when the ACC has imploded into a slightly more prestigious facsimile of the American.

SEC UVA - UNC - South Carolina - Clemson - Florida State Kentucky - Tennessee - Vanderbilt - UGA - Florida Bama - Auburn - Ole Miss - Miss St - LSU Texas - aTm - Arkansas - Oklahoma - Missouri Big Ten Penn State - Miami - VT/NCST - Maryland - Rutgers Ohio State - Michigan- Michigan State - Purdue - Indiana Wisconsin - Illinois - Northwestern - Iowa - Minnesota Nebraska - USC - UCLA - Washington - Oregon Big 12 Louisville - Cincinnati - Pitt - WVU - NCST/VT UCF - GT - Houston - Baylor - TCU Kansas - K State - Iowa St - Oklahoma State - Texas Tech Arizona - Arizona St - Colorado - Utah - BYU

They will already be bringing in more money from the ACC just in the CFP and NCAA tourney credits than they were in their total payout from the AAC, and with increased ticket sales, they should get a nice bump in revenue. I'm sure that having FSU, Pitt, BC, and Cal coming in this season, and Louisville, Miami, Stanford, and Syracuse next season, that is an upgrade over Charlotte, North Texas, Navy, & Tulsa.

I like the SMU add. I don't care what anyone else says. 1. They are willing to spend money. 2. They are excited to be here. 3. I hope they come all the way back to prominence after the Death Penalty. 4. Texas now open to ACC. We are in FL, CA, TX and NY. Top 4 states.

Pretty good.

the question has to be asked as to how much of that $159MM are commitments to subsidize ACC entry? Didn't they raise like $100MM from seven megadonors in less than a week? My questions are not meant to downplay their effort but, to get a better understanding. SMU made the statement with their wallets that they are coming to compete.

They were talking about needing $200 million to cover what they are used to getting for that time period. This is the down payment on that $200 million.

In the meantime they fight the GOR in court?

Part of me thinks SMU to Dallas is pretty close to BC to Boston in effect.

game when Texas State played there. I think Wake outdraws them. BC may have the edge there.

Cal 58 BC 62 GT 63 Cuse 68 Stanford 69 Wake 71 Duke 81 SMU 89 JMU was 80th.

attendance while in a G5. I sense that the ACC will make more money off of SMU than they will off of Wake or BC, particularly since they aren't taking TV money for 9 years--and by that time, we'll almost be done with the ESPN contract.

Is you have to win and contend. It works like that in Miami, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, or anywhere else. Not contend for ACC, but National. If you don't there is too much competition for the entertainment dollar and media attention. But in the meantime, the ACC is now in Texas.

When Larry Brown had it rolling for a few years Moody Coliseum was one of the hottest tickets in Dallas. We had Romo, Dirk, Jason Witten, Cuban and other local celebs sitting courtside. Football has just never been relevant enough because of conference affiliation. If we're 4-0 going into that FSU game, I can't imagine the scene. Would be like nothing I've seen in SMU sports in 30+ years

5 or 10 years ago this would have been about as non sensible a "partnership " as anyone could have imagined. It is still heavily steeped in short term survival necessity for both parties. From an ACC perspective I see it as low to no downside (excepting the reek of desperation of having to add 3 schools with absolutely no continuity across the country) and with modest potential upside if all goes well. From the SMU perspective it is an opportunity to be a surviver and maybe in a comparable situation to Baylor and TCU. It makes all the sense in the world I do get the urban vibe that can take off. I think it is hard to sustain. That is what the ACC didn't understand about Miami. The baseline regarding big state universities is always gonna remain reasonably high regardless of what happens on the field. Whereas the smaller private schools not named ND are always going to be cyclical and prone to very low interest when not winning.