PonyFans.com

SMU to the Pac-12 makes sense for SMU, but this is a complicated issue for the league

SMU’s interest level in joining the Pac-12 Conference is so high it’s ready to help cover some of the costs. According to people familiar with the discussions between the Pac-12 Conference and SMU, the private school in Dallas is more than prepared to make certain concessions in order to secure a spot in the league.

One concession would be a willingness to agree to a substantial decrease in revenue sharing for the first few years in the league, as well as potentially covering its own expenses. A school that enters a new conference often agrees to take less in revenue sharing; TCU did it in the Big 12. What SMU is contemplating in that area is beyond the norm.

SMU has made it zero secret its desire to join a power league, but its invite to the Pac-12 is not quite imminent. This is not a done deal, because there are high ranking members of current Pac-12 schools that are unsure if the combination of SMU and San Diego State are good adds and add value to the league. An SMU spokesperson said the school has no comment on this topic. This is complicated. WHY

THE PAC-12 IS CONSIDERING SMU The Pac-12, which will soon lose UCLA and USC to the Big 10, is reportedly in discussions to extend invitations to San Diego State and SMU as replacements. When Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff was in Dallas last week to meet with SMU administrators, SMU sent an email to students asking them to be sure to attend the SMU home men’s basketball game that night against Temple; they wanted a good showing for Kliavkoff, who attended the game.

Unlike previous times when SMU’s name has been dangled around the topic of conference re-alignment, this time it feels different. It feels different because the power conference that is considering adding SMU will soon be dramatically different.

The Pac-12 without UCLA and USC, and the constant threat of Oregon and Washington fleeing anywhere east, has changed the “power” of this particular power league. It’s the same feeling the Big 12 will soon have without Texas and Oklahoma. This is not about wins and losses, and success on the field and the court. The dividing line between the Big 10 and SEC and the rest of the college athletics has grown so big that although we still live in a Power 5 world, it increasingly feels like the Power 2, the First Three In, and The Rest Out.

To try to compensate for the losses of two of the Pac-12’s biggest schools, and its entire presence in Southern California, Kliavkoff has to find solutions. The league is considering SDSU and SMU in an effort to add value as it looks to negotiate a new media rights deal with any platform that will fork over hundreds of millions of dollars for live sports content. The Big 12 recently completed its new media rights contract with ESPN and Fox.

According to long time college sports reporter Brett McMurphy of The Action Network, “CBS & Turner are currently no longer involved in Pac-12’s media rights negotiations.” Adding SDSU gives the Pac-12 the best of what’s left in Southern California. Adding SMU gives the Pac-12 a presence in the coveted DFW market, and a shot of having some early kickoffs in the central time zone.

IS THE PAC-12 TOGETHER The question for the remaining Pac-12 schools is will adding an SDSU and SMU be enough to warrant sticking together, and to remain a viable, power league? Publicly, the Pac-12 remains all in on sticking this out. It issued a “united” statement this week, which reads like a vote of confidence, which seldom actually inspires any confidence. Privately, there is a real fear that the Big 10 and Big 12 will successfully recruit away the likes of Washington, Oregon, and others; that the Pac-12 just won’t be the Pac-12 any more.

The Big 12 is openly recruiting, and the Big 10 is just waiting on Notre Dame to decide if it wants to be a member of a conference, or remain independent before it moves on other plans. SMU and San Diego State were once in the same conference; in 1996, the Western Athletic Conference featured 16 teams, including TCU, the Mustangs and Aztecs. SDSU then moved to the Mountain Western Conference in 1999, TCU moved over to Conference USA in 2001 and SMU went to Conference USA in 2005. A Pac-12 with SDSU and SMU is not the WAC of 1996. A Pac-12 with SDSU and SMU is not the MWC of 1999. A Pac-12 without UCLA, USC Washington and Oregon, and the Pac-12 will not be what it once was, or what it aspires to be.

As we have seen too often over the last 10 years, all of this conference re-alignment talk realigns daily, often times with no warning. SMU is doing everything in its might, and its wallet, to score an invite it covets while the Pac-12 is doing what it can to project power.

Read more at: https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/sp ... rylink=cpy

Shocking that this is coming from Ft. Worth.

AfricanMustang wrote:SMU to the Pac-12 makes sense for SMU, but this is a complicated issue for the league

SMU’s interest level in joining the Pac-12 Conference is so high it’s ready to help cover some of the costs. According to people familiar with the discussions between the Pac-12 Conference and SMU, the private school in Dallas is more than prepared to make certain concessions in order to secure a spot in the league.

One concession would be a willingness to agree to a substantial decrease in revenue sharing for the first few years in the league, as well as potentially covering its own expenses. A school that enters a new conference often agrees to take less in revenue sharing; TCU did it in the Big 12. What SMU is contemplating in that area is beyond the norm.

SMU has made it zero secret its desire to join a power league, but its invite to the Pac-12 is not quite imminent. This is not a done deal, because there are high ranking members of current Pac-12 schools that are unsure if the combination of SMU and San Diego State are good adds and add value to the league. An SMU spokesperson said the school has no comment on this topic. This is complicated. WHY

THE PAC-12 IS CONSIDERING SMU The Pac-12, which will soon lose UCLA and USC to the Big 10, is reportedly in discussions to extend invitations to San Diego State and SMU as replacements. When Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff was in Dallas last week to meet with SMU administrators, SMU sent an email to students asking them to be sure to attend the SMU home men’s basketball game that night against Temple; they wanted a good showing for Kliavkoff, who attended the game.

Unlike previous times when SMU’s name has been dangled around the topic of conference re-alignment, this time it feels different. It feels different because the power conference that is considering adding SMU will soon be dramatically different.

The Pac-12 without UCLA and USC, and the constant threat of Oregon and Washington fleeing anywhere east, has changed the “power” of this particular power league. It’s the same feeling the Big 12 will soon have without Texas and Oklahoma. This is not about wins and losses, and success on the field and the court. The dividing line between the Big 10 and SEC and the rest of the college athletics has grown so big that although we still live in a Power 5 world, it increasingly feels like the Power 2, the First Three In, and The Rest Out.

To try to compensate for the losses of two of the Pac-12’s biggest schools, and its entire presence in Southern California, Kliavkoff has to find solutions. The league is considering SDSU and SMU in an effort to add value as it looks to negotiate a new media rights deal with any platform that will fork over hundreds of millions of dollars for live sports content. The Big 12 recently completed its new media rights contract with ESPN and Fox.

According to long time college sports reporter Brett McMurphy of The Action Network, “CBS & Turner are currently no longer involved in Pac-12’s media rights negotiations.” Adding SDSU gives the Pac-12 the best of what’s left in Southern California. Adding SMU gives the Pac-12 a presence in the coveted DFW market, and a shot of having some early kickoffs in the central time zone.

IS THE PAC-12 TOGETHER The question for the remaining Pac-12 schools is will adding an SDSU and SMU be enough to warrant sticking together, and to remain a viable, power league? Publicly, the Pac-12 remains all in on sticking this out. It issued a “united” statement this week, which reads like a vote of confidence, which seldom actually inspires any confidence. Privately, there is a real fear that the Big 10 and Big 12 will successfully recruit away the likes of Washington, Oregon, and others; that the Pac-12 just won’t be the Pac-12 any more.

The Big 12 is openly recruiting, and the Big 10 is just waiting on Notre Dame to decide if it wants to be a member of a conference, or remain independent before it moves on other plans. SMU and San Diego State were once in the same conference; in 1996, the Western Athletic Conference featured 16 teams, including TCU, the Mustangs and Aztecs. SDSU then moved to the Mountain Western Conference in 1999, TCU moved over to Conference USA in 2001 and SMU went to Conference USA in 2005. A Pac-12 with SDSU and SMU is not the WAC of 1996. A Pac-12 with SDSU and SMU is not the MWC of 1999. A Pac-12 without UCLA, USC Washington and Oregon, and the Pac-12 will not be what it once was, or what it aspires to be.

As we have seen too often over the last 10 years, all of this conference re-alignment talk realigns daily, often times with no warning. SMU is doing everything in its might, and its wallet, to score an invite it covets while the Pac-12 is doing what it can to project power.

Read more at: https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/sp ... rylink=cpy

Mac knows less than my mother about how realignment is going.

Just so everyone is clear, Mac Engel does not want SMU in a p5 conference for whatever reason. Below is a link to an interview he did last summer. At about 7:30 in the interview he declares that SMU isn't going to be invited. Lists some lame, cliche reasons.

And I'll add (not entirely related) that reading this opinion piece is like reading a sophomore high schoolers write up in the school newspaper. The flow and readability is terrible compared to actual journalists. That is a bit of a criticism of SMU if indeed he's an adjunct professor.

https://www.audacy.com/podcast/bald-fac ... ngel-a7636

Just more noise from a pro Big 12 reporter from cowtown. This tool has
zero credibility.

Just what are the concessions SMU would have to make to join? Hmm I wonder what it’ll be if it ends up panning out.

orguy wrote:Just more noise from a pro Big 12 reporter from cowtown. This tool has
zero credibility.

He is a troll. No TCU fan takes him seriously.

He used to be on Dallas sports radio as a guest quite often. That doesn't happen any more. I think they basically tired of his snarkiness.

FroggieFever wrote:

orguy wrote:Just more noise from a pro Big 12 reporter from cowtown. This tool has
zero credibility.

He is a troll. No TCU fan takes him seriously.

Don't complain too much about a supportive home town paper. In the 80s we had both Dallas dailies and the Belo broadcast conglomerate against us. Look what happened.

Sounds to me like someone has their fingers crossed that they'll be able to claim academic prestige kept SMU out of the Pac12.... Which, whatever, you do you.

In reality, this is a business deal, and SMU is a better solution to George Kliavkoff's business problem than Rice or Tulane or UC Davis, for instance. If UC Riverside or UC Irvine were still playing football the chess board would look different, but, spoiler, they aren't.

When you grid out the options, you see clear parallels between USC and SMU that suggest giving SMU the chance to level up could pay massive dividends over the next 10-20 years. EG, private school, large growing metro, influential alumni, and history as a top 5 football program. It's a potentially great long-term outcome from a suboptimal situation.

What we know for sure is that Kliavkoff did not take a break from negotiations and travel to SMU because he wanted to watch Rob Lanier's team or the Dallas Open tennis. As much as Pac12 presidents and chancellors wish things were different, unfortunately mutuality in college athletics is dead. What's left is business.

laxdawg97 wrote:Sounds to me like someone has their fingers crossed that they'll be able to claim academic prestige kept SMU out of the Pac12.... Which, whatever, you do you.

In reality, this is a business deal, and SMU is a better solution to George Kliavkoff's business problem than Rice or Tulane or UC Davis, for instance. If UC Riverside or UC Irvine were still playing football the chess board would look different, but, spoiler, they aren't.

When you grid out the options, you see clear parallels between USC and SMU that suggest giving SMU the chance to level up could pay massive dividends over the next 10-20 years. EG, private school, large growing metro, influential alumni, and history as a top 5 football program. It's a potentially great long-term outcome from a suboptimal situation.

What we know for sure is that Kliavkoff did not take a break from negotiations and travel to SMU because he wanted to watch Rob Lanier's team or the Dallas Open tennis. As much as Pac12 presidents and chancellors wish things were different, unfortunately mutuality in college athletics is dead. What's left is business.

Spot on...

Hell. If it’s 30 million per school take 1/2 for the first few years. That’s still 12 million more than now. Hell I’d even jump for even money. Show them it’s not about the money. It’s having a fair shot at the rose bowl every season , it’s setting up to be 1 of the 12.

I know that this is a stupid question. But can someone explain to me why time zones matter so much? A team in the CST zone that wants a late night audience can start their games later. A team in the PST zone that wants more exposure in the East or Central can start at 11:00 am like so many of our games. An 11:00 am game in Dallas is a 9:00 a.m. game on the left coast so I don't think that will happen if we are playing one of those teams. Help me understand why this is crucial.

Topper wrote:I know that this is a stupid question. But can someone explain to me why time zones matter so much? A team in the CST zone that wants a late night audience can start their games later. A team in the PST zone that wants more exposure in the East or Central can start at 11:00 am like so many of our games. An 11:00 am game in Dallas is a 9:00 a.m. game on the left coast so I don't think that will happen if we are playing one of those teams. Help me understand why this is crucial.

You're thinking from the perspective of teams/schools setting kickoff times. No one does that anymore unless no network wants that particular game. Otherwise they kick off when the network tells them to. It's to the benefit of the PAC to be able to have conference games kick off at 11 AM Central when SMU hosts them. The PAC has never had a conference game kick off at 9 AM Pacific.

Topper wrote:I know that this is a stupid question. But can someone explain to me why time zones matter so much? A team in the CST zone that wants a late night audience can start their games later. A team in the PST zone that wants more exposure in the East or Central can start at 11:00 am like so many of our games. An 11:00 am game in Dallas is a 9:00 a.m. game on the left coast so I don't think that will happen if we are playing one of those teams. Help me understand why this is crucial.

It's a fair question.

How many premier, Network standard-bearing TV shows are broadcast at 9 am or 9 pm? Outside of, say, SNL and Superfriends? This is a direct result of left-coast geography, fair or not.

The bottom line is that broadcast times affect viewership and thus the contract.