Agreed, SMU has done what they need to do to position themselves to take advantage of the opportunity given to them. Win, draw eyeballs, and when the deck gets reshuffled again for college football they stand a very good chance of getting in because of their location.
The big key is they have to win in the ACC and when they get a chance to beat a brand they do it.
I think what is getting missed by some and it is understandable on a Texas board is that at some point programs are going to get left behind. Tradition, rivalries, conference brotherhood. All that shit doesn't mean anything when the networks offer enough money.
Not taking a swipe at Texas, merely saying Texas supporters might not think about these things because they haven't ever been the school that someone said goodbye to and they won't be the next time.
There are 68 teams in the current forms of the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, SEC, and those assholes at Notre Dame. Does anyone really think that ESPN, Fox, and/or Fox wants to have to play all those schools top dollars for their broadcast rights?
Too many schools are in too small a viewing areas for someone not to be left behind when the deal gets paid and having been through it before it will happen, but people don't expect it to happen to say one of the Mississippi schools in a state of less than 3M, or an Iowa school, or a Kansas school, or whomever the powers that be deem excess baggage unless you have been left behind and you normal the idea of loyalty among conference mates is about as tangible as amateur student athletes.
There is no way OU wants more than two Texas schools in whatever version is coming down the road. Why allow a program that has shown it might have more financial backing than you to now build some credibility?
Makes no sense and for those who say the coaches will always insist they have those easy games in their schedule so keep the Vandy's etc...do you honestly believe what any coach thinks has influenced any of these conference changes?