SMU boosters raise $159 million | Page 4 | The Boneyard

SMU boosters raise $159 million

UConnTrumbull said:
Totally agree. But to call that “purity” is funny. What Boise State is doing is closer to purity.
Expand ...
Purity iscariot relative term. The generation before me (I'm 64) viewed purity as a woman waiting until the wedding night. When I was younger, it was if the relationship was serious and had a decent amount of time invested. Today it comes down to which direction she swiped.

120 years ago, when what are now Ivies dominated college football, they offered a shot at an affluent future to land better players. Most programs that reached the highest level of success after WWII did something that wasn't necessarily above board to get there. Would you call Oregon pure? Alabama?

This time around SMU actually played within the rules. It's likely as close to pure as we'll see these days.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
This time around SMU actually played within the rules. It's likely as close to pure as we'll see these days.
Expand ...
Another way of putting it might be that there have never been any rules. You can't have rules when nobody owns anything, because it means nobody is in charge. Ensuring the biggest money-makers the ability to make money is really the only governing principle the sport's ever had. SMU's never fallen into that camp, which, depending on your perspective, is either the reason it had to cheat or the reason it got caught.

I'm skeptical of SMU's staying power, even now, for exactly that reason. It's not in the best interests of the networks for the richest donors to have this much power because it threatens the carefully crafted branding alliance of the P2. I expect this perceived "dirty money" - in other words, money that does not flow directly from the school's natural revenue stream - to be outlawed as part of the coming P2 CBA, thereby allowing it to retain its autonomy to nuke an outsider like SMU or Memphis whenever it wants.

The only way to overcome this type of collusion is to outright buy off the sport. And I don't think they have that type of money.
 
champs99and04 said:
Another way of putting it might be that there have never been any rules. You can't have rules when nobody owns anything, because it means nobody is in charge. Ensuring the biggest money-makers the ability to make money is really the only governing principle the sport's ever had. SMU's never fallen into that camp, which, depending on your perspective, is either the reason it had to cheat or the reason it got caught.

I'm skeptical of SMU's staying power, even now, for exactly that reason. It's not in the best interests of the networks for the richest donors to have this much power because it threatens the carefully crafted branding alliance of the P2. I expect this perceived "dirty money" - in other words, money that does not flow directly from the school's natural revenue stream - to be outlawed as part of the coming P2 CBA, thereby allowing it to retain its autonomy to nuke an outsider like SMU or Memphis whenever it wants.

The only way to overcome this type of collusion is to outright buy off the sport. And I don't think they have that type of money.
Expand ...
SMU is a funny case. Yes, the donors put up the $, but they are not going to get any media revenues from the ACC which I think will become a problem as revenue sharing comes into play. And, look at this year's 2 deep. On offense, 10/11 starters were transfers as well as 6 of the second string. On defense, 11/11 starters were transfers as well as 5 second stringers. And the punter was a transfer. I just don't think that is a LT recipe for success even in the portal era.
 
.-.
UConnJim said:
SMU is a funny case. Yes, the donors put up the $, but they are not going to get any media revenues from the ACC which I think will become a problem as revenue sharing comes into play. And, look at this year's 2 deep. On offense, 10/11 starters were transfers as well as 6 of the second string. On defense, 11/11 starters were transfers as well as 5 second stringers. And the punter was a transfer. I just don't think that is a LT recipe for success even in the portal era.
Expand ...

I think if you are SMU or one of the many programs like SMU I think that is exactly the recipe for success.
 
Why don't people understand that the secret to success in the current era is a boatload of money and a reasonably competent administration? SMU has both.
 
uconndogs said:
I think if you are SMU or one of the many programs like SMU I think that is exactly the recipe for success.
Expand ...
FSU tried it, but not to the scale of SMU and it blew up this year. You can fill in roster spots each year, but you can't flip almost the entire roster each year and be successful.
 
UConnJim said:
FSU tried it, but not to the scale of SMU and it blew up this year. You can fill in roster spots each year, but you can't flip almost the entire roster each year and be successful.
Expand ...

The best talent almost always wins.......
 
Was thinking about this and the disaster that is the CFP.

Only in college football do we:

1. Admire buying your way in

2. Hate the underdog who earns a spot

3. Put more interest into ratings, money, than performance.

Look at Tennessee fans for the playoff. It was an embarrassment of we are big time, we took over your stadium, we are SEC, “it means more.”They got put in a body bag in 10 minute.

The arrogance and bravado of the sport is staggering.
 
.-.
JohnFSilver said:
Was thinking about this and the disaster that is the CFP.

Only in college football do we:

1. Admire buying your way in

2. Hate the underdog who earns a spot

3. Put more interest into ratings, money, than performance.

Look at Tennessee fans for the playoff. It was an embarrassment of we are big time, we took over your stadium, we are SEC, “it means more.”They got put in a body bag in 10 minute.

The arrogance and bravado of the sport is staggering.
Expand ...
It was glorious! The SEC got checked big time. The bigger problem is the lap dogs that work at places like ESPN. After the 1st game they were tripping over themselves saying Indiana doesn't belong. Tennessee got beaten worse and they didn't say the same thing about them. I wonder why? Couldn't be that the SEC is the apple of their eye could it?
 
noeynox said:
It was glorious! The SEC got checked big time. The bigger problem is the lap dogs that work at places like ESPN. After the 1st game they were tripping over themselves saying Indiana doesn't belong. Tennessee got beaten worse and they didn't say the same thing about them. I wonder why? Couldn't be that the SEC is the apple of their eye could it?
Expand ...
They won't say anything that runs contrary to the narrative that they've created surrounding the SEC for the last 10-15 years. While admittedly the best team has come from The SEC Conference more often than not over this time frame, it doesn't mean that the overall conference is always the strongest or most deserving on a year-to-year basis. That's where SEC Circular Logic comes into play. Every win over an SEC Opponent is looked at as a great win because it is over another SEC Team, on the flip side most losses to SEC Opponents can be forgiven, because you guessed it, they were from another SEC Team. It is a self-licking ice cream cone. Hopefully the final 4 is ASU/UO and PSU/ND. That will help to push back on their nauseating S-E-C, S-E-C, S-E-C rhetoric.
 
ZooCougar said:
People here are so amusing.

Do you guys have any idea who and what types of people go to SMU. Their alums are supremely wealthy.
Expand ...
I've been hanging out all wknd with our oldest family friends. One of them went to SMU, and has lived in Dallas for the past 25+ years since he graduated. Everyone has money down there.
 
DFW HOYA said:
SMU has the perception of being a rich school but the endowment does not reflect this. Endowments of some of SMU's aspirational. actual, and ACC peers, 2024 (in billions)

Stanford: $36.49
Notre Dame: $16.61
Duke : $13.23
Virginia: $9.80
Vanderbilt: $9.68
USC: $7.46
Rice: $7.24
Pitt: $5.48
UNC: $5.20
BC: $3.50
Georgia Tech: $2.94
TCU: $2.57
Tulane: $2.10
SMU: $2.04
Baylor: $1.96
Wake Forest: $1.90
Syracuse $1.89
Miami: $1.36
Expand ...
It is a rich school, their alumns are loaded.
 
DFW HOYA said:
SMU has the perception of being a rich school but the endowment does not reflect this. Endowments of some of SMU's aspirational. actual, and ACC peers, 2024 (in billions)

Stanford: $36.49
Notre Dame: $16.61
Duke : $13.23
Virginia: $9.80
Vanderbilt: $9.68
USC: $7.46
Rice: $7.24
Pitt: $5.48
UNC: $5.20
BC: $3.50
Georgia Tech: $2.94
TCU: $2.57
Tulane: $2.10
SMU: $2.04
Baylor: $1.96
Wake Forest: $1.90
Syracuse $1.89
Miami: $1.36
Expand ...
Rich alums who don't care about education. What is surprising?
 
.-.
Not hard to follow. Football is very big in Texas. High School games get big crowds. Star football players are treated like gods in Texas. Johnny Manziel could not go anywhere without getting mobbed when he was at Texas AM. Boosters will pay a ton of money to be successful in football.
 
Ldandy said:
They won't say anything that runs contrary to the narrative that they've created surrounding the SEC for the last 10-15 years. While admittedly the best team has come from The SEC Conference more often than not over this time frame, it doesn't mean that the overall conference is always the strongest or most deserving on a year-to-year basis. That's where SEC Circular Logic comes into play. Every win over an SEC Opponent is looked at as a great win because it is over another SEC Team, on the flip side most losses to SEC Opponents can be forgiven, because you guessed it, they were from another SEC Team. It is a self-licking ice cream cone. Hopefully the final 4 is ASU/UO and PSU/ND. That will help to push back on their nauseating S-E-C, S-E-C, S-E-C rhetoric.
Expand ...

But then what would Paul Finebaum have to talk about? NIL could really upset the SEC/ESPN self licking ice cream cone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,361
Messages
4,567,752
Members
10,469
Latest member
xxBlueChips


Top Bottom