Realignment Update

[SMUstang]

You are probably right, it just surprised me that TCU vs Texas, Texas vs Oklahoma State, and TCU vs Baylor made the list and Texas vs Oklahoma did not. Oklahoma fans are apparently more fickel than I thought. One thing I noted, if TCU can draw that many viewers, there is still hope for the Ponies.

[SMU Pom Mom]

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

I hear you, Dukie. We will never be a Michigan or a The Ohio State. I will say I am actually surprised we ranked 35th in viewers last year considering how awful we were. I just take issue with the notion that the rest of the B1G would ever consider kicking us out or paying us less than an equal share because we are "dead weight" and "bring nothing to the table." NU is a founding member of the very first athletic conference, respected by our peers, and that will never, ever, ever happen.

[Dukie]

I hear you, Dukie. We will never be a Michigan or a The Ohio State. I will say I am actually surprised we ranked 35th in viewers last year considering how awful we were. I just take issue with the notion that the rest of the B1G would ever consider kicking us out or paying us less than an equal share because we are "dead weight" and "bring nothing to the table." NU is a founding member of the very first athletic conference, respected by our peers, and that will never, ever, ever happen.

Sure--there are, of course, many ways in which unequal revenue-sharing can happen, and altering basic member-school payouts is just one option. Another is bigger payouts/premiums for the schools that do attract more eyeballs, tied to actual ratings or bowl participation or whatever. The ACC just adopted that model, and it will funnel more money to Clemson and less to Boston College.

Generally speaking, though, possibly the biggest thing in your favor, apart from the fact that the Big Ten is financially a top-dog conference rather than one struggling to keep up, is that you have never shared a conference with the University of Texas. Apart from perhaps OU, I don't think there's a single school that has ever done so that hasn't regretted it.

[Water Pony]

Jon Wilner:

"The Hotline has touched on this issue before, but itΓÇÖs worth repeating: SMUΓÇÖs status as a private school with a wealthy donor base in a fertile recruiting ground is comparable to USCΓÇÖs profile.

It doesnΓÇÖt have USCΓÇÖs brand, of course, and probably wonΓÇÖt ever come close. But the Mustangs have the institutional wherewithal to become a highly competitive Power Five program. (Which they were in the 1980s, before the death penalty.)"

"Of the schools remaining in the Pac-12, only Oregon has the resources and institutional commitment to match what SMU could deliver in those crucial areas."

https://tucson.com/sports/pac-12-hotlin ... 7075e.html

[mustangxc]

I'm curious why he excludes Stanford. Stanford could be a behemoth if it so desired. They probably have more resources than everyone else in the new PAC-12 combined.

[Topper]

I'm curious why he excludes Stanford. Stanford could be a behemoth if it so desired. They probably have more resources than everyone else in the new PAC-12 combined.

I understand that it is very difficult to transfer to Stanford from an academic perspective. Stanford has not been too active in NIL compared to many other schools with deep pocket alums. Better NIL might help keep their better recruits out of the portal.

[panhandle_pony]

Good stuff

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-a ... dium=email

[BUS]

Thank you for the posting of the article. SMU was strong in the early 80's and I think we have the backers to be competitive again. PLUS we have DALLAS. Stay home, play in front of family and friends, make contacts, show you are of good character, get a darn fine job or build a business...ALL IN DALLAS.

[Mustangs_Maroons]

You do bring up very valid points. IΓÇÖm surprised there isnΓÇÖt more unequal revenue sharing. There are less than 10-15 schools that probably generate the most interest at a national level. The rest (and there are plenty in both the B10 and the SEC) just benefit by association. We are not in that top 10/15 but if it werenΓÇÖt for the death penalty we wouldnΓÇÖt be stuck in this conference that has progressively become worse. I canΓÇÖt associate with most of the schools in our new conference. Hopefully the PAC 12 is still a real option for SMU. We certainly can compete when on equal footing and sans those top 15 schools, weΓÇÖd be as competitive as any other school and bring to the table as much as most others too.

I hear you, Dukie. We will never be a Michigan or a The Ohio State. I will say I am actually surprised we ranked 35th in viewers last year considering how awful we were. I just take issue with the notion that the rest of the B1G would ever consider kicking us out or paying us less than an equal share because we are "dead weight" and "bring nothing to the table." NU is a founding member of the very first athletic conference, respected by our peers, and that will never, ever, ever happen.

Sure--there are, of course, many ways in which unequal revenue-sharing can happen, and altering basic member-school payouts is just one option. Another is bigger payouts/premiums for the schools that do attract more eyeballs, tied to actual ratings or bowl participation or whatever. The ACC just adopted that model, and it will funnel more money to Clemson and less to Boston College.

Generally speaking, though, possibly the biggest thing in your favor, apart from the fact that the Big Ten is financially a top-dog conference rather than one struggling to keep up, is that you have never shared a conference with the University of Texas. Apart from perhaps OU, I don't think there's a single school that has ever done so that hasn't regretted it.

[panhandle_pony]

I donΓÇÖt know about the rest of you on this board, but to me this has been a brutal process. We need to be in a power 5 conference. Maybe some conclusion by Media Day, July 21st.

https://saturdayoutwest.com/pac-12/pac- ... er-report/

[peruna81]

I believe it will happen...

[mtrout]

No chance.

[Water Pony]

ESPN reports that SDSU will remain in MWC

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... ource-says

[Red Dragon Coog]

Cheer up you guys. Tonight is a night of celebration. Once midnight hits, the Power 5 expands its membership.

[Topper]

Cheer up you guys. Tonight is a night of celebration. Once midnight hits, the Power 5 expands its membership.

P5 may not mean much anymore. It is really the P2 and everyone else.