Jon Joseph No. 1 Share Posted April 16, 2023 SMU football's win-win future: Pac-12 buzz, 12-team CFP spell opportunity THEATHLETIC.COM Whether or not the Pac-12 comes calling, the program is well-positioned for success in the American Athletic Conference in the near future. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 2 Share Posted April 16, 2023 We don't post articles that require subscriptions because we can't read it. If you could summarize.... Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanducky No. 3 Share Posted April 16, 2023 Basically, SMU seems interested in a Pac invitation but is in wait-and-see mode until the media rights deal is complete. And whether or not it joins the Pac, SMU is well positioned to compete for CFP births due to the playoffs' new expanded format. From the article: Quote Fans would be more excited to see the Mustangs compete against the likes of Oregon, Washington, Utah and Arizona State than their current AAC mates, even if the Pac-12 is an awkward geographic fit. The travel challenges it would bring, particularly to non-football sports, aren’t insignificant. But if conference realignment dominoes don’t fall in SMU’s favor, there’s still a path to elevated football relevance. The 12-team Playoff opens up an opportunity for a conference champion outside the power conferences because the six highest-ranked champions will qualify each year. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomallister1291 No. 4 Share Posted April 16, 2023 On 4/16/2023 at 3:10 PM, Vanducky said: Basically, SMU seems interested in a Pac invitation but is in wait-and-see mode until the media rights deal is complete. And whether or not it joins the Pac, SMU is well positioned to compete for CFP births due to the playoffs' new expanded format. From the article: I still hope that the Ducks get a spot in the Big Ten even if that's unpopular among people here, I would love new matchups against teams like Penn State or Iowa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyToBeADuck No. 5 Share Posted April 16, 2023 Personally the PAC needs fresh blood and a new look. SMU, SDSU and maybe 2 other invites could help stretch the PAC foot print and the adjoining exposure. A Beaver- Tulane or husky-Mustang kickoff at 1 pm Central means PAC football at 11 am on a Saturday.would be refreshing from this fans perspective. Friday PAC after Dark could kick off with SDSU at SMU at 8 central, 9 eastern and 6 pacific. More people awake to watch. Of course this type of thinking may be out of the box for our uppitty, academic genuis presidents. An invite to the BIG would also provide a new look and fresh blood. However, the road to the CFP would be be more difficult. The journey thru tOSU, Michigan, PSU, USC and any fluke season by an upstart BIG 2nd tier team could seriously dampen a CFP invite. The CFP invite and 2 potential games will net 40-60 million dollars. PAC participants should reap the lions share of the revenue. For example; lets say the Ducks invite is 5 thru 12. So they win the first game to get into the final eight. Win game 2 and reach the final four. With that victory OBD's earn a 3rd game Now we are in the $60-90 million range. Make the NATTY and win or lose the Ducks are in the $80 to $120 million range. The CFP invite is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The money could be more. Every game will be watched by most all college football fans. So ask yourself if adding SDSU and SMU, thus keeping the PAC together gives OBD's a better chance at the CFP? Or should we try and go thru the top end of the BIG and usc? ?????????? 2 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Author No. 6 Share Posted April 16, 2023 On 4/16/2023 at 5:10 PM, Vanducky said: Basically, SMU seems interested in a Pac invitation but is in wait-and-see mode until the media rights deal is complete. And whether or not it joins the Pac, SMU is well positioned to compete for CFP births due to the playoffs' new expanded format. From the article: Sorry, Charles, and thank you Thom and Happy. I thought this was outside of the ESPN paywall. My bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Dawg No. 7 Share Posted April 17, 2023 Thinking about competition in the B1G, I think many overlook Wisconsin. I expect the Badgers to be a problem now that Luke Fickell is their coach .Also Matt Rhule (sp?) is a damn good football coach and may be able to get something going at Nebraska. If so, the pathway to the playoffs may be tougher in the B1G than many think. The more I think about SMU being a PAC conference target, the better I like it. Texas is a really fertile football ground for talented high school players who could fancy living on the West Coast for 3-4 years. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Author No. 8 Share Posted April 17, 2023 On 4/17/2023 at 1:31 AM, Nevada Dawg said: Thinking about competition in the B1G, I think many overlook Wisconsin. I expect the Badgers to be a problem now that Luke Fickell is their coach .Also Matt Rhule (sp?) is a damn good football coach and may be able to get something going at Nebraska. If so, the pathway to the playoffs may be tougher in the B1G than many think. The more I think about SMU being a PAC conference target, the better I like it. Texas is a really fertile football ground for talented high school players who could fancy living on the West Coast for 3-4 years. And Fickell grabbing the SMU QB out of the portal should definitely help the Badgers O. I think Florida taking the former Wisconsin QB out of the portal is very questionable. Spot on in regards to Texas. I know it isn't an 'academic fit,' but UTSA and the San Antonio huge media market should, IMO, also be looked at as a candidate for expansion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus No. 9 Share Posted April 17, 2023 (edited) If the B1G is not interested in Oregon, we need to make do with what we have in the PAC. If the B1G is interested in Oregon, we need to join the B1G. If it was as simple as playoff access, Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA would have remained in the Big 12 and PAC 12 respectively. It was assumed the playoffs would eventually expand even before these teams made the move. Keep in mind that playoff rules are only in place for 2023 and 2024. I predict the SEC and B1G will throw their weight around to change the rules come 2025. So we don’t even know if access to the playoffs will be easier in the PAC after the 2024 season. Edited April 17, 2023 by Rufus 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Dawg No. 10 Share Posted April 18, 2023 Jon, I keep forgetting about UTSA being in a rapidly expanding media market--imagine that! With the inclusion of UTSA and SMU, the Pac would have fans in two of the three top metro areas of a football mad state. My academic colleagues would shame me for saying so, But I'm wondering how much "academic fit really means in college sports anymore. It may matter to college presidents, an ex-wife of mine being one. But to the average college sports fan, I suspect it means diddly squat. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Author No. 11 Share Posted April 18, 2023 On 4/17/2023 at 3:50 PM, Rufus said: If the B1G is not interested in Oregon, we need to make do with what we have in the PAC. If the B1G is interested in Oregon, we need to join the B1G. If it was as simple as playoff access, Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA would have remained in the Big 12 and PAC 12 respectively. It was assumed the playoffs would eventually expand even before these teams made the move. Keep in mind that playoff rules are only in place for 2023 and 2024. I predict the SEC and B1G will throw their weight around to change the rules come 2025. So we don’t even know if access to the playoffs will be easier in the PAC after the 2024 season. Great take. To me, it comes down to the $ the B1G would pay versus the money Oregon makes off an unknown media amount. There is no baseline on either side of the fence unless the B1G/FOX has made an unknown offer to Oregon. I do not see B1G/FOX making a bid before knowing the number GK will come up with. (I do not want to be cynical but perhaps one reason GK is slow-walking the media deal is to keep the B1G and the B12 from the Pac-10 door.) Come the 2026 season my guess is that the playoff will go to 16 teams (and CBB at some point will go to 80) with no teams receiving first-round byes and both the 1st and 2nd rounds played on the home field of the higher-ranked teams. (For political reasons at least 1 G5 team will have to be included.) I expect if the field expands to 16 that the SEC especially will receive the majority of the top seeds. Recall that at the end of last season, the B1G only had 3 teams ranked by the Committee in the top 25 and the B1G W champ, Purdue, gave up 60+ points to LSU in the bowl game. But I agree with Charles that unless there is a significant change, such as players being deemed employees I do not see much happening on the P5 expansion front for the next 5 to 6 seasons except for the Pac-12 adding a team or 2 at a lower media share than the rest of the Pac-12 teams. The ACC is contractually locked in until 2036. I don't see FOX coming with more money for B1G media rights or for further B12 expansion. I do not see B1G members agreeing to a lesser share to help the LA schools cut down on travel. I do not see the 4 Corners schools or any other Pac member agreeing to take a smaller cut than the 4 new members to join the B12. And I believe that ESPN's spending spree has been put on hold by its parent. IMO, streaming is the CFB-media future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
