PonyFans.com

Yup, it’s the next big thing. Mergers between the Power 5 leaving out the lesser members.

I would expect the big school/brand names to demand unequal revenue sharing as a way of holding conferences together. Instead of kicking the smaller schools or those with traditionally weaker programs to the curb, the big boys can simply offer them a smaller piece of the pie to maintain their relationships. Revenue sharing arrangements can (and maybe should) be negotiated within conferences to establish a more equitable situation for members

Charleston Pony wrote:I would expect the big school/brand names to demand unequal revenue sharing as a way of holding conferences together. Instead of kicking the smaller schools or those with traditionally weaker programs to the curb, the big boys can simply offer them a smaller piece of the pie to maintain their relationships. Revenue sharing arrangements can (and maybe should) be negotiated within conferences to establish a more equitable situation for members

I agree this is the future. And it preserves the academic fig leaves that NW and Vandy provide.

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote: One thing I have wondered, however, is how long it will take for the big programs that drive even the SEC and the Big 10 to decide that they could do better without some of the dead weight in their respective conferences. Schools like Vandy, Northwestern, etc, etc bring nothing to the table but reap all of the rewards of being on one of the big two conferences.

Sigh, here we go again. Let me go grab my notes. In the nine years of CFP rankings, Northwestern has finished the season ranked four times, including twice in the top 15. We are tied for 26th most CFP rankings appearances in the country and 7th in the B1G. Won two B1G West Championships since 2018. Made it to the round of 32 in the NCAA tourney this past year. Just built a $270 million IPF and did a $110 million basketball reno, and are about build a new $800 million football stadium. Not to mention we bring in a ton of research dollars which make sports revenue look like pocket change. For example, the profit Northwestern made on Lyrica alone is 35 times what it gets from the B1G annually. Everyone in the conference wants a part of that.

So, I disagree with the dead weight claim. But this mischaracterization is our cross to bear based on pre-1995 play, much like SMU will never completely live down the death penalty.

PS I am cheering hard for the PAC 12 invite. Power up, pony up!

Charleston Pony wrote:I would expect the big school/brand names to demand unequal revenue sharing as a way of holding conferences together. Instead of kicking the smaller schools or those with traditionally weaker programs to the curb, the big boys can simply offer them a smaller piece of the pie to maintain their relationships. Revenue sharing arrangements can (and maybe should) be negotiated within conferences to establish a more equitable situation for members

What about the giant schools with traditionally horrible programs (looking at you aggies)?

SMU Pom Mom wrote:

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote: One thing I have wondered, however, is how long it will take for the big programs that drive even the SEC and the Big 10 to decide that they could do better without some of the dead weight in their respective conferences. Schools like Vandy, Northwestern, etc, etc bring nothing to the table but reap all of the rewards of being on one of the big two conferences.

Sigh, here we go again. Let me go grab my notes. In the nine years of CFP rankings, Northwestern has finished the season ranked four times, including twice in the top 15. We are tied for 26th most CFP rankings appearances in the country and 7th in the B1G. Won two B1G West Championships since 2018. Made it to the round of 32 in the NCAA tourney this past year. Just built a $270 million IPF and did a $110 million basketball reno, and are about build a new $800 million football stadium. Not to mention we bring in a ton of research dollars which make sports revenue look like pocket change. For example, the profit Northwestern made on Lyrica alone is 35 times what it gets from the B1G annually. Everyone in the conference wants a part of that.

So, I disagree with the dead weight claim. But this mischaracterization is our cross to bear based on pre-1995 play, much like SMU will never completely live down the death penalty.

PS I am cheering hard for the PAC 12 invite. Power up, pony up!

Fair points. Noted.

I recall in the early 70s that Northwestern had the longest losing streak in the country. I believe they set the all time record at the time. And they still sold out most of their games. My parents were in Chicago at the time and would go to some games when they could get tickets. I believe it was Coach Gary Barnett that turned them around and into a team that went from outhouse to penthouse in a fairly short period of time. This is an example of how SMU can finally recover from the depths to which we were pushed and recover to become a leading program again.

Northwestern, Stanford, CA, and Duke are not classic football powers, but bring prestige to their conference and competitiveness across most sports. Northwestern Women's Lacrosse just won the NCAA Championship. Cal Men's Swimming just won the NCAA Championship. Stanford is competitive is virtually every sport, including going to the College World Series with small schools, Wake Forest and ORU. As a MBB power, Duke has been competitive in ACC FB.

SMU will do well in the PAC12 or an ACC, especially in FB.

Given the above, I am delighted I have an SMU degree with its growing academic prominence and success in athletics. The possibility of being in a conference with Stanford, Cal, and Washington will give us pride and a great set of peers.

HubbaHubba wrote:

Charleston Pony wrote:I would expect the big school/brand names to demand unequal revenue sharing as a way of holding conferences together. Instead of kicking the smaller schools or those with traditionally weaker programs to the curb, the big boys can simply offer them a smaller piece of the pie to maintain their relationships. Revenue sharing arrangements can (and maybe should) be negotiated within conferences to establish a more equitable situation for members

What about the giant schools with traditionally horrible programs (looking at you aggies)?

It wouldn't be that difficult to create more equitable revenue sharing agreements that take into consideration what programs are earning "prime time" broadcast slots and post season revenue. I'm not sure, but assume schools get to keep their home gate receipts so the larger schools with larger fan bases already have that built in advantage.

Because of football, I knew the name of SMU despite growing up in DC area. When I saw the campus, I was blown away. P5 gives you name recognition. Sure, I heard of Slippery Rock State Teachers College, but SMU seemed big time and yet a small private school. It would be nice to get back what we lost. Speaking of NIL a UT coach was intimating that baseball players were getting $1-2 Million in NIL money to a recruit. Baseball. You wonder what the Whorns boosters are paying football players.

EastStang wrote:Because of football, I knew the name of SMU despite growing up in DC area. When I saw the campus, I was blown away. P5 gives you name recognition. Sure, I heard of Slippery Rock State Teachers College, but SMU seemed big time and yet a small private school. It would be nice to get back what we lost. Speaking of NIL a UT coach was intimating that baseball players were getting $1-2 Million in NIL money to a recruit. Baseball. You wonder what the Whorns boosters are paying football players.

...Whatever it is, I believe they should ask for a refund...

SMU Pom Mom wrote:

1983 Cotton Bowl wrote: One thing I have wondered, however, is how long it will take for the big programs that drive even the SEC and the Big 10 to decide that they could do better without some of the dead weight in their respective conferences. Schools like Vandy, Northwestern, etc, etc bring nothing to the table but reap all of the rewards of being on one of the big two conferences.

Sigh, here we go again. Let me go grab my notes. In the nine years of CFP rankings, Northwestern has finished the season ranked four times, including twice in the top 15. We are tied for 26th most CFP rankings appearances in the country and 7th in the B1G. Won two B1G West Championships since 2018. Made it to the round of 32 in the NCAA tourney this past year. Just built a $270 million IPF and did a $110 million basketball reno, and are about build a new $800 million football stadium. Not to mention we bring in a ton of research dollars which make sports revenue look like pocket change. For example, the profit Northwestern made on Lyrica alone is 35 times what it gets from the B1G annually. Everyone in the conference wants a part of that.

So, I disagree with the dead weight claim. But this mischaracterization is our cross to bear based on pre-1995 play, much like SMU will never completely live down the death penalty.

PS I am cheering hard for the PAC 12 invite. Power up, pony up!

Love your devotion to SMU via family as that is my connection, too. And I mean this reply as no offense to Northwestern, but yes, Northwestern is not a major television draw and if it were not in the Big 10 it would be in exactly the same position vis-a-vis that conference as SMU is with the Big 12: the conference would already dominate Chicago and have no need to add a mouth to feed there.

Some of what you share (monies spent on athletic facilities) is less an argument for Northwestern's importance to the Big 10 than a reflection of the riches that wash over NU from that affiliation. Other points you make (research dollars) are actually in alignment that Northwestern's prowess on non-athletic fronts is a boon--I'll stick by a saying a fig leaf, though that term is certainly far more relevant to Vandy than to NU--to the Big 10. And even your valid points about divisional championships are not really the point: what matters is eyeballs, and Northwestern does not draw them any better than other privates not named Notre Dame or USC (or, last year, TCU because of their run to getting curb-stomped in the national championship game). You did better than Minnesota, Purdue, and Rutgers, and that's it. Of course Northwestern was terrible last year, and there's a chicken-and-egg problem where games on, say, FS1 are guaranteed to come in much lower than games on ABC, but the numbers are the numbers. But lots of other Big 10 programs with losing records still drew a lot more attention.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zac ... eca4f6acbd

SMUstang wrote:The attached article by Zach Miller makes no mention of the Oklahoma vs Texas Red River Shootout as being one of the most watched games in 2022. Was this an oversight or did that game not register? Oklahoma did have an off year in 2022, but both OU and UT do still have quite a following.

That game is always 11 AM these days and so that’s a negative for truly great ratings, but it looks like the viewership was well under the 4m threshold that author used.

https://stormininnorman.com/2022/10/26/ ... re-record/