BTW wouldn't SMU owe the AAC something like $18 mil in exit fees when they check out? Hope Aresco holds their feet to the fire on that.
AAC and PAC 4
- Thread starter chito_and_leon
- Start date
Don't they get about $7m/year from the AAC, so they'll need revenue to increase by that much to break even? I know they'll get coverage from donations but the revenue side seems unlikely to work out.
I'm assuming you are referring to the UCF, Cincinnati, Houston, & SMU exit fees? It is a 2 for 1 deal we would have to cover that with.
18m exit fee to us, 35M exit fee to MWC/team
What does it matter where it comes from? 7 or 8M from our media deal translated to 30-35M from donations is still a profit. Even if they increase their revenue by 5% it's just a bigger profit.(as long as they don't increase the travel expenses by as much as 5%)
Last edited:
I don’t see anyway the revenue side is a wash without donations. SMU believes the cost is worth it to be better positioned for the next round of realignment…and they hate being in a league with UNT and UTSA. They also are attracted to the higher profile for their other sports as well as academic standing the ACC offers. It’s a move you almost have to make if there’s no actual cost to the university. Wish TU were in that position.
And yet there will be a cost to the university. It remains to be see just what that is.
I'm trying to remember if we knew what we had to pay when we entered the AAC?
They paid, I believe $2.5 million in cash a piece and a pro rata smaller share for the first few years to “pay” even more. If we survive that long. And the surviving schools got $1 million checks to cash.
Nothing down. We took a lower pay out the first year if memory serves. $2.5 million.
Likely…..but there’s also a benefit on the academic side to being part of the ACC which SMU values. Heck….the academic benefit might be greater than the athletic especially longterm.
Correct. They expect to spend up to $200 million in pursuit of R1 status. ACC membership would significantly improve that effort.
So that's 9M left over from entry fees. Do you have any idea if checks have been cut on the exit fees for UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati?
Are we getting paid a share of the excess from their lower media payout, or is that staying in the till for now?
I agree but Tulsa maybe invited as well down the road. ACC is probably going to lose four teams.
Go TU!!!!
I don’t think so either. Additional football and basketball revenue should fall short of that number. Donors will make up the few millions they’re short though. The academic side is the big beneficiary as they work toward R1 status. Quite the coup for that side of the university.
I think the ACC may lose up to 8 teams down the road btw. 4 are almost a certainty. Doesn’t mean they will replace all 4 though. These additives are insurance that the conference can withstand losses.
"Stanford, California, and Dallas' Southern Methodist to join the Atlantic Coast Conference" really encapsulates how stupid college football has gotten.
Boise state is going nowhere. Their current deal with the Mountain West gives them the lion’s share of the revenue. Why would they give up the kingdom to the peasants to join the AAC
Regarding the Smoo to the ACC, I am pretty sure that they were invited to the Big Least before they became the American and not Tulsa. I also remember they wanted ECU over Tulsa. Tulsa was only picked up because more schools left for the ACC and Big 10. We were a consolation prize. So since we aren’t in a large market and we are in the middle of the country we have nothing to offer and they do. So unless we start having powerhouse teams (we don’t) we will always be the ugly step sister
We were added for a bunch of reasons that don’t matter these days, at least for football.
The western schools wanted a low cost charter opponent with easy access for their Olympics to destinations like Dallas and Houston. They didn’t want to fly to Pullman if they could fly a hour or two.
Several schools wanted a school with a good reputation in the Olympics that lacked the resources to compete against them in football.
At least one school voted for us because we had an African American athletic director if you believe Twitter at the time.
And there was UCF and USF who wanted to travel to places with only one connection (Tulsa) and not two (Boise, Pullman, etc). While UCF left for the bag, we probably would have added Charlotte eventually because UCF wanted them or Ga State because of low cost frequent flights in the eastern corridor. They had been complaining about that for years.
smu does not give Dallas to the acc.
1a. texas am
1b. texas
OU
Ark
T tech
Baylor
Osu
then smu
1a. texas am
1b. texas
OU
Ark
T tech
Baylor
Osu
then smu
Latest rumor is San Diego State and Fresno State to AAC to be a West Coast pairing with WSU and OSU. Another has Air Force in there as well. Presumably no Boise for the exact reason you mention.
yeah...take everything he says with a grain of salt. I think this is his "best case scenario" with how the actual information keep's changing. Even he doesn't see the MWC as a good landing place b/c they don't get the same $ as the AAC and adding OSU/WSU isn't likely to move that amount much for either conference. Adding the schools he proposes would probably garner the AAC an extra $2-3M per maybe as SDSU and Air Force likely warrant that on their own without the OSU/WSU consideration.
I don't think he is...I think he is an over zealous Oregon St fan who wants people think he has insider connections similar to Ryan Matthews on twitter/x who tries to make people believe he is insider connected at TU. Doesn't mean they're not fans or trolls, just chasing popularity too much
The Smoo is in a bigger market than TU is. That is a fact. None of the teams that you mentioned are ACC teams. Out of all of those teams only Texas A&M plays an ACC school and that would be Miami.
Those schools do not bring in the ACC to the Dallas market. Pretty sure that most the time they play a P5 team out of conference they try to go west and not east
I don't care what anyone says, it's better to be rich and powerful than not to be rich and powerful. Tho maybe everyone hates GWB now that republicans aren't the same party they used to be.
George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice Lobbying for SMU, Stanford in Conference Realignment, per Source
George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice Lobbying for SMU, Stanford in Conference Realignment, per Source
