuarly well done. There's also the Grassy Knoll and JFK museum downtown (which isn't too far of a drive). If you're traveling with a female companion, she may want to check out Highland Park Village (about 5 minutes from campus) - I think it's one of the most priciest rents in the country for retailers (and the tenant lineup proves it) and also is a good spot for absurd people-watching. The #1 most popular Tex-Mex restaurant in town is also located in HP Village - Mi Cocina. There's a million great restaurants in Dallas and everyone has a different opinion on which are the best for different cuisine, here's the ones I recommend: Javier's - Authentic Mexico City style cuisine. It's right near campus and is a Dallas staple. Great food, drinks, and atmosphere. Also has a cool cigar bar. Probably the #1 spot my friends who moved away want to visit when they're back in town. Hillstone - Chain restaurant but phenomenal. Probably my favorite spot in town for a good meal. Located about 5 minutes from campus. You used to always see T. Boone Pickens eating at the bar there before he passed. Pecan Lodge / Terry Black's - My two favorite BBQ spots in town. They're both located in Deep Ellum (about 10-15 min from campus) and are both great. I would not recommend going over there at night, however. Bob's Steak and Chop House - The one on Lemmon Ave is about 10 minutes from campus and is my favorite steakhouse in town. I believe it's Jerry Jones' favorite as well - I've seen him there several times. It's now a chain but the original restaurant is the Lemmon location. Shinsei / Oiishi - My two favorite Sushi spots. Shinsei is more upscale and about ten minutes from campus. There is a new Oiishi right across the street from campus; it's a more relaxed atmosphere. Whatever you do, do NOT go to the Sushi Kyoto by campus - sickest I've ever been in my life. Banditos - Casual Tex-Mex restaurant right by campus. Good food, drinks, and setup with a lot of TVs. Also has a surprisingly good burger. ** Edited by SMU Pony at 5/20/2026, 10:53:20 PM

It was just renovated and rebranded earlier this year, I haven't heard from anyone that's stayed there yet but it is a Marriott hotel and you can easily walk to campus from there.

VT could not have made a better hire

Ya'll are our marquee home game this year, and the tailgate scene is much better on a Saturday. Here's hoping it's a consequential November game for both teams. If anyone is making the trip to Dallas and needs travel tips, happy to help. Pony Up!

I thought that when the CW package went back to market in 2027 the ACC had an opportunity to pick up some additional revenue. Wonder if that is actually the case with this renewal.

Notre Dame receives approximately $50M annually from new NBC deal for football only. Now the conventional wisdom is that football accounts for 80% of media rights value and the rest of sports make up the other 20%, which would peg ND's bball/non-revenue valuation at $12.5M, but I don't think that conventional wisdom is directly applicable in ND's case, since their football brand is probably top-3 in the country, while their b-ball/non-revenue are closer to the middle of the pack in the P4. So maybe around $10M, which is more than I would've originally guessed, but still well short of the $20M they get from the ACC annually.

I don't think they're *THAT* valuable. And the Big East derives no benefit from ND football. If a Big East with UConn, Villanova, Georgetown, and whoever else they have just got $7.5M/year annually on their new deal, I don't see the addition of Notre Dame increasing that figure by much. In fact, given the tremendous success of their men's and women's basketball programs, I'd argue today that UConn without football is more valuable than Notre Dame without football.

I believe ND makes ~$20M annually from the ACC TV deal. The new Big East TV deal pays out around $7.5M annually. Is TerryD stroking an eight figure check to make up the difference? :-)

Counting things like donations, institutional support and student fees as "revenue." But at the end of the day it still gives you a pretty good idea of who's working with what.

The numbers were a bit skewed in last year's filing with Texas and OU still on the ledger and the newbies getting partial shares, but it appears the average for full-share schools was around $38M

Schools that can't provide a meaningful alternative to going to trade school or vibe-coding or whatever else kids are doing these days will be going defunct.

And I think it's pretty clear it won't be a needle mover. The Big Ten used to separate its basketball rights and then moved them all under the same umbrella in their last media deal.

EVERYONE wants the NFL. It's the premier media rights product by a country mile. Paramount still has to pass regulatory hurdles to finalize its merger with WBD. And then, if that's successful, it's going to need to re-up the CBS NFL deal (which it will have to fork over a fortune for), the CBS Big Ten deal, the TBS MLB deal, and the TNT NHL deal before the Big 12 gets to eat. What will be left? Probably not much.

IIRC Texas would only play 1-2 games a year on it, and it was usually a body bag OOC game or a weak B12 team like Iowa State or Kansas. I doubt that alone had much of a downward effect on the value of the B12's media valuation.

What if Amazon or Apple offered them something crazy ($125M each) for their home football games. OSU and Michigan turn around and tell the Big Ten, we'll stay in the conference, but we keep our home game media revenue via our Amazon deal and will accept a ND/ACC-like deal going forward. Are the other schools going to say no? I don't think so. I also think this may be the future.

I bet it'd be more than what they get from their share of the Big Ten media deal

ESPN and ACC signed off on Duke doing this (in exchange for Duke agreeing to also do several ESPN-sponsored non-conference games going forward)

Duke is the #1 brand in the sport and it's not close. Streamers want premium content (standalone/playoff NFL games, prize fights, UFC, F1, NBA Cup) and Duke playing Michigan, UConn and Gonzaga certainly qualifies. I don't think Amazon really benefits from broadcasting BC-Pitt hoops on a Wednesday night in January.

The current Big East deal is about $7.3M/school if my AI machine is correct....FOX, NBC, and TNT hold the rights. So there's three entities that probably aren't going to be particularly incentivized to bid up the Big 12 basketball rights vis a vis the Big East. And ESPN has been selling off Big 12 content en masse since it re-upped the deal in 2022.

The casual fan doesn't tune in until the tournament unless it's a game like Duke-UNC or Duke-Kentucky. College basketball is a niche sport until March, when it goes mainstream for a few weeks. It is what it is

Minor leagues to the NFL never pan out all that well. What made CFB great was the regional aspect of it, and then having big out of conference matchups that crossed the country like ND-USC and OU-Ohio State. I even remember a certain team from the Commonwealth knocking off the eventual national champions in Columbus in 2014. The Big Ten now seems to think that playing three patsy OOC games in September and then giving us USC-Rutgers and Oregon-Purdue is preferable. People ***** about the SEC and ESPN (and rightfully so), but I think the Big Ten and Fox have been the most destructive forces in college football.

....the SEC is probably the most undervalued media rights contract right now (even moreso than the ACC). Think about how many of the top-rated games each week were SEC games last year....they destroyed the Big Ten in ratings. I think the SEC will see a considerable jump when their deal is up in 2034. The Big Ten, perhaps not so much. Somehow they make more in TV revenue than the SEC does now. Warren really outflanked Sankey on that one last time around.

I thought ESPN and Fox purchased everything (including Tier 3 rights) in 2022 and then subsequently sublicensed to TNT, CBS, and Peacock. The TNT sublicense was part of the deal to get Inside the NBA on ESPN.

I believe this upcoming season (2026-27) is the last for the CW sublicensing deal. Any rumblings of what comes next, and how much more $ the conference stands to make by taking these rights to the open market? I believe @RandomAsianGuy speculated (please correct me if I'm wrong) previously it could be in the $3M/year range per school. CW is nice from a viewership perspective by being OTA, but the presentation is somewhat lacking IMO. TNT does a much better job presentation-wise with Big 12 content; however, it sounds as though TNT Sports might be getting nuked as a result of the proposed WBD/Paramount merger, which would take them out of the running. I doubt ESPN wants the additional rights back - they have enough content for their timeslots as it is and have been selling off Big 12 content to TNT, NBC and CBS. I think it's probably most likely that the CW re-ups as they've been wanting to get a foothold in sports media rights. But I certainly would not be opposed to CBS/CBSSN or NBC/NBCSN making a play for the package. Wouldn't mind FOX/FS1 either, but they are cash-strapped at the moment and likely have enough content already with the Big Ten, Big 12, and MLB in the fall. I doubt any streamers would be interested in what amounts to a Tier 3 package.

He's advocating for a system that the Supreme Court struck down 9-0 with his own appointee (Kavanaugh) writing the scathing majority opinion

It appears it will be negotiating its next media deal in one of the worst environments imaginable...even if it can scrape something together, the networks are going to know they just need to be somewhere in the ballpark of the then-current ACC deal to lock it up.

Link is below. One of the reasons why I think the Big Ten and SEC may be hesitant to expand further in the years to come -- the money simply may not be there. The NFL is going to ask for the moon and then some on their next media rights package and ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC are going to get squeezed for every dollar they have with streamers like Netflix and Amazon running up the price. Also, I believe both the MLB/Fox and NHL TV deals are up in 2028.

The biggest brands within those conferences hold ALL the cards I read somewhere recently that the OSU-Michigan game alone is worth $200M - approx 15-20% of the entire value of the B10 media contract The real winners in today's ecosystem are not OSU, Michigan, Texas, or Alabama. The real winners are the Minnesotas, Mississippi States, and Rutgers who are cashing fat checks way, way above what their true market value is. And I think the party is about to be over for them. In the next round of TV negotiations I imagine they'll all get relegated to ACC/Big 12 level payouts as the fat cats insist on unequal revenue distribution. At that point, does it make sense to keep the current conference alignment structure intact, or do you realign everything geographically to lower costs and prioritize regional rivalries? Minnesota can justify sending their Olympic sports to Piscataway and Eugene when they're cashing a check twice the size of Virginia Tech's...but what about when that check is for roughly the same amount?