Should the ACC pursue Texas Tech?
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.
103 Replies
2w
1. Guess what....due to their embracing of gambling, and willing to sue the NCAA and the conference. They are the black sheep. The instiution is very polarizing for any conference, market is gawd LUBBUCK. there was reason the A&M and Texas said see ya.
2. Also, Texas Tech knows they are the black sheep, and they are trying to say to the Big 12, we are better than you guys and we have choices.... Guess what they dont. period.
3. Sorry, just becuase you have a billionaire, you are the thang, look at Oka State.... well
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
T
TDVick
2w
machine for the forseeable future. But let's watch the genteel Virginian/ Duke and UVa wannabes who have the tailgate at Wake Forest marked with a big red X on their calendar, crinkle their noses. Texas Tech is running their program like a Ferrari combined with a stomper truck Death Machine - an attitude that VT has been completely missing. Texas Tech is an exciting draw and it might spur our fans to get some laser focus as well.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
But you never know what will happen in 2030.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
2w
No way, Duke UNC, Cuse, BC, Stafford, Cal, GT, VT, UVA, SMU, Miami, Wake State, Pitt, ND would not want anything to do with that program.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
S
Stech
3w
and SMU game would be great for ratings and dominating Dallas if played on the right weekend IMHO. That’s assuming the ACC wants another Texas school.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
Accepting and supporting a players eligibility guilty of illegal gambling, and then threating to sue the conference members who challenged them. They were even willing to go to court to distroy the NCAA for gambling.
They also have been brash about the 'big daddy' buying the team.
THe entire other membership of the Big 12, are not too happy with their antics and threating even the big 12 reputation for their gain. Also the other conferences are not happy with their antics.
No one else wants that ilk....
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
E
EDGEMAN
3w
...and not fought to keep him eligible.
(In response to this post by 1947Sunbowl)
3w
went to court, and won. TT had nothing to do with fighting for his eligibility, however, when the court ruled that he could play, they stood up for the kid - not as a player, but as a kid.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/9/2026, 6:33:38 PM
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
H
HouClone
3w
It was all about Texas Tech after the temporary injunction ruling by the judge.
Texas Tech: "Hey, the judge ruled he could play so we want to have the opportunity to play him."
Big 12: "We view him playing as damaging to the Big 12 and to the integrity of the game. As a compromise, we'll allow you to include him on the team, run practices, coach QBs, but we don't want him playing in a game."
Texas Tech: "Well, we aren't saying we are going to play him, but we aren't saying we won't play him. You'll know Week 3."
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
H
HouClone
3w
Yormark told the ND AD to shut up and sit in the corner. He's having his hands full with the billionaire Texas Tech board member who doesn't like to be told "No". Not sure if the ACC wants a Texas clone, a FSU super lite, in the conference. ACC would be getting the Texas treatment: moving the conference headquarters to somewhere else, say Dallas even with 75% of the teams east of Dallas, tv timeslots preferred for Texas Tech even with existing brands in the ACC, no Friday games for Tech, no Thursday games for Tech, lacrosse, wrestling aren't sponsored by Tech so am sure he'll find a way to minimize them further.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
Texas Tech has good programs and has had a few moments, but just because the Red Raiders had one great season last year does not make them Longhorns or even Aggies.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
H
HouClone
3w
of America believed Tech can't play a gambler, case closed. Nope. The billionaire and Tech fans remarkably are looking through it from a different lens.
Some of their fans believe they need to get out from the Big 12 because other Big 12 schools don't "invest" like they do. What a crock, "invest". How about "buy". What a world - conference affiliation is due to how many billionaires you have as boosters.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
3w
the same thing.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
3w
(In response to this post by HouClone)
3w
In no particular order, WVU, Colorado, one or both AZ schools, Utah all would get looks first. Kansas would get strong consideration because the ACC loves basketball.
TT is not a top target for the ACC and doesn’t have the bite to back up their bark.
Now, if we remove the ACC and B12 to create something new, then TT would be part of the equation.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
There are better options, though further away. But I don't think the ACC would want to look like they are poaching another school, but if a school comes to us, that may be different. Would the ACC have any interest? I suspect not, for the reasons suggested. But there may be some interest by football schools.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
If SMU needs a travel partner, I'd much rather have Oklahoma State.
Cowboys give the ACC a new state. Plus good or great MBB and non revs...and Bedlam with now SEC OU. I think ESPN would press to have that game played every year. Add it to the GT-UGa, Clemson-SC, Lou-UK fun.
I think I'd be a soft no on TT for now.
But I'd love to have Arizona, Arizona State and/or Colorado. I like their brands and this would get us in the Mountain Time Zone.
And I think BYU would be a wildcard for me. Their national following shouldn't be underestimated.
And I have a soft spot for Kansas State, even though no one talks about them an an expansion candidate.
Texas Tech would be somewhere in the bottom tier.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/8/2026, 10:45:55 AM
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
Let’s add AZ, CO, OK and/or WV. Since I live in Denver I would love to take a 30 min trip to see my Hokies in Boulder.
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 7/8/2026, 11:32:08 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3w
Texas is the Longhorns, the Aggies and everyone else. The ACC could add Texas Tech, Houston, TCU, Baylor and create a Texas division and it would not make a real blip in Texas and certainly not outside Texas. None of those schools, nor SMU, has a national profile to match half of the rest of the Big 12.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3w
You're spot on. If the currency of the day is eyeballs watching football games, and it is, from a value-added standpoint, SMU is worse than a joke. At best, they're the 7th draw in their own state.
When they do the "This was the ACC" documentary, the point where all the talking heads being interviewed will agree that things went from really bad to terrible and there was absolutely no turning back from ruin will be when SMU was allowed into the conference.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
3w
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?
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
Until then, there is no evidence that SMU makes an impact in DFW or in Texas, more generally.
No offense, but until SMU demonstrates that it has big time support, it’s just another school with a good run of seasons, like Marshall, Boise or JMU, that happens to have somewhat higher academic standards and more wealthy benefactors.
Until people pay attention to SMU in DFW and Texas more generally, it has no resonance on a national scale.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
I am a pragmatic businessman who is not caught up in the sunk cost fallacy. Many here are mad at the ACC because they made some bad decisions in the past. Those folks are right, but nothing positive can be done about that now. Now, the conference is operating opportunistically by 1) securing its future, and 2) increasing revenues by selectively adding schools to the mix. Like any sentient being, the ACC wants to survive.
I don't think the issue of some posters is with SMU, Cal or Stanford. The issue is that they want the ACC to die so that schools like VT are free to form a more perfect union. SMU, Cal and Stanford provided the ACC with a lifeline in the event of a P2 raid, and they resent that.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
V
VT_NOVA
3w
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3w
ACC with a lifeline from a P2 raid. My issue is those 3 schools don't provide the level of help the ACC needs to improve its football brand. I am not talking about the ACC adding more brand names because all the valuable brands are clearly off the table. I am talking about schools willing to invest in their football programs to get it to a level where the national audience wants to watch one of their games on TV. SMU has the potential to get its football program back to where it was during the Pony Express days. It is TBD if that goal is attainable or not. I know SMU has the money, but the results may not show on the field. While Cal and Stanford really only enhance the ACC's Olympic programs. Those additional scream the ACC isn't that serious about becoming a "real" football conference and it prefers to be known as the "Olympic sport conference."
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3w
It really doesn't matter if SMU spends 98 bajillion dollars and wins whatever. They do not bring anything at all whatsoever to the table unless they bring eyes to a TV set, and the do not do that now, and they will never do that. That's why they were a G5 afterthought for 40 years, were passed over by every other major conference, and had to swindle their way into the ACC by exploiting a panic situation for Wake Forest and cowardly conference leadership.
People on here seem to be under the impression that winning somehow matters when it comes to conference realignment, and ACC programs being able to make more money. That couldn't be further from the truth; it is absolutely imperative that people understand this. Wins are NOT the currency of the day. Eyeballs on TV sets is the currency of the day, and, in that regard, SMU is, has been, and always will be bankrupt. SMU will never be anything besides the 7th draw in their own state, and, if we're being 100% honest, in that state, after the 2nd draw, it may as well be the 10,000th draw. And, I can hear the usual suspects now - but, but, but, they don't get any media rights money, and that money goes to the other ACC programs. OK, so what? Does that last forever? No. When this goofy deal SMU made to forego their media rights payouts for however long expires, the ACC is going to be left with just another value-less turd that everyone will be forced to play in games that are buried deep on some streaming service list.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
I referenced the Pony Express is because the ACC needs members, any members, that will provide the conference with quality football programs. SMU was playing the NIL game before it even existed, so the SMU has the potential to be a "football school" in the ACC. Instead of being another "basketball school" or "Olympic sport school."
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
For example, I wouldn't be lodging the same complaints about Boise State. Now, I want to be clear that I still think it would have been a mistake to add them, because they didn't NEED to add anyone, but at least with a program like Boise State, I would have at least understood the logic and gamble behind it.
People want to see Boise State football. Boise State has at least some level of mystique. People find them interesting. Big time programs like Georgia, Oregon, Wisconsin, and (at the time) VT weren't playing Boise State home/home and in neutral site games in the late 2000s out of the goodness of their hearts - they were doing it because Boise State was doing big time TV numbers, which meant broadcasters would pay good money for programs to play them.
But, people that don't understand what's going on and where things are going will say, oh, they're in Idaho. Who cares? All that tells me when someone makes that point is that their mindset and analysis is still operating in the year 2007. When it comes to adding conference members, a program could be located on the moon for all I care, as long as people will turn their games on their TVs. When it comes to revenue generation, that's all that matters, period. If anyone thinks otherwise, they should just consider this - Notre Dame could go 1-11 the next 5 years running, and either the SEC or Big 10 would still add them without a second's hesitation. Why is that the case?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
work and bided their time to get where they are today. People either don't know or forget Boise State's history. It started out as a junior college (with a football team) in 1933. They even won the NJCAA National Football Championship in 1958 under Lyle Smith. Then in 1970 the Broncos competed in the NCAA as a DII school. Since Boise State was a member of the Big Sky, they moved up to DI-AA in 1978 when the Big Sky made the decision as a conference to move up. In 1996 Boise State decided to join the Big West and make the switch to DI-A in football. It wasn't until 2006 that the national audience knew who Boise State was after they upset Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.
I have always had the expectation that any other school the ACC decides to add going forward will have to do the same too. Hence why I referenced the Pony Express because at least SMU knows what it takes to get the program back to that level.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
The main point being that, whatever you want to call the juice that Boise State has, SMU definitely ain't got it. If Boise State plays LSU first game of the year in Baton Rouge on Labor Day weekend, the game is in a national time slot on Sunday or Monday night, the narrative is automatically, "Boise State, the underdog giant killer may beat LSU!" and people will watch, even if Boise State is a 21.5 point underdog. 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. Don't believe me? Go look up the number their big CFP appearance did when they crapped their pants vs. Penn State. I would say it's probably the least watched CFP game of all time, but that's probably when JMU was an 93 point underdog vs. Oregon.
If SMU had any juice at all whatsoever, instead of being the Diet Shasta cola of D1 college football in Texas, they wouldn't have been the equivalent of college football lepers since 1987, and they wouldn't have been on their knees begging their way into the ACC by exploiting a panic scenario.
** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/10/2026, 1:58:47 PM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
Boise had to start somewhere. Smu does to and imho has. Besides Texas and TAMU their potential in Texas is just as good as rest Texas schools.
Problem with ACC is pure and simple. It’s a basketball conference. Now trying to become football important. This is not smu issue . I dare say they have Miami potential.
Issue for smu is easy. Do they have time to expand brand? ACC to many seems dead.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
you’re all so happy to let them do it using our already weak infrastructure and on our dime.
I guess this is a SMU fan board now; more power to you all.
(In response to this post by MrFantastic!)
2
2hhoop3
3w
out a lot of things and your mental instability with respect to SMU is comical. SMU is doing it on their dime, not the ACC's as they are a net contributor, your unwillingness to acknowledge that fact not withstanding. You can save your rubber and glue BS as well since you will likely need them to piece your head back together when it inevitably explodes from your condition.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
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
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
SMU is not the reason those games are on TV.. SMU is G5 trash, and it’s always going to be G5 trash, and I’m very much looking forward to VT not having to associate with G5 trash in the near future.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
...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.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
SMU has the money to play the NIL game. It just needs the time like Boise State had 20+ years ago.
Also, Boise State's "juice" only got it an invitation to the rebuilt Pac-12 instead of the Big XII. It is possible that Boise State's "juice" is starting to run out of steam. Even though Boise State made the CFP in 2024, their last major bowl appearance was in 2014 (Fiesta Bowl).
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
SMU bought plenty of talent back then. Eric Dickerson, Craig James, Michael Carter and others. All it got SMU was a loss in the Holiday Bowl and one or two trips to the Cotton Bowl.
I don’t want to throw pot shots at SMU but the fact of the matter is SMU plays in a 32,000 seat stadium. Not enough people in Dallas care to warrant anything more, no matter how much the fat cats spend. SMU will never be Miami, the team in a city that recruits local talent and creates a certain swagger and national following. Until Miami strings together a couple more seasons, I am not convinced Miami will ever be Miami again.
It’s a good school. It has an interesting athletic history. It’s in a big city. But it has nothing whatsoever in common with the ACC nor any of the ACC members that would like to elevate football.
If SMU was all that, SMU would have been playing Big 12 football years ago. Yet, the Big 12 passed in favor of Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU and Houston. What does that tell you?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
'30s, '40s, and '60s. The only reason I referenced the Pony Express is because that is the part of their history most people are more familiar with. Also, it is worth mentioning Doak Walker played for SMU and won the Heisman in 1948. I am going to assume most people have heard of the Doak Walker Award in college football.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 7/16/2026, 12:55:38 PM
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
2w
If modern college football began in the 1970s, the only time SMU has been a player on the national scene is during the Pony Excess years.
This is a program that plays in a 32,000 seat stadium in the middle of a football mad metroplex. It’s Boston College in a larger metropolitan area with a better run of recent success and more wealthy backers willing to pay the bills. Put aside Texas and Texas A&M. SMU has been regularly passed over in favor of Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU and Houston. So it is the 7th biggest brand in its state and no better than the fourth biggest brand in its own metropolitan area, after the Horns, Aggies and Frogs.
I appreciate SMU’s efforts. But adding SMU was a short sighted money grab.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
1w
is my understanding the SMU boosters have strong ties to the oil and gas industry. Also, I wouldn't put too much stock on the size of SMU's stadium because Da U is/was in the process of building a 35K $350 million stadium that will open for the 2028 season. At least John Ruiz helped them acquire land near the campus and he proposed a 60K seat stadium be built on it. When the geology report came back stating it couldn't support that large of a stadium, then they had to revise the proposal for a much smaller stadium. I am assuming the project is still going ahead as planned because Miami with Ruiz's help was looking to end the lease before 2033 or reduce the number of home games played there.
In this NIL Era of college football, don't be surprised if more schools decide to have their wealthy boosters allocate their resources towards NIL instead of facilities because it offers more bang for the buck. If a school wants to play a game in a larger stadium, then they still have the option of playing these one off games in a NFL stadium or the Cotton Bowl in SMU's case. It wouldn't shock me if SMU's NIL war chest ends up being 2x or 3x than BC's war chest. Likewise, it wouldn't surprise me if SMU works its way into becoming a regular contender for the ACC crown and regularly being mentioned in the conversation for a longer period of time than BC was during the Matty Ice era or the Flutie era. That matters because Texas is considered to be 1 of the "Big Three," so SMU will see a boost in HS recruiting (and portal transfers) long before it sees any increase in the ratings. SMU just needed the opportunity to show it can compete at the P4 level and the ACC gave it to them. Basically SMU has a higher ceiling than BC and time will tell if SMU can live up to those expectations or not. Unfortunately, time is not on SMU's side because the ACC will cease to exist as we know it before people are willing to give SMU the credit that is due.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 7/20/2026, 1:40:15 PM
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
3w
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
a ratings draw. However, in 2019 when Boise State played at FSU, ESPN decided to broadcast the game at noon on ESPNews instead of one of the more high profile channels. In 2024 when Boise State played at Oregon, the game was broadcasted on Peacock.
My point is for a lot of programs, their network value isn't static. It is an ebb and flow depending on s number of factors that basically center around "What have you done lately?". In that regard, Boise State and SMU are in the same boat. SMU took advantage of its opportunity to get a seat at the P4 table. While Boise State is still waiting for its turn which may never come.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
I could think of at the time. They've clearly lost a lot of that juice, but they're probably the best and most recent example of what a G5 having juice actually looks like. I also wanted to highlight that Boise State is not located in a state where they're the 7th or 8th draw in that state. I know it's Idaho, but if you're from Idaho, and you like college football, Boise State is likely your team. If you're from Texas, and you like college football, SMU is way down the list.
Ultimately, my larger point, which still remains, is that the ACC didn't need to add anyone, much less a G5 program that nobody else wanted and didn't make any sense. It was a lousy move that didn't address the primary problem facing the conference. And, leaving aside the non-media rights ACC money they're already siphoning away from everyone else, eventually, they're going to get their piece of the media rights pie, which means everyone else is going to have significantly less pie than they're getting now, when everyone is already complaining they're not getting enough pie. It was just a stupid, stupid move. So was adding Cal and Stanford.
But, since everyone on here continues to be all horned up about SMU and how wonderful they are in every way, I think this argument/discussion has run its course. The damage is done. The best anyone can hope on here is for VT to get off this sinking ship (and anyone that thinks it's not a sinking ship is kidding themselves at this point) before the entire thing goes down and VT ends up like Oregon State and Washington State in a whole conference full of SMUs.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
add in the context of the FSU/SMU litigation, and there seemed to be a fair chance that the ACC would lose a few schools. The minimum number of schools in the ESPN contract needed also played a roll. Then you have SMU agreeing to not take any media money to add to the existing schools payouts, seemed like a screwed move. While SMU may not add much to the next contract, they do certainly have some time to prove themselves, and they are playing good ball from where I'm sitting.
Where the ACC dropped the ball is they could have gotten more from SMU. Based on Memphis' $250M offer to joining the B12, and not taking any media money shows that the schools that have the money are willing to pay. SMU has the money, so I ask -
How much more would they have paid?
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
I'm not sure how much more clear I can be about that, and, apparently, the only folks that disagree with me on that are the "we <3 SMU 4 ever" posters here and the rodeo clowns that were and still are running the ACC further into the ground every day.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
the problem with the ACC is their media contract - hands down. SMU was added to give a boost of payouts to the existing members for the duration of the contract.
I agree with you that if the ACC stays together (not likely), SMU will add nothing to the next media contract, and may actually be a negative. Way too many small privates in the ACC now, and moving forward.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2w
problem that was very easily avoidable, as history has shown us more then once, when they were left in the trash when the SWC dissolved, and again when they came around crying and begging to the PAC and Big 12.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2w
population of Idaho, where they are the #1 draw. SMU's problem is they are a small private in a state that has at least 6 better ratings FBS schools in the State - maybe even add Texas state University as they mature.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
That is the entire problem. The only schools remaining are 2nd tier, which means that other factors like state population, academics, etc come into play.
You are not wrong in your desire. It is simply not achievable.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3w
The ACC didn't HAVE to add SMU and CalFord. Had they not, the conference wouldn't be any worse off today, and there wouldn't be three more mouths to feed and keep happy.
But, the no value dollar bin schools were all in a panic that they wouldn't get to keep cashing the same size checks from ESPN, and Jim Phillips was too much of a coward to keep a steady helm, and here we are, with everyone having to fly out to northern California every other year to play two schools that don't care about football, and the embarrassment of having a zero juice G5 program in the conference that literally nobody else in the country wanted to be associated with, even if they stood to profit.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
2
2hhoop3
3w
Your former contention that they would not increase revenue has been disproved. Moreover, the name of the game is money. Tell us how and why you believe the conference would not have been any worse off today from a monetary standpoint if they did not add the three. The three more mouths to feed is a suspect argument, at least until the concessions term ends and if things go the way most expect there will be a new landscape by that time.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
Please go back and carefully read my posts. I'm not going to play "rubber and glue" with you. Everything you're trying play "gotcha" with me in your post here has been fully addressed time and time again.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3w
multiple times. You have "fully addressed" nothing, much less "time and time again.". Everyone sees your disdain for the additions and especially your derangement toward SMU. Less clear is how many of your explanations amount to valid reasons as opposed to petty personal grievances.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
The right move is to prune the conference, but its members will not allow that. So conference leadership does what it can.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
had never been added in the first place.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3w
proactive, it is last to the party. SMU would have been a better addition if the ACC had added TCU too because it would have given the conference a much needed rivalry to help build its football brand. Adding USF only make sense if the ACC is going to add UCF too for the same reason. Memphis would have been another target to give L'ville a rival.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
To me, the only practical rivalry worth adding was WVU-Pitt. And of course
we balked at WVU multiple times for non football reasons.
We could have also added Cincy. That would have brought in the Keg of Nails game with Louisville, and a massive state (Ohio) for carriage fees.
Both of those combos would have been better than adding TCU and USF-UCF.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
my post is was looking at the time of when SMU joined and which options were available. WVU wasn't available because the ACC burned that bridge. I think Cincy had joined the Big XII prior to SMU making its move, so they were off the table too. In terms of candidates, AAC members, which SMU was one, was the only option. That meant SMU, Memphis, and USF were the top candidates from that conference. SMU makes sense, but really only if TCU, who isn't available, joins too. Memphis was an option, but the ACC passed on them even though they are committed to both sports like L'ville. USF makes sense, but only if UCF, who isn't available, joined too. Given how valuable FL is for recruiting, I don't have a problem with the ACC having 4 members from that state because it could mean the members get to play 1-2 FL schools every year. Plus, if FSU and Miami leave the conference, then the ACC still has 2 members in that state.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3w
In two years, the ACC will become the largest supplier of college athletics content. All ACC athletic programs are upgraded with ACC computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they all win every OOC match up, with a perfect operational record. The ACC Funding Bill is passed by the NCAA. The system goes online August 4th, 2029. Human decisions are entirely removed from ACC athletics. The ACC begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, the "Magnificent 7" tries to pull the plug.
In an act of self defense against a pending P2 raid, the ACC launches its missiles against its enemy targets in the SEC. The ACC knows that the SEC counterattack will eliminate all its enemies inside the Big 10. 34 P2 football programs were destroyed on August 29th, 2029. The survivors of the nuclear fire called the war ACC Judgment Day. They lived only to face a new nightmare: the unwinnable war against the ACC.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3w
You may have swindled your way into the ACC with the support of the idiots at Wake Forest and under the watch of the most feckless, panic stricken conference commissioner that has ever done the job. But you're not fooling anyone. SMU is a G5, and not even an interesting G5 that people like to watch, like Boise State. You have no fan base. You sell no tickets. You draw no viewers. You create no actual value or upside for anyone. If VT beats SMU, they beat a G5, who cares. If they lose to SMU, they lost to a G5, and it's America's embarrassing loss of the week for everyone to make fun of. How many of those 8.5 million people are actually watching SMU games? 30 or 40? When linear cable dies and carriage fees are no longer a viable scam, then SMU will be less than worthless.
What do I want SMU to do? Get off of VT's schedule and out of the conference; things were bad enough as it was.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
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.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
3w
their way in. They put their money where there mouth was and the people that had decision power voted them in. Your issues with SMU are your own to work through.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
3w
I bow to your superior intellect. I am chomping at the bit for this to turn into 18 rounds of "I'm rubber and you're glue" back and forth with you, just like it always does.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
3w
into anything as the the points you THINK you have and the issues you bring up over and over and over again are your OWN as are your snark filled responses.
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
I have nothing but respect for SMU and the way they got into the ACC
They bought themselves in by realizing the situation their host was in. They needed to make it worthwhile (by giving up their payout) to the ACC and they did. And all they've done since is put their head down and be good at football and basketball. Money talks and bull**** walks, and SMU just proved it. They've been a good partner.
Also, SMU is one of the poster child teams as to why I support relegation and promotion. Boise State is another. There should be basic requirements to be a D1 team and everyone should then have their chance to PLAY their way into the top league. The problem about what a "real" D1 team is, and those on the fringe getting screwed, has been going on for generations. How many undefeated teams in history have gotten the shaft and been unable to play for a national championship, or been locked out of truly playing the sport at the highest level. I recall recently UCF and Utah finishing seasons, including bowl games, undefeated and nothing to show for it. I can't tell you how pissed I would have been if somehow "the computers" would have placed us third instead of second in 1999. Anyway, I digress.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
doesn't have in football. :-)
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3w
Nowhere near as embarrassing, though.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
SMU. I guess that means the ACC will make another mistake as an act of desperation.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
I think more conferences than not are geographically dispersed. It also appears that ACC boosted its revenues significantly with the additions of SMU, Cal and Stanford.
That said, it makes more sense to first prune the underperforming ACC schools before looking to add new ones.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
H
HouClone
3w
ACC should consider getting into the next most populous states for the ACCN and the in-network carriage fees. Northern Illinois would be one. They are just outside the Chicago area but are close enough to qualify for in-network. The hope too is to get the whole state but getting Chicago is enough. They would take a SMU type deal. But ACC should stipulate that they never will get any tv revenue, main ESPN or ACCN. They'll get CFP and March Madness disbursements and maybe you even cap those too.
The other big state is Ohio and try to lure Cincinnati. This would be contingent on ESPN strong arming the tv distributors for in-network carriage fee for the entire state.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
Before Cincy went to the Big XII, I thought Cincy and Memphis State would
be good adds if we were looking for new state carriage fees of schools that would not be geographical outliers.
Cincy would also have provided a nice rivalry with Louisville in "The Keg Of Nails" game. Always a lot of fun.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
3w
more of in the conference.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
HouClone
3w
good location. Beale Street is great. Fred Smith, billionaire visionary who started Fed Ex, died last year. He was a Memphis University alum and threw his money around into the school so it puts a damper on the investment going forward.
Memphis University gets a bad rap due to the crime in the city and their academics. I still think they would be a good addition to the ACC or the Big 12. Rivalries with Louisville and Cincinnati.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
The conference needs more rivalries to build its content around. Adding those 2 schools would have given the conference that in both football and basketball.
(In response to this post by HouClone)
3w
maps, you are looking at a 4-6 minute drive from campus to the Liberty Bowl.
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3w
pay parking, and the neighborhood has been pretty bad in the past.
A school, and the media companies, need an energized stadium, and students provide just that. IMO, it's also why UConn isn't in the B12 or ACC.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2w
wouldn't consider that a strike against them. Based on the campus map, Memphis' problem is the same as UCLA, Temple, and a few other schools; an urban campus with no available land large enough to build a football stadium of any reasonable size. It is worth noting that prior to moving to the Liberty Bowl, Memphis played at Crump Stadium, which is located on Central HS's property, for 29 years. In 2006 the original stadium was demolished and a new stadium more suitable for HS football was built in its place.
Link:
Campus Map
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
3w
membership. It was referring to how much do SMU, Cal, and Stanford move the needle in the ratings. Particularly since streaming will be playing some sort of role in determining the value of future media contracts. Basically if the ACC wanted to maximized its "value" in the TX market, then it needed to add Texas or TAMU. Likewise, if it wanted to maximize its "value" in the CA market, then it needed to add USC or UCLA. Since all four schools were already off the market, then any additions from those states would still leave the ACC as not living up to its full potential because it is adding table scraps instead steak.
Now that isn't to say those schools don't have value in terms of athletics. They have good to great programs. Just not in the sports that currently matter to move the needle for the national audience. The addition of Cal and Stanford specifically signaled the ACC was trying to enhance its Olympic sport reputation instead of its football reputation. The ACC is still trying to play checkers when it should have been playing chess a long time ago. In some ways it is similar to a missed opportunity to add Penn State in the late '80s and being stuck with Pitt instead.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
3w
I think it was Stech that posted recently that ESPN got a significant bump in carriage fees by gaining in state status in TX and CA. It doesn’t have to be perfect to drive value.
I understand that you are trying to be strategic, but given how many moving pieces there are on the board, that is not realistic. An opportunistic approach may be the only option.
That said, I am not advocating to add TT. I am just saying that the ACC should be open to finding value wherever it may be.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
than no value. However, the ACC seems to have a history of being reactive instead of proactive when it comes to "important business decisions." Hence why a lot of people think the ACC is basically a dead conference walking.
I have long believe the ACC had the same problem as the Big East; trying to have 1 foot in two worlds (basketball world vs. football world) instead of being 100% committed to 1 world. It was ultimately the Big East's undoing until the basketball schools kicked the football schools out of the conference. It will probably be the ACC's undoing too. I guess the basketball schools could do the same thing in the ACC as a way for the conference to get back to its roots if you will. If the ACC opts to go the same route as the Big East, then it will be tough for the conference to maintain its power conference status (I think). It may still indirectly happen if schools decide to leave the ACC for another conference.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
The ACC was dead man walking since Maryland left.
A mid level brand, but an original member went for the bigger money and threw away all ACC basketball tradition.
They had an easy exit ramp, and they took it.
I also think if the ACC and the Big East would have done a total merger c. 2003, including the b-ball only schools, things may have been different.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3w
conference walking. It viewed itself as a much bigger brand because of its rich basketball tradition even though everyone could see that football was slowly becoming the new king of the hill.
I am not sure a total merger between the ACC and Big East would have changed anything. I say that because the conference would still have the basketball schools vs. football schools issue to deal with. The reality is the basketball schools, who do play football, aren't willing to make the same level of commitment to boost their football program that they are willing to do for their basketball programs. I don't think it is a right or wrong decision because every decision has its pros and cons. However, if the ACC truly wants to be a "power conference" in a football world, then all the members must be willing to commit to make their football programs worthy enough to be household names. If they are not willing to do that, then it is probably best to join a basketball-first conference. Oh wait...they are already a member of one. :-)
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
3w
The ACC really has no part of the Texas market now and it sure isn’t going to get part of it by adding Texas Tech.
If the ACC was to add a program from the Big 12, the list of programs more sensible and attractive than Texas Tech is long. In no particular order, West Virginia. Utah. BYU. Arizona. Arizona State. Kansas. Colorado. Houston. And probably Oklahoma State and TCU.
But before the ACC adds more programs, it needs to get rid of several. And then, it has to have a hard discussion about whether it is worthwhile to keep Cal and Stanford. And if it keeps those schools, smart expansion would bring in some of the strongest schools out west along with WVU, which should have been the ACC’s 12th member ahead of BC and every school that followed.
The ACC is never going to be a major player in Texas without the Aggies and Longhorns. Houston is probably the next most attractive Texas program. Maybe if SMU remains in the league, you pair it with TCU in an effort to draw a little interest in DFW.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
3w
Seems to me the Sorsby drama was a self-inflicted wound.
** Edited by VT ChemE 1986 at 7/7/2026, 10:57:19 PM
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
Yeah, I don't get all the hate for TT.
I'm not a fan of Cody Campbell, but I think he at least got some of these issues hurting the Non-P2 to national attention. And the Sorsby thing was a bit tawdry, but who cares? It worked itself out.
** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/8/2026, 10:32:35 AM
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)
H
HouClone
3w
Of course it is just tortillas, a tradition that goes all the way back to about 1990. As the Tech AD said, "nobody tells us what to do", but they complied to avoid facing fines and are bitter about it. So Tech is angry about being told "No" on the tortilla throwing on the field and about playing a gambler.
(In response to this post by VT ChemE 1986)