Hate to say it , but you are right , SMU is really good, I would pick them over Liberty
AAC & Other Scores
- Thread starter Gmoney4WW
- Start date
If you’re picking the “best” team of the two then there’s really no choice imo. SMU is a top 20 team at this point in the season.
SMU could have won by 21 points.
The final score was not close to the play on the field.
SMU is a top 15 team right now.
The final score was not close to the play on the field.
SMU is a top 15 team right now.
The powers that be wanted Bama in and since Texas beat them at their place and had the same record they didn’t have an excuse to leave them out so it “sorry FSU, you’re not the same team without your star QB even if you’re still winning”.
SMU is going to keep Wake Forest , Stanford,, Cal, and GaTech company at the bottom of the ACC
Imagine being SMU and committing to spend one third of a billion dollars to get into the ACC only to be told weeks later that the ACC is actually no different than the AAC. Fools.
Oh, the ACC will be closer to the AAC before long. After this I expect Clemson, FSU, UNC to go full on for an SEC or B1G invite. Probably Miami too...and then the AAC will bring over USF, Memphis, and 2 more, maybe us and Tulane to appease the academics. Or maybe Temple gets the nod to appease the northern faction of the ACC.
I’m the contrarian here regarding SMU’s decision to the ACC as I believe it was absolutely the correct decision. A no lose decision really. If the ACC sticks together for the next 8 years, SMU will make more net revenue than they would have by staying in the AAC. If those four teams leave the ACC then SMU is entitled to share the huge exit fees they must pay. Not sure how staying in the AAC was a better option under either scenario? Add to this they get much better football and basketball home schedules which increase ticket revenue.
So on the ticket thing...that's a fallacy. No one in Dallas attends SMU games. They may get a few more visiting fans but SMU doesn't have a large, invested fan base. They have some really rich deep pocketed folks trying to make them relevant but they're always an afterthought in the Dallas market and I'm convinced, like in Tulsa, people who are bored on a Saturday would rather go to the mall than to a TU or SMU game.
I believe you will see an increase in ticket sales in 2024-2025 over this past season. View it similar to when TU has a big name opponent coming to town. Ticket prices are increased and attendance goes up. We can revisit this time next year. The main focus of my post was on conference generated revenue. Which I don’t see how SMU comes out behind under either scenario.
Well, they paid $18 million in hard coin to forego $70 million from the American and $300 million from the Atlantic to essentially be a travel hub for the coastal schools since Stanford wouldn’t sign the ACC deal without assurances about reduced Olympic travel costs.
They think they will get that back in playoff revenue, but we’ve seen no assurances that will happen in equal shares going forward. They also get a full share of basketball and bball post season but that’s peanuts.
To do that they had to commit to $200 million in stadium upgrades. Which they raised from about 5 donors.
So no regular season revenue for nine years for sure. Maybe and maybe not an equal share of any play off revenue, basketball and enhanced Olympics. The size of Ford Stadium prevents any significant increase ticket in ticket revenue, though luxury tickets will go up. So maybe a paltry $2 million at the very most. $15 to $20 million, at best, over the next nine years. Not a significant amount to influence decision making but an additional bullet point to chatter on about when your decision is challenged in the press.
They are trying to get to R1 status and match TCU. Getting in the ACC will help that. Letting 5 old men who know they will die before they can spend all their money on a football team they played for 60 years ago is just the vehicle to get there.
If this was such a sure thing, they wouldn’t be moving all the short term financial risk to off campus actors.
They think they will get that back in playoff revenue, but we’ve seen no assurances that will happen in equal shares going forward. They also get a full share of basketball and bball post season but that’s peanuts.
To do that they had to commit to $200 million in stadium upgrades. Which they raised from about 5 donors.
So no regular season revenue for nine years for sure. Maybe and maybe not an equal share of any play off revenue, basketball and enhanced Olympics. The size of Ford Stadium prevents any significant increase ticket in ticket revenue, though luxury tickets will go up. So maybe a paltry $2 million at the very most. $15 to $20 million, at best, over the next nine years. Not a significant amount to influence decision making but an additional bullet point to chatter on about when your decision is challenged in the press.
They are trying to get to R1 status and match TCU. Getting in the ACC will help that. Letting 5 old men who know they will die before they can spend all their money on a football team they played for 60 years ago is just the vehicle to get there.
If this was such a sure thing, they wouldn’t be moving all the short term financial risk to off campus actors.
It’s not that people go or not, and they don’t. Even if they went, and it always sold out, the increase in price point consumers will bear times the number of available seats nets an increased yield so low it doesn’t really register in any rational adult thinking when we are talking about hundreds of millions in capital outlays and reduced income. It’s the size of the stadium. TU has the same issues.
Tulane's stadium seems really tiny as well. It's way better than playing in an empty Superdome, but their stadium seems really really small. I know it's listed at 30k capacity but it really doesn't seem that big. Ford is 32k at SMU. We're somewhere between 28-32k depending on who you listen to. What Tulane did though was build the visitor side higher and taller with the better TV camera angles so you don't actually see the view from the press box but the home side that is smaller and looks more full.
I would expect the ACC post season revenue from basketball and football to be similar to that of the Big12 going forward which is estimated at $18M per school. The Big12 has been spot on regarding those estimates thus far fwiw. Which is more than double what they would have received from the AAC. Add an additional $2M a year or so from increased ticket revenue and what would be huge revenue distributions if and when schools leave prior to the expiration of the ACC GORs.
I assume donors are ponying up for stadium upgrades. So those funds aren’t coming directly from the school. Again…just don’t see a negative here for SMU. More revenue. Upgrade in facilities with what I assume is no additional debt. Now if SMU is having to borrow the $200M then my opinion would obviously change.
They aren’t borrowing much but they’ve broken ground on a partially funded endzone luxury seating area. $50 million in cash from donors. They are raising the rest. Other parts of the stadium redo are fully funded from donor sources.
The endzone luxury concept is worth noting because that was built at other ACC schools and were colossal financial failures. Florida State and Clemson being notable examples. Florida State actually tore out part of theirs and put back more bleacher seating because it was more profitable. FSU operates their Champion’s Club at an overall loss with less than 50% occupancy.
FSU recently took on $300 million in additional debt to resolve the net operating loss of the Champion’s Club. Which is what SMU is essentially building.
They will be installing loge seating similar to what TU has. They are reducing the size of their stadium and reducing student ticket sales.
I’ll believe increased ticket revenue will appear at SMU when I see it.
The endzone luxury concept is worth noting because that was built at other ACC schools and were colossal financial failures. Florida State and Clemson being notable examples. Florida State actually tore out part of theirs and put back more bleacher seating because it was more profitable. FSU operates their Champion’s Club at an overall loss with less than 50% occupancy.
FSU recently took on $300 million in additional debt to resolve the net operating loss of the Champion’s Club. Which is what SMU is essentially building.
They will be installing loge seating similar to what TU has. They are reducing the size of their stadium and reducing student ticket sales.
I’ll believe increased ticket revenue will appear at SMU when I see it.
Not sure what the future holds but SMU has seen a 30% increase in basketball ticket sales since the announcement to the ACC was made.