Has Anyone EARNED Their Way To Power Status?

The vote to add SMU, Stanford, and California to the ACC is still pending. Depending on who you believe, SMUs addition hangs in the balance. Some schools are playing hardball because they want to leave the conference. Their complaint - they aren't making enough money compared to other conferences. But of course they signed the contract knowing the terms, and locked themselves into the ACC through 2036.

Its Time To Make A Decision!

So what does the ACC leadership do? They go out and find a solution, a provision that states if they add teams, their media partner agrees to pay for the additions. And all three incoming schools agree to take less, and in the case of SMU, agrees not to take ANY media revenue for a time, 5-9 years has been reported. I would rather not get bogged down in the details, as it would likely be somewhat speculative, and others have done a decent job already.

Its sad to pick on sports journalists. There is no quality control, no objective standards or criteria to be one. And just about anyone can become one without any actual training or experience. Take our friend above, who has his panties in a wad over SMU landing in the ACC. He equates it to SMU "buying" their way into the ACC. SMU is not PAYING a cent - its a small detail, but important. We are simply not taking the media payout for a time to help the ACC with a financial challenge. Let's allow that elevator to reach the top floor. Then, he goes for the coup de grâce. Someone mentions Rutgers, a team very obviously admitted for questionable reasons. They took less money, and were admitted, not because of athletics or even academics, it was market size and number of alums. So its OK for a school to be a PROSTITUTE, to be used by a conference for a pittance. And not ok for a school to be generous, offering to not take a payout to help bring some stability to the conference - and yet still invest enough to compete with everyone. Its amazing the way folks think.

I would like to address the angry trolls of the college football world. Who like to throw out terms like "desperate" and "buying their way in" bad "precedent" - among other attempts to impugn SMU, or its efforts to land the school in the best conference possible. One of the more humorous attacks was the one that claimed that SMU has not "earned" the right to be in Power conference. After decades of watching conference musical chairs, I promise you there is no "earning your way" into Power status. It is COMPLETLY ARBITRARY. One expansion will be about academic rating, or membership in AAU. Another will be how big is your metro area. Still another will emphasize attendance or viewership. Its very rare for athletics to be critical to elevation. 

Consider Rutgers again, a perfectly fine university. In the 10 years leading up to joining the Big 10 they averaged a very modest 7.5 wins a year. Since joining, that number dropped to 3.4 wins a year. In their 154 year history, they have never won a national championship, never had a Heisman winner, played in 11 bowl games, and have only 1 conference championship. Does that sound like a resume of Power team? In my favorite measure, wins during the last 5 years, they have 15.

For comparison, SMU has played football for 108 years. Most of that time, 75 years, was in the Power conference of the day, the Southwest Conference (SWC). SMU has 3 national championships, 1 Heisman, 11 conference championships, 18 bowls, 5 in the NFL HOF, 16 consensus AA, has 180 weeks in the AP poll, including 2 as #1, and finally 175 NFL draft picks, including 7 in the 1st round. SMU has won 37 games in the last 5 years and looks to have one of their best teams ever this season.

The point is not to pick on Rutgers. Its to point out the absurdity of "earning" your way into a Power conference. In fact, you could go to every Power conference and find 2-4 teams that are deadbeats, going 27 years and averaging 3.9 conference wins a season for example. Or their last conference championship (of 2) was before the First World War! Are those schools EARNING their conference windfall. OR, like English soccer, should they be relegated down and allow schools that are trying to win have a shot for a time?

It would behoove everyone to take a deep breath and acknowledge that the system makes no sense whatsoever. But as long as it exists, you play the game to win, obeying the rules of course. SMUs leadership decided that the value of being in a Power conference, to win and to fund athletics, is far greater than the media dollars we might have received. And in this case, in order to help the ACC with their internal financial challenges, SMUs donors came ready to Pony Up. Don't hate the players, hate the game. I suspect any G5 school would have done the same if there had been interest, and the available donors. Memphis, for example, has a few very wealthy supporters, I find it hard to believe they would have not offered the same had the ACC shown interest. But this was more of an academic play. With Stanford and California, SMU makes a nice third option, with one of the best academic ratings in the G5 community. It opens a new state (TX) to the ACC and time zone (CST). And it doesn't hurt to be in the 4th largest metro area - and growing.

I truly want this to be over. I'm tired of the drama. SMU has been in the realignment conversation for too long. And there has been plenty of disappointment. I hope the ACC simply makes a decision so we can focus again on football!

Go Mustangs!!