It is so tiring this whole “cool kids” concept around SMU. Look in the mirror. The cool kids UT and OU left before UH was allowed to join the BIG12. SMU raised 200m to make the ACC happen and have been extremely successful. The case is definitely not “closed” and your ignorant and dogmatic certainty around it doesn’t make it true. SMU is winning and we can’t raise a nickel relatively. Why don’t we focus on that, rather than disparaging others who have clearly done better?
6 Likes
Sure Bro.
And you also told us that the PAC was a more stable conference than the Big 12, right?
Come on now.
We know better than to trust your prognostications on such things.
The ACC may survive, but it’ll lose its largest brands.
yes…had the PAC “Used the KILL SHOT” they had in front of them…they could have destroyed the Big 12 is seconds.
All of the 8 leftovers were BEGGING the PAC for an invite.
Why they did NOT is a HEAD SCRATCHER
Because USC was leaving.
1 Like
Simple.
Because they’ve gotten better by BUYING their way in.
No one thinks that someone that gets into a top flight college because either they or their parents bought their way in is cool, regardless of what success they may have later on.
Likewise, no one thinks that SMU is cool for buying themselves a seat at the cool kids’ lunch table, regardless of what success they may have later on.
Anyway, SMU obviously has oil barons that are willing to keep them in the swim. I guess from the perspective of SMU, that’s good.
But from the cool kids’ perspective…that’s bad. I assume you want to look at this as one of the cool kids, and not from Skip and Muffy’s perspective, right?
All right then.
The moral of the story was to NOT let the top brands run the Conference…so the ACC made a Preemptive strike and expanded not caring what FSU/Clemson thought and they are now striving today ad the #3 Power Conference
The PAC is now a G6.
Dumb move by the PAC leftovers!
2 Likes
Then they really deserve MAKING FUN OF for not using it; even more ironically, it was the schools that opposed taking the shot…that ultimately went rogue and killed the PAC, proving it to be far LESS STABLE…than YOU imagined.
See by contrast, I was the smarter one that said, from the beginning, that the Big 12 was comparatively more stable because, unlike the PAC or the ACC, it had NO brands that either the SEC or B1G would want.
And as is always true…I WAS RIGHT!!!
I don’t even understand why you keep conflating academic pursuits vs athletic ones. I should EARN my way into Princeton, but Michigan can certainly BUY athletes. ESPN and the rest of the athletics world feels differently about their relevance, which is on some order of magnitude higher than ours right now.
2 Likes
Likewise, people BUY their way and/or their kids’ way into top colleges all the time.
Guess what?
The cool people DISrespect them for it.
Not sure why you don’t choose to disrespect SMU for doing the same thing on the athletic front here. It’s just as disrespectable in my mind.
This is not a good year to try and defend the B12 when they are down. The media did everything to point out that the B12 was in the College Football Playoffs because the rules said they had to be, not because they were one of the best 12 teams. The fact that Arizona St. surprised everyone to have such a good season caught the experts by surprise, and there was no hype surrounding Arizona St. At least Colorado would have generated some hype for the Conference.
It just shows that you need a prolific offense to make the playoffs and give yourself a chance to compete with the elite teams.
Not really.
Consider this.
Boise barely beat Wyoming. Hell, Boise had to come from behind to beat a 3-9 Nevada team.
ASU TROUNCED Wyoming, by contrast.
SMU lost to BYU at home.
ASU BEAT BYU.
The Big 12 champ was definitely more deserving of a bye than any ACC team.
And I would argue that while Boise State deserved a bid, simply because, as YOU say, the rules said that they had to have one, they should NOT have been given a bye.
Even Clemson was more deserving of a bye. SMU should have been excluded from the playoffs altogether in favor of Bama.
1 Like
There have been plenty of donors to top flight schools whose kids have subsequently attended those same schools. Not saying that money alone is right - save some room for merit-based kids, but it has been a reality for a thousand years. Deal with it.
SMU merely said, look I can prove I belong and I’ll make it easy for you. So what? UH and the others do that same thing with partial payouts.
2 Likes
Except that this is worse than mere legacy admissions. It’s more like giving a school a ton of money specifically to let your son in.
As I said, cool people generally don’t respect people that get in that way, regardless of any future success they may have. On the contrary, they DISPARAGE them.
Same for SMU in football/conference realignment.
I get the trust fund kid stuff. Some are good, some are well … “privileged”.
SMU is on the former side of this. They killed it this year. Straight up and legitimately. Can we say the same in any aspect? Money, performance, program?
1 Like
Not sure they “killed” it.
Did they win a conference title? Nope!
Did they beat a three loss team in a title game? Nope!
Could they beat the third best Big 12 team at home? Nope!
We’ll see if they pull off an upset in the playoffs. Because if they don’t, then it’ll confirm my theory that they didn’t deserve a bid, and at that point…it’ll be a GREAT BIG…NOPE!!!
1 Like
They played for the ACC championship first year and are in the CFP over Bama. I would qualify that as “killing it”. Your bar for them winning a natty stems from your bizarre hate for them. If it were us, that certainly qualifies as “killing it”.
7 Likes
Law, they literally are in the CFP. They did kill it this season.
Had it not been for that great punt return by Clemson who knows what happens in OT.
3 Likes
Special teams are 1/3 of the game. If your special teams suck, so does 1/3 of your team’s total game. Blaming a loss on special teams is like blaming a loss on 1/3 of the game.
A LOST CAUSE!!!
As I said, SMU’s bid was the least deserving of all. I’d have excluded them in favor of Bama.
Same deal.
Bama should be in instead of SMU.
Your standards for “killing it” are too low.
Being better than UH currently is does NOT constitute “killing it.” If it were, then most of college football would be “killing it.”