My comments in parentheses: - First, they absolutely did create more money (They did not, I'm not sure why you keep saying this, other than you don't know what "creating more money" entails) - both by forgoing distributions (This doesn't mean they created more money, it just means they were so desperate to get into the ACC that they forewent their share of the ACC's media rights payout to seal the deal - it's also a temporary arrangement) - and by adding the Dallas market for revenue (This is a tired, outdated talking point - nobody cares about the legacy cable market in Dallas anymore, and, even if they did, nobody in Dallas cares about SMU. You can look it up, SMU consistently plays about 7th, sometimes 8th, by viewership, among FBS teams in Texas, even when they're good. Do you think anyone cares about the Tuscaloosa or Baton Rouge TV markets?) - and generating an additional pro rata share from ESPN (this would have gone directly in their pocket if they hadn't been so desperate to get into the ACC that they'd have agreed to anything - again, for the 10000000th time, this isn't "creating additional value." It's also temporary. Also, ESPN didn't WANT to pay this extra money - it was a contract provision triggered by the ACC - you can bet that, in the next contract, ESPN will have to approve any additions before additional pro rata shares will be paid) - They participated in the playoff as well (the fact that a G5 team played for the conference championship and got into the playoff just makes everyone else in the ACC look like weaklings and clowns, which they are) - which gave the ACC two teams (Clemson lost too, but not as embarrassingly as SMU, who crapped down their leg and looked like certified goofs at Penn State, a real bolster for the ACC's image problem and future CFP prospects. Also, who's to say two ACC teams wouldn't have gotten in anyway?) - and generated money (which will primarily go to SMU, because that money goes towards the conference success initiative. They're not creating additional value for other ACC members, they are siphoning it off by taking away those opportunities. I don't know how I can make this anymore clear to you.) - They are currently fourth in ACC men's hoops (AGAIN, I'm not sure what this accomplishes except make the rest of the conference look like a bunch of weak jokers - cue the "ACC basketball is down" narrative, forever, for the rest of time) - with a potential tournament berth and unit(s) that are money. (Which will, AGAIN, primarily go to SMU, because that money goes towards the conference success initiative. Are you starting to figure it out yet?) - I know you dislike them (The first valid point you've made here) - but, your argument is suspect at best just on the money piece to start (No, your understanding of the "money piece" is completely flawed; you sound like someone who can't read English trying to summarize James Joyce.) If you're so smart, and I'm so dumb, and SMU was a great prize, why wasn't SMU already in the Big 12 or the Pac 12? That says all anyone needs to hear. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 2/12/2025, 5:27:17 PM