SMU boosters raise $159 million

[Redding Husky]

Proof that some (or many) G5 schools can compete if given a chance.

 

[Bobol]

a bit off topic but ….. in hindsight I believe that the NCAA went too far when it imposed the 2 year “death penalty” against SMU.

There were other less severe steps it could have imposed to penalize the school for its lack of institutional control.

Let me know the next time the hypothetical NCAA takes an adverse position agains UNC, Duke, ND, or any of its other sacred blue bloods.

 

[Drew]

Proof that some (or many) G5 schools can compete if given a chance.

Yes and no…. SMU has a more committed donor base than many schools, decent history/branding to fall back on, great local recruiting footprint, etc… it’s certainly going to help them elevate the caliber of player that they are getting, coaches they can afford, etc but they were making significant investments in the program prior to rising up which signaled they could be successful (similarly to Cincinnati, UCF, BYU, TCU, Utah, etc all did before moving up)

 

[billybud]

Proof that some (or many) G5 schools can compete if given a chance.

In the 2025 recruit class On3 team rankings...the highest ranked G5 is USF at #67...which , if in the ACC, would be last in the ACC rankings.

I do think that USF has some advantages in recruiting...and could catch a tail wind.

SMU is riding the tail of an 11 win season and a first place finish in the AAC. They have created a buzz...

 

[FfldCntyFan]

a bit off topic but ….. in hindsight I believe that the NCAA went too far when it imposed the 2 year “death penalty” against SMU.

There were other less severe steps it could have imposed to penalize the school for its lack of institutional control.

Let me know the next time the hypothetical NCAA takes an adverse position agains UNC, Duke, ND, or any of its other sacred blue bloods.

Yes, it was excessively severe but SMU's actions at that time painted the NCAA into a corner where they needed to either give SMU the punishment both agreed would be applicable if SMU continued or send a message to evereyone that the really won't impose threatened penalties.

Yes, most of the better football schools at that time (and the entiretly of the SWC) had been paying players going back to the depression days. In most cases however, it was done in a blink, blink, nod, nod manner where officials within the schools, athletic departments and leadership of the coaching staffs could claim "I knew nothing about this". SMU had weekly meetings (termed 'board meetings') where school officials (including the president), athletic department officials, members of the coaching staff and boosters discussed the football team's needs, prospective recruits, what they believed would be needed to land these recruits and how to best reach these goals.

Beyond this, they had be caught red handed three times over basically six years and reached an agreement on the third time (to keep the penalty somewhat reasonable) that among other things they would stop paying player, with the next penalty being the death penalty. Within a few weeks of this agreement, someone (likely one of the boosters, working with the school president) resumed payments to a few players that had been promised them a couple years earlier during recruitment. When leadership at the university changed, the payments stopped and the players were told that because of the NCAA ruling, the school could not pay them. One of the players, angry that the payments stopped took the stamped envelopes of the payments he did receive to a local newspaper. If they never paid after the ruling, the player could have complained and SMU sould have responded "Yes, we admitted guilt and agreed there would be no further payment.". As they violated the agreement, the NCAA had little choice but to impose the death penalty.

 

[Alum86]

Losing that FB game (blowing it) when they came back from the death penalty is arguably one of, if not the worst losses, ever. Not BB Denham Brown and the Mason loss bad, or Tate almost tipping that ball against Duke, but bad.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[kibblesnbits]

Fund-raising campaign accounting is often loose at best. How much of that money is in cash today as opposed to pledges over 9 years? How much of that would they have gotten anyway? If I give $2M per year and commit to $18M over 9 years, you can be damn sure they'll announce that as an $18M gift and ignore the fact that it was actually net break-even in terms of the actual impact.

 

[Redding Husky]

Yes, it was excessively severe but SMU's actions at that time painted the NCAA into a corner where they needed to either give SMU the punishment both agreed would be applicable if SMU continued or send a message to evereyone that the really won't impose threatened penalties.

Yes, most of the better football schools at that time (and the entiretly of the SWC) had been paying players going back to the depression days. In most cases however, it was done in a blink, blink, nod, nod manner where officials within the schools, athletic departments and leadership of the coaching staffs could claim "I knew nothing about this". SMU had weekly meetings (termed 'board meetings') where school officials (including the president), athletic department officials, members of the coaching staff and boosters discussed the football team's needs, prospective recruits, what they believed would be needed to land these recruits and how to best reach these goals.

Beyond this, they had be caught red handed three times over basically six years and reached an agreement on the third time (to keep the penalty somewhat reasonable) that among other things they would stop paying player, with the next penalty being the death penalty. Within a few weeks of this agreement, someone (likely one of the boosters, working with the school president) resumed payments to a few players that had been promised them a couple years earlier during recruitment. When leadership at the university changed, the payments stopped and the players were told that because of the NCAA ruling, the school could not pay them. One of the players, angry that the payments stopped took the stamped envelopes of the payments he did receive to a local newspaper. If they never paid after the ruling, the player could have complained and SMU sould have responded "Yes, we admitted guilt and agreed there would be no further payment.". As they violated the agreement, the NCAA had little choice but to impose the death penalty.

What hurt SMU was the Dallas media, which hated SMU. They went after SMU like a pack of wild dogs. Whereas the media in Austin played along with Texas, the media in Houston played along with A&M, the media in OKC played along with Oklahoma.

 

[Redding Husky]

Losing that FB game (blowing it) when they came back from the death penalty is arguably one of, if not the worst losses, ever. Not BB Denham Brown and the Mason loss bad, or Tate almost tipping that ball against Duke, but bad.

I was there.

 

[JohnFSilver]

a bit off topic but ….. in hindsight I believe that the NCAA went too far when it imposed the 2 year “death penalty” against SMU.

There were other less severe steps it could have imposed to penalize the school for its lack of institutional control.

Let me know the next time the hypothetical NCAA takes an adverse position agains UNC, Duke, ND, or any of its other sacred blue bloods.

Smu should be a d3 school with its size and profile. It’s an elite academic institution. Not a football power.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Fund-raising campaign accounting is often loose at best. How much of that money is in cash today as opposed to pledges over 9 years? How much of that would they have gotten anyway? If I give $2M per year and commit to $18M over 9 years, you can be damn sure they'll announce that as an $18M gift and ignore the fact that it was actually net break-even in terms of the actual impact.

I announce it as $18m. That’s only way to do it.

You can always borrow against future donation. lol. That is dangerous, however.

 

[kibblesnbits]

I announce it as $18m. That’s only way to do it.

You can always borrow against future donation. lol. That is dangerous, however.

Sure, but the key point in my example that it doesn't represent $18M in incremental revenue - it was money the school has been receiving and would have received in the future. When SMU announced $159M everyone assumed that was new revenue to cover increased costs until they start receiving an ACC revenue share. That may not be (is probably not) the case for some of it.

 

[Redding Husky]

Smu should be a d3 school with its size and profile. It’s an elite academic institution. Not a football power.

SMU was in the Southwest Conference for 80+ years with Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, etc.

And you could say the same D3 comment about Baylor, TCU, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, Northwestern, and a dozen other Division 1 schools. Given an opportunity, SMU could be the equal of any of those schools.

 

[NowInStorrs]

Why doesn't UConn just get a billionaire alum that doesn't mind spending millions supporting the athletic department?

 

[Kolumbo]

SMU was in the Southwest Conference for 80+ years with Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, etc.

And you could say the same D3 comment about Baylor, TCU, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, Northwestern, and a dozen other Division 1 schools. Given an opportunity, SMU could be the equal of any of those schools.

My impression of SMU was that it was always a football school, more so than the aforementioned privates. Eric freaking Dickerson, the mustangs, Texas... It was relegated by the death penalty and did not play for 2 seasons. Looking back it wasn't as successful as the larger football powers but I always thought football first. SMU should probably market that somehow, that playas gonna get paid.

 

[CL82]

Why doesn't UConn just get a billionaire alum that doesn't mind spending millions supporting the athletic department?

 

[ZooCougar]

Smu should be a d3 school with its size and profile. It’s an elite academic institution. Not a football power.

This is a crazy post.

 

[ZooCougar]

Why doesn't UConn just get a billionaire alum that doesn't mind spending millions supporting the athletic department?

SMU has tons of those. They have the Hunt family times many dozens willing to write checks.

 

[JohnFSilver]

This is a crazy post.

Is it? The entire college football world did fine without SMU for the last 30 years.

Why suddenly do we need them?

They bring nothing to the table except a pile of cash from super wealthy oil barons.

They are new money wake forest.

 

[ZooCougar]

Is it? The entire college football world did fine without SMU for the last 30 years.

Why suddenly do we need them?

They bring nothing to the table except a pile of cash from super wealthy oil barons.

They are new money wake forest.

Why do they need UConn? Or anyone.

This a really myopic and ignorant statement. You’re the stereotypical ignorant Yankee.

Calling them new money is moronic too.

Stop talking John.