From ACC

[Smumba2009]

Yes, just win. While I agree on paper our team is the best it's been since the death penalty it's all relative. Relative to our competition, which at this point we know little about. Every team, every year is reborn. While I have high hopes for Stone he hasn't done anything. He has to prove himself as QB1. Also, our HC made some horrible game management decisions last year. Will he improve? Lots of questions to be answered before I can feel confident. With that said I'll be glued to every game or in attendance with full commitment to supporting our boys.

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

Yes, just win. While I agree on paper our team is the best it's been since the death penalty it's all relative. Relative to our competition, which at this point we know little about. Every team, every year is reborn. While I have high hopes for Stone he hasn't done anything. He has to prove himself as QB1. Also, our HC made some horrible game management decisions last year. Will he improve? Lots of questions to be answered before I can feel confident. With that said I'll be glued to every game or in attendance with full commitment to supporting our boys.

I feel like I am looking in the mirror!
My thoughts exactly!
And this is why I struggle with predicting 9-3 or 8-4 for this season.
With injuries, road games, lots of new faces, having off-week, ya just never know.

[smubrooks]

Just win baby!!

Everything will fall into place if you just win!!!

[Hop Sing]

https://augustafreepress.com/news/stanf ... aiting-on/

[Graceland Tar Heel]

https://augustafreepress.com/news/stanford-cal-and-smu-still-in-limbo-what-bah-gawd-almighty-is-the-acc-waiting-on/

Let me give y'all an ACC football fan's assessment of what the ACC is waiting on. But it cannot be done in a few words. You have to know the league, including its history.

The ACC is best known for basketball, primarily because its league tournament made more money per tournament entry than the NCAA tournament teams on average did from the first ACC tournament. Many may not know the ACC did not win a basketball National Championship until its 4th year (1957, undefeated UNC), but very very few know the ACC won a football National Championship its first year (1953, Maryland).

What hurt ACC football is how the game changed starting in the 1950s with 2 platoon. That was the time that many former powers began to slide down. Dook,for example, played in 2 Rose Bowls before that game was closed to the BT vs. the Pac champ, and UNC had the first two time runner up for the Heisman, Charlie Choo Choo Justice, one of whose runner ups was to SMU's Doak Walker. Choo Choo played in 3 consecutive New Years Day bowls, which was long before all but a teeny handful of todays biggest football names ever dreamed of doing such a thing. But 2 platoon meant that most private schools and smaller state schools began to lose their ability to recruit at top level and to win consistently at top level. The ACC, like the SWC, had many small schools. And while the large school SEC rose, ACC football slipped backward.

This age is defined by TV deals, and they are paid for the numbers of people who watch the games on TV. It is a given that schools with more students and alums, and which are seen as representing whole states (state flagships and land grants) will have better TV numbers than will small schools, especially private schools. A 7-5 Ohio St team will average a much larger TV audience than will an 11-1 BC or Wake Forest team.

That sums why the ACC is 'vulnerable' to being raided: our dearth of large state flagships and/or land grants plus our large number of private schools. The small SMU undergrad population is almost exactly the size of Dook's, which is larger than Wake's. Miami is not a state school. It also is an elite private school with fewer than 20K total students, undergrad and post-grad.

What all that means is the ACC badly needs to add a couple of very large state flagships or land grants with decent football history because that would raise our TV money. Adding more private schools cannot raise it much if at all. That is the reason the ACC hasn't voted to add even Stanford, which is the richest university that plays 1A football. And that's why Stanford has floated the idea of not taking any ACC TV deal money for at least a few years - to try to pay its way in to retaining Major conference status. And that is why SMU has boosters who want to do something similar to get back into Major conference membership.

I have no idea if either of you can the votes, but the one thing I know is that the fewer Major conferences left standing the worse off all college athletics is going to become.

[Water Pony]

Thank you, Graceland Tar Heel, for the thoughtful post. Your premise makes sense and contributes to the reason why strong, historically healthy brands, such as Stanford, Cal, and SMU, are not obvious invitees to ACC.

Smaller enrollments in private schools do limit potential viewership, despite the quality and upside they might bring. Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Duke would struggle to be included if not for their incumbency in a current P5 (soon to be P4 or less) conference.

The question for you is how the ACC is viewing and protecting its future as a P4 conference? I would think expansion would be a positive for the conference.

FSU and perhaps Clemson are "football factory" state schools, which are threatening the athletic budgets of their conference mates. By demanding a greater share than other ACC school members, they want to be "rewarded" for their media impact and perpetuate preferential treatment vis-a-vis other ACC schools. It might be necessary, but hardly fair.

Part of me says the ACC should not feel blackmailed now or in the future. You and others might benefit by saying no or wishing them well if they can find a home in the SEC. Perhaps UNC wants a B1G10 invite themselves? As for NC State, I can't imagine them being invited to a P2 Conference.

Strange world!

[EastStang]

SMU did make one Final Four in hoops back in the 50's. We lost to Wilt the Stilt and Kansas in the Semi-finals. We have made tournament appearances over the years particularly when Tar Heel Larry Brown was our coach. Tar Heel Matt Doherty was our coach for a while after he was dismissed at UNC. So we have over time been a contributor in hoops. We beat UConn twice when they were in the AAC and won the National Championship.
As far as football, our history is far greater than everyone in the ACC except perhaps Clemson. Two National Championships, a Heisman winner, a Heisman runner up, multiple members in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the current NFL rushing yardage record holder (Eric Dickerson). The world has change with NIL. We proved in the pre-death penalty era that we can assist players better than perhaps any other school, and we are ranked 7th this year in NIL funding. If we have a good team, we will get the casual fan, and SMU is in the #4 media market (unlike Wake Forest, Duke, and Syracuse), we can attract attention. We have also been doing more to solidify ourselves as Dallas' team through our new Triple D Mustang logo. For the last 30 years, we self-imposed a greater penalty than the death penalty. UNC will make more money in the near future. You're not going to attract any large land grant schools to the ACC. Who are the candidates? No one is going to leave the Big Ten or the SEC for the ACC. That gives you Big XII. Kansas? WV (who you have said "no" to multiple times)? Kansas State? Oklahoma State? Texas Tech? Then there's Washington State and Oregon State? The pickings are slim.

[Topper]

Thank you, Graceland Tar Heel, for the thoughtful post. Your premise makes sense and contributes to the reason why strong, historically healthy brands, such as Stanford, Cal, and SMU, are not obvious invitees to ACC.

Smaller enrollments in private schools do limit potential viewership, despite the quality and upside they might bring. Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Duke would struggle to be included if not for their incumbency in a current P5 (soon to be P4 or less) conference.

The question for you is how the ACC is viewing and protecting its future as a P4 conference? I would think expansion would be a positive for the conference.

FSU and perhaps Clemson are "football factory" state schools, which are threatening the athletic budgets of their conference mates. By demanding a greater share than other ACC school members, they want to be "rewarded" for their media impact and perpetuate preferential treatment vis-a-vis other ACC schools. It might be necessary, but hardly fair.

Part of me says the ACC should not feel blackmailed now or in the future. You and others might benefit by saying no or wishing them well if they can find a home in the SEC. Perhaps UNC wants a B1G10 invite themselves? As for NC State, I can't imagine them being invited to a P2 Conference.

Strange world!

I'm guessing that the B1G is regretting adding Rutgers and Maryland and that the networks will regret having overpaid the Big 12 when the ratings come out for the 2024 season. As for the ACC, unless SMU commits to some sort of new PAC alliance in the mean time, we will still be looking for an upgraded conference and available to backfill when and if the SEC and B1G raid North Carolina, Clemson, Florida St. and possibly Virginia. As distasteful as it may seem, the ACC might be smart to poach W. Virgina and the top currently available programs (SMU and Stanford) before it implodes like the PAC.

[fan]

Seeing a ton of Cal/Stanford to ACC on the interwebs with the Presidents vote on Tuesday but unfortunately not much about SMU.

[Peruna Power]

Seeing a ton of Cal/Stanford to ACC on the interwebs with the Presidents vote on Tuesday but unfortunately not much about SMU.

This will be pretty interesting to watch. Tough to see how they will be able to flip a vote unless there is some serious cash under the table. It appears the only way the big boys will be able to break the grant of rights is to dissolve the conference. Adding these 2 to 3 schools, (which would all be no votes on dissolving the conference) would almost assuredly take that option off the table. Right now, they are only a handful of votes away which could be overcome if the hold out schools are guaranteed a spot in one of the other three power conferences.

On the other hand, this exact scenario has already unfolded. USC and UCLA voting no to expand the PAC only to leave the next year. Then the failure to expand, and expand quickly, caused the demise of the conference. This is a little different with a long term TV deal and grants of rights in place, but you have to think that the ACC is desperate to get out in front of the major defections by having a large conference already in place on the front end. And there are 5 to 7 schools that don’t want to end up like the pac 4, and it’s more money by bringing on these schools. Very interesting game of tug-of-war.

Really hope it’s not the addition of Stanford and Cal only. That would likely result in the mountain west absorbing the remaining two schools, and the American stay is exactly how it is. At that point, our only hope is that Clemson and Florida State leave, only to be replaced by SMU and San Diego State.

That’s why it’s so difficult to even know what to root for anymore. If we aren’t included in the deal with Cal and Stanford, I am really hoping the ACC does not expand as a revamped Pac 12 with these slightly obese girls that would be hot if they lost some weight is better than the conference full of ladies that beer goggles can’t even cure.

[Dukie]

Thank you, Graceland Tar Heel, for the thoughtful post. Your premise makes sense and contributes to the reason why strong, historically healthy brands, such as Stanford, Cal, and SMU, are not obvious invitees to ACC.

Smaller enrollments in private schools do limit potential viewership, despite the quality and upside they might bring. Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Duke would struggle to be included if not for their incumbency in a current P5 (soon to be P4 or less) conference.

The question for you is how the ACC is viewing and protecting its future as a P4 conference? I would think expansion would be a positive for the conference.

FSU and perhaps Clemson are "football factory" state schools, which are threatening the athletic budgets of their conference mates. By demanding a greater share than other ACC school members, they want to be "rewarded" for their media impact and perpetuate preferential treatment vis-a-vis other ACC schools. It might be necessary, but hardly fair.

Part of me says the ACC should not feel blackmailed now or in the future. You and others might benefit by saying no or wishing them well if they can find a home in the SEC. Perhaps UNC wants a B1G10 invite themselves? As for NC State, I can't imagine them being invited to a P2 Conference.

Strange world!

The "u"NC post above is a pretty decent ACC history summary, but one thing that is hugely relevant but not mentioned about the ACC's struggles is the drastic underperformance going back years of the school now whining the most about how much they are worth: F$U. If they, Miami, and Va Tech had been anywhere close to their historical performance over the last decade, the ACC would be in far better shape.

Meanwhile, we now have u*NC's most successful coach speaking to the media and saying to Stanford and Cal: Drop Dead.

https://www.wralsportsfan.com/dorrance- ... /21011056/

[PerunaPunch]

I would like to add the Cotton Bowl was originally nicknamed "The House that Doak Built". Which is not entirely true, but the popularity of SMU in the day is what caused a 20-something thousand seat expansion of that facility.

The reason I point this out is that DFW would be the LARGEST media market in the ACC I believe. Dallas fans are notoriously fickle because we have so many entertainment choices (or so we believe). So what I'm trying to get at, is if SMU can string together a few years of quality teams playing opponents people care about watching, we can deliver the eyeballs. Potentially, as many or more than your state schools.

[PerunaPunch]

FSU and perhaps Clemson are "football factory" state schools, which are threatening the athletic budgets of their conference mates. By demanding a greater share than other ACC school members, they want to be "rewarded" for their media impact and perpetuate preferential treatment vis-a-vis other ACC schools. It might be necessary, but hardly fair.

Part of me says the ACC should not feel blackmailed now or in the future. You and others might benefit by saying no or wishing them well if they can find a home in the SEC. Perhaps UNC wants a B1G10 invite themselves? As for NC State, I can't imagine them being invited to a P2 Conference.

To point out the obvious with respect to TV revenue share, if Clemson and FSU didn't have any conference mates to play on Saturdays, then the games wouldn't draw much viewership, would they? State schools ALREADY have the built-in advantage of having more alumni donor dollars to tap into. Maybe it would be fair to have bowl teams get a larger share of bowl dollars. But with TV revenue, both teams are the stars of the show and should get equal splits IMHO (for the absolute zero that it's worth).

[Graceland Tar Heel]

SMU did make one Final Four in hoops back in the 50's. We lost to Wilt the Stilt and Kansas in the Semi-finals. We have made tournament appearances over the years particularly when Tar Heel Larry Brown was our coach. Tar Heel Matt Doherty was our coach for a while after he was dismissed at UNC. So we have over time been a contributor in hoops. We beat UConn twice when they were in the AAC and won the National Championship.
As far as football, our history is far greater than everyone in the ACC except perhaps Clemson. Two National Championships, a Heisman winner, a Heisman runner up, multiple members in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the current NFL rushing yardage record holder (Eric Dickerson). The world has change with NIL. We proved in the pre-death penalty era that we can assist players better than perhaps any other school, and we are ranked 7th this year in NIL funding. If we have a good team, we will get the casual fan, and SMU is in the #4 media market (unlike Wake Forest, Duke, and Syracuse), we can attract attention. We have also been doing more to solidify ourselves as Dallas' team through our new Triple D Mustang logo. For the last 30 years, we self-imposed a greater penalty than the death penalty. UNC will make more money in the near future. You're not going to attract any large land grant schools to the ACC. Who are the candidates? No one is going to leave the Big Ten or the SEC for the ACC. That gives you Big XII. Kansas? WV (who you have said "no" to multiple times)? Kansas State? Oklahoma State? Texas Tech? Then there's Washington State and Oregon State? The pickings are slim.

SMU reached the Final Four in 1956, the year before UNC won it. But the Mustangs lost to San Francisco and Bill Russell, which then won the Championship. It was UNC that beat Kansas and Wilt to win in 1957.

SMU with alums making certain certain there is nice NIL available could build a very competitve basketball priogram as well as football.

[Graceland Tar Heel]

I would like to add the Cotton Bowl was originally nicknamed "The House that Doak Built". Which is not entirely true, but the popularity of SMU in the day is what caused a 20-something thousand seat expansion of that facility.

The reason I point this out is that DFW would be the LARGEST media market in the ACC I believe. Dallas fans are notoriously fickle because we have so many entertainment choices (or so we believe). So what I'm trying to get at, is if SMU can string together a few years of quality teams playing opponents people care about watching, we can deliver the eyeballs. Potentially, as many or more than your state schools.

Oh, I know SWC history, including that nickname for the Cotton Bowl. My mother grew up in AR, and her brother was career Air Force, and he spent his favorite years stationed in TX. He loved SWC sports, and hated the Longhorns even more than he hated the Aggies. So I always followed SWC football. I still tell people that the best option QB I have ever seen is Lance McIlhenny.