(04-06-2025, 04:26 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: (04-06-2025, 03:44 PM)StanUSwagU Wrote: (04-06-2025, 07:21 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: (04-06-2025, 07:02 AM)Mudhead Wrote: SMU has hired Adia Barnes has head coach of its women’s basketball team. They are very serious about every facet of their athletic program . Money will not be a limiter. ACC may rue the day they let these guys in.
Yeah. these Texas teams seem to have a big desire to excel in the major sports and a lot of the $$$$ to back it up, which is what it takes in this brave new world of college athletics. Expect them to do very well.
*******************
Yep, I echo what the 2 of you are saying, with just 1 addition/slight modification:
If you are the ACC (with SMU) or Big12 (with TexasTech) ...this is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT !
As a Conference, you Want member Universities to Go ALL IN (MoneySpending. NIL, Facilities, etc wise) ...on the HighVisibleSports & To Create Top15 Type Programs in those 'Highly Visible, Highly Watched Sports' !
If SMU starts winning in Football & MensBasketball and becomes a Perennial Top15 Football & MensBasketball Program...that is GREAT for the ACC !
I think what the ACC Conference Office will not like, is members who dont GO ALL IN $$$,$$$,$$$ on these Highly Visible Sports , & who languish in these Highly Visible Sports with perennial Losing or NonMajorPostseason type seasons !!
Funny, I seem to remember the ACC tripping all over itself in its hurry to tout its phenomenal Olympic medal winner programs several months ago… based in very large measure on a school that wasn’t particularly big in the “highly visible” sports…
76lsjumb,
(1) I see your perspective, but I think its important to 'also remember' that no matter what the ACC touts now, that:
• When the Pac12 broke up, we (The Great Stanford, with all our great Olympic Sports & Academics) were literally 'on our knees begging the ACC to let us in, even as a non-paid member'.
•The ACC did not Immediately extend an invitation to Stanford, upon the breakup of the Pac12
• The ACC initially voted to 'Not let Stanford into the ACC' (ie we didn't get enough votes); [If Stanford Football were Top15 and Stanford Mens Basketball were Top15, where the ACC members thought our Admission would bring 'Eyes & Money, Interest, Buzz & Excitement' ' into the Conference, would the ACC members have rejected our initial request for entry ...so flippantly ? .
• Although the ACC might 'tout' certain things, ....as they say, 'watch what people do, not what they tout'; Remember, as great as we think Stanford is, the ACC was so impressed with us that they:
(a) 'Voted against us being let in initially (yes I know there were intraconference political reasons for this), & also
(b) They told us 'the only way we let you in the ACC club is if you agree not to get payouts for a very long time'
• Yes, our Olympic sports are great, and I am proud of our Olympic sports, but I think at the time of the 'Pac12 breakup; if we...
[a] had been Top15 in Football & Top15 in Mens Basketball,
[b] had Spent Top Dollars for 'Recognizable, Charismatic, BigName-Recognition Coaches in Football & Mens Basketball,
[c] and in those '2 visible sports we were bringing TV networks to Stanford Campus to Full arenas and Stadiums to see High 4star phenoms in Football & Mens Basketball competing Nationally in NewYearsDay Bowls in Football and Making Elite8s in Mens Basketball,
....I think the ACC would have been far more eager to 'add Stanford to the ACC' ...& would have extended much more (Financially) than a mere 'word salad of touting our Olympic Sports'.
(2) The main point here is that Conferences like the ACC and Big12 (& their Leadership) will like SMU & TexasTech going 'all out' in Football & Mens Basketball', .. Being Top15 in Football and Mens Basketball brings Eyes & Interest (and therefore Television Network Money) to their respective conferences !
But I see your perspective.