ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[Willy75]

SMU will be a like an NFL Pro team but without the salary cap. Absolutely HUGE money will be thrown at that football program now.

In five years (maybe less) SMU will be a top 5 ACC football program.

 

[MikeSU02]

There’s a direct flight from Syracuse to Dallas every Thursday. Easy trip to SMU.

Going to guess there may be a few more PJs coming in and out as well.

 

[kcsu]

I think we are going to travel "a bit more" and still have 4 schools leaving as soon as they can. As I have said I get this move but I think it does nothing to secure the future of the ACC. UNC, FSU and Clemson are leaving as soon as they can.

And when do you think that will be 5 years 10 years because they certainly are not leaving soon

 

[MikeSU02]

Spite is a very powerful motivator.

 

[Hoo's That]

Wouldn’t the idea that women can try out for the football team exempt it from Title IX? I have no idea how many women could make. D1 football team, but haven’t we already seen a kicker or punter or two? Maybe a DB? The fact that almost none would make the team doesn’t seem to me that it makes it a male-only sport.

No, it wouldn't. They count "opportunities". If a woman made the football team, at the very least a roster spot would move over from the men's column to the women's, so football would be down to 104 roster spots from 105 for compliance purposes. If she's granted a scholarship, that shifts columns, too, and football is 84 instead of 85. The only "exception" (if you want to call it that) is that the men that some schools use as practice players for the women's basketball team count as athletic opportunities for women when determining title IX compliance.

 

[Hoo's That]

Stanford recruiting will explode in all sports from the east coast. They already get high major players from New Jersey. Joining the ACC will only make their non revenue sports even better. They will crush the Directors Cup even though they practically win it every year now.

Can I tell you about the "parade" of QBs from NoVa who have played for Stanford?

 

[Hoo's That]

Send BC and UVA to San Francisco.

You're breaking my heart.

 

[sutomcat]

Here is what Stanford football has done in recent years.

The last 4 have been bad but they averaged over 10 wins a season for a decade not long ago.

This program has a lot of potential and I suspect they will eventually thrive in the ACC.

That said, we found the ACC football is a gauntlet that beats teams up very consistently. You need a lot of quality depth to win and I suspect Stanford does not have it now and will take a while to get to that point.

2	2022	Pac-12	3	9	0	.250	1	8	0	.111	-3.41	5.43						David Shaw (3-9)
3	2021	Pac-12	3	9	0	.250	2	7	0	.222	-5.79	3.72						David Shaw (3-9)
4	2020	Pac-12	4	2	0	.667	4	2	0	.667	-3.00	-3.00						David Shaw (4-2)
5	2019	Pac-12	4	8	0	.333	3	6	0	.333	-2.38	5.70	25	23				David Shaw (4-8)
6	2018	Pac-12	9	4	0	.692	6	3	0	.667	7.71	2.87	13	7				David Shaw (9-4)	Sun Bowl (W)
7	2017	Pac-12	9	5	0	.643	7	2	0	.778	10.84	4.92	14	14	20	12	13	David Shaw (9-5)	Alamo Bowl (L)
8	2016	Pac-12	10	3	0	.769	6	3	0	.667	12.54	5.23	8	7	12	18	18	David Shaw (10-3)	Sun Bowl (W)
9	2015	Pac-12	12	2	0	.857	8	1	0	.889	18.81	5.17	21	3	3	6	6	David Shaw (12-2)	Rose Bowl (W)
10	2014	Pac-12	8	5	0	.615	5	4	0	.556	12.42	4.65	11	11				David Shaw (8-5)	Foster Farms Bowl (W)
11	2013	Pac-12	11	3	0	.786	7	2	0	.778	18.96	8.74	4	4	11			David Shaw (11-3)	Rose Bowl (L)
12	2012	Pac-12	12	2	0	.857	8	1	0	.889	15.58	6.58	21	7	7			David Shaw (12-2)	Rose Bowl (W)
13	2011	Pac-12	11	2	0	.846	8	1	0	.889	17.78	3.09	7	3	7			David Shaw (11-2)	Fiesta Bowl (L)
14	2010	Pac-10	12	1	0	.923	8	1	0	.889	21.80	5.03		4	4			Jim Harbaugh (12-1)	Orange Bowl (W)
15	2009	Pac-10	8	5	0	.615	6	3	0	.667	10.88	3.42		14				Jim Harbaugh (8-5)

 

[Acesn8s]

I am surprised this looks like it will get passed, how much more will it actually bring each school in the ACC? i read could be as little as 6 million a year and it will heavily be based on performance. I cant imagine the travel costs, I am all for it, just don't know why the 4 "No" schools would flip.

 

[Cuse181]

In five years (maybe less) SMU will be a top 5 ACC football program.

They weren't even a top 5 AAC team... I feel like of people here completely ignored the fact that SMU was only good for 4 years 40 years ago (and not very good before that) and since then have notched 1 season with more than 8 wins and 7 with 10+ losses, 4 of which occurred in the last 20 years.

 

[Chip]

To bring this thread full circle... apparently the "alliance" between the ACC, Pac 12 and B1G is that the B1G and ACC will acquire six Pac 12 teams.

Good work, everyone.

Appropriate, since today is the 2 year anniversary of the alliance.

 

[sutomcat]

They weren't even a top 5 AAC team... I feel like of people here completely ignored the fact that SMU was only good for 4 years 40 years ago (and not very good before that) and since then have notched 1 season with more than 8 wins and 7 with 10+ losses, 4 of which occurred in the last 20 years.

They aren't so bad. They have had 4 straight winning seasons and have been ranked 3 of the past 4 years.

That said, it appears the biggest reason they were picked is because they are the only school out there desperate enough to join a P4 conference that they will play for nothing.

Still wondering if another school sees what SMU does and steps up to try and get the same deal. The ACC could really use one more to get to an even number for football.

SMU Mustangs College Football History, Stats, Records | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the SMU Mustangs College Football History, Stats, Records, Polls, Bowls and More College Football Stats at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

 

[Scooch]

Appropriate, since today is the 2 year anniversary of the alliance.

This turned out to be one of the worst alliances ever.

Germany and the Soviet Union laugh heartily at this alliance.

 

[Cuse181]

They aren't so bad. They have had 4 straight winning seasons and have been ranked 3 of the past 4 years.

That said, it appears the biggest reason they were picked is because they are the only school out there desperate enough to join a P4 conference that they will play for nothing.

Still wondering if another school sees what SMU does and steps up to try and get the same deal. The ACC could really use one more to get to an even number for football.

SMU Mustangs College Football History, Stats, Records | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the SMU Mustangs College Football History, Stats, Records, Polls, Bowls and More College Football Stats at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

I don't think they're bad at all, I just don't get why some seem to believe they would suddenly rocket up to the top 1/3d of the ACC when they couldn't even consistently do that in the AAC. They had 4 good years before many of us could talk and it seems like a few people on the board think they're a sleeping giant.

 

[Scooch]

They weren't even a top 5 AAC team... I feel like of people here completely ignored the fact that SMU was only good for 4 years 40 years ago (and not very good before that) and since then have notched 1 season with more than 8 wins and 7 with 10+ losses, 4 of which occurred in the last 20 years.

Yeah, they really haven't been good. And that's while playing in soft conferences that lend themselves to a strong program dominating for stretches of time (e.g. Boise State).

People thinking that donor money will make them an ACC power are delusional. Money does not necessarily translate into success. We've seen that over and over. They need a great (not good, great) head coach who can go toe-to-toe with all the other Texas schools for recruiting (both HS and portal) and retention.

But whatever, the on-field success hardly matters. Literally all they'd be in the ACC for is to generate more money for the existing 14 schools. Everything else is gravy.

 

[Orangefan1]

Appropriate, since today is the 2 year anniversary of the alliance.

I don’t know what changes with this

 

[dasher]

I don’t know what changes with this

That was two years ago.

 

[WoadBlue]

In five years (maybe less) SMU will be a top 5 ACC football program.

There is a huge amount of talent in TX. And SMU has a very wealthy bunch of alums who love football. They will donate very big bucks to have the best NIL set up, and they will get a whole bunch of top players to The Hill.

 

[WoadBlue]

Yeah, they really haven't been good. And that's while playing in soft conferences that lend themselves to a strong program dominating for stretches of time (e.g. Boise State).

People thinking that donor money will make them an ACC power are delusional. Money does not necessarily translate into success. We've seen that over and over. They need a great (not good, great) head coach who can go toe-to-toe with all the other Texas schools for recruiting (both HS and portal) and retention.

But whatever, the on-field success hardly matters. Literally all they'd be in the ACC for is to generate more money for the existing 14 schools. Everything else is gravy.

SMU boosters have not been active consistently since the 1980s. They are not going to waste money on team not in a Major conference. SMU in a Major conference will spur them. Most will know that this is SMU's last chance to get back into Big Time and stay there.

 

[WoadBlue]

This turned out to be one of the worst alliances ever.

Germany and the Soviet Union laugh heartily at this alliance.

The problem was that everybody should have known that trusting the BT is like trusting your friendly local Mafia boss.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[DocFlanders]

The problem was that everybody should have known that trusting the BT is like trusting your friendly local Mafia boss.

Your future conference

 

[Cuse181]

SMU boosters have not been active consistently since the 1980s. They are not going to waste money on team not in a Major conference. SMU in a Major conference will spur them. Most will know that this is SMU's last chance to get back into Big Time and stay there.

but if they HAD been boosting since the 80s they would've been in a major conference by now. You cannot tell me they were waiting for this moment (which was likely delayed if there actually was an unwillingness to invest) to see them magically start pouring tens of millions into the program. They never thought that maybe if they started 15 years ago they might've made it into the Big 12 ala TCU? I just don't buy that at all. At worst they should've invested once TCU made the jump, yet here we are.

No idea why I am so irrationally annoyed by this but it is just annoying how quickly people will jump on a bandwagon just because the ACC is making a last ditch effort to stay relevant.

 

[Scooch]

SMU boosters have not been active consistently since the 1980s. They are not going to waste money on team not in a Major conference. SMU in a Major conference will spur them. Most will know that this is SMU's last chance to get back into Big Time and stay there.

That's all well and good. But if SMU doesn't have a great coach (and staff) then all that booster money will be pissed away. There are a LOT of schools with deep-pocketed boosters. Only some of them win consistently.

 

[djorange1989]

I am surprised this looks like it will get passed, how much more will it actually bring each school in the ACC? i read could be as little as 6 million a year and it will heavily be based on performance. I cant imagine the travel costs, I am all for it, just don't know why the 4 "No" schools would flip.

There won’t be a ton of travel costs for the current ACC teams, obviously there will be an increase, it’s really Stanford, Cal and SMU who will get crushed the most. The money for most teams won’t make much of a dent, the move is designed for FSU, Clemson etc to be able to take their presumed football success, grab a big chunk of this new money, and be happy in the ACC. Plus it is a move to try and still be in front of the Big 12 down the line. How this actually plays out? We shall see