SMU and Houston to Big East

I'm not a believer that SMU alumns as a group share your perspective on things. I've seen too many notes and heard too many things to the contrary to really accept this as being the pulse of SMU alumns. If you read ponyfans.com for more than 5 minutes, you know where we stand in the eyes of the SMU faithful.

This wreaks of, "we got what we finally wanted, and now lets play nice with the less fortunate since we now have widened the gap." I'm sorry if I don't take your words at face value.

We both post on ponyfans, and no, we're not all like that.

Look kudos to SMU for firing up their PR machine and getting a seat in the Big East. SMU does not control UNT's future. UNT controls UNT's future. It is time to fire up our PR machine and get into either the MWC, CUSA or conglomerate. I am confident our leaders who built the palace and have been improving all programs over the past few years are all over this. We lie in the center of the country, offer a lot of eyes, offer a great destination, have a solid commitment to athletics and good name recognition in this new national scene. If we somehow stay the Belt for awhile, continue winning, grow and send the PR video to the ACC or Pac 12 or anywhere there is not a rich lucrative DFW presence. That is why UNLV's AD has been so active because like he said you must FIRE UP YOUR OWN PR MACHINE and set yourself up for success. Looking at that new CUSA/MWC lineup after all the defections helps me realize that the new Sun Belt is every bit as competitive as that Hawaii to West Virginia league.

It is like sitting on mountains of gold and UNT's is ground zero. Somebody and I mean somebody good is going to listen to what we have to say and offer.

GMG

Memphis is going to fly to DFW and catch a connecting flight to Laramie !!! It not going to happen ! Forget DFW and Florida because we have the Birmingham market !

The goal n these conferences has to be fill up stadiums ! That is done by regional competition. UTEP is pushing for UNT and La Tech ! Both conf need to form an east division and west division. West... Tulsa , Unt, Rice, Utep, La Tech , Memphis. Then have a CUSA champion and a MWC champion. They play at Jerrys Place for a championship.

The Mtn is not carried in DFW and even when TCU was a part of the MWC they had severe problems in actually finding providers that would carry it.

The problem with the MWC TV deal is that without AF and Boise, they are short of major media markets and have now lost their major media appeal. The most valuable markets they now control are Hawaii, Neveda, and maybe Denver. The MWC needs markets if they want to keep the media partners happy.

They've got San Diego too, which is bigger than all of those. But you're right, our biggest draw has to be the fact that we're the #4 media market nowadays, that's gotta be impossible to overlook.

I'm not a believer that SMU alumns as a group share your perspective on things. I've seen too many notes and heard too many things to the contrary to really accept this as being the pulse of SMU alumns. If you read ponyfans.com for more than 5 minutes, you know where we stand in the eyes of the SMU faithful.

This wreaks of, "we got what we finally wanted, and now lets play nice with the less fortunate since we now have widened the gap." I'm sorry if I don't take your words at face value.

I can't blame you for feeling that way. There have been, are, and likely always will be those that don't see the value in local competition. SMU is no exception. If possible, please don't judge me or Comet by some predetermined standard.

+1

Those guys no more care about what happens to North Texas now because they got their wish. If they stayed in CUSA, then they would care a lot more--they never wanted to share anything with us as far as conference affiliation. They never will, either. They have cash, tradition, location, and media to help them. We literally have none of those and never have. I still think that there is a good chance that the series we have planned with SMU doesn't get played completely as it is scheduled, if at all. They will play us if it helps them (i.e., we're bad still), or just buy us out if it doesn't help them. If you look at the times they have played us over the last 25 years, you will see it has been when they needed us on their schedule (immediately after the death penalty and in the last two failed years of Phil Bennett's tenure). Where were they from 1994-2004, when we needed them on our schedule? Nowhere to be found. TCU played us then, Baylor played us then, but not SMU.

Fair enough. I suggest UNT break off the series with SMU and never play them again.

Fair enough. I suggest UNT break off the series with SMU and never play them again.

Wanna go shoot some hoops?

Why would they do that and leave the DFW market out of their TV deal...They would also lose Florida.

Pretty sure that CUSA is not going to start ignoring markets like DFW and Florida. I'm hoping and expecting that UNT is going to be invited and either FIU or FAU, whichever is in the best shape with support and facilities. If Temple does not go to the BE then CUSA will likely try for them too.

I have no inside sources but the DFW area is a coveted one for any conference as is Florida.

Fair enough. I suggest UNT break off the series with SMU and never play them again.

That's about the response I would expect out of someone who cannot refute one part of the argument being presented.

That's about the response I would expect out of someone who cannot refute one part of the argument being presented.

For once we need to let go of what SMU is doing. If we were in a drivers seat compared to SMU I wouldn't expect us to act any different than what SMU is acting now(which I see absolutely nothing wrong with). We are where we are because it has been decades of our own doing. We don't need SMU and SMU doesn't need us. Let both schools focus on OUR tasks at hand and the world will be a better place.

For once we need to let go of what SMU is doing. If we were in a drivers seat compared to SMU I wouldn't expect us to act any different than what SMU is acting now(which I see absolutely nothing wrong with). We are where we are because it has been decades of our own doing. We don't need SMU and SMU doesn't need us. Let both schools focus on OUR tasks at hand and the world will be a better place.

You're a great poster! I wasn't looking for an argument. I was about to type something very similar, but I see you beat me to it!!!

Unfortunately, this is spot on with what I'm hearing. I know many at SMU hope UNT gets the opportunity, but the "word" is that no schools will be added. The MWC/CUSA monster will condense into the remaining schools. Hope this is wrong, but everything I'm hearing says otherwise. Best of luck guys!

First, thanks for your opinion but unless you are on the board at one of these conferences your so called "word" means d*&^%.

I'm thinking this merger actually helps our chances of getting the invite.

Think about it, seperate both conferences are weak having lost their powerhouse programs so sos is at a minimum leaving no chance to compete for AQ status. Logic says both cons top priority would be adding strong competitive/well known programs to replace the ones they lost and break even. Considering there options that's a possibility but not probable, leaving both cons vulnerable in the near future.

So, they merge. In doing so they combine their best programs, maximizing their value and competitive edge. Since they retain their value for the most part in the merger, they can now afford to add programs that are less competitive but have the potential to generate significant revenue and add value to the other programs in the conference, further increasing overall confrence value. Now, UNT is a gold mine, we allow them to recoop the DFW market(revenue), and provide the other schools with a direct path to DFW recruiting (increasing talent strength of every program in the conference). Smu used to provide these things, now SMU is a competitor with AQ status. Not to mention the Sunbelt was doing a pretty good job recruiting DFW when CON/MWC had their primary programs.

Business wise UNT is a win/win for the merged conference, speaking in terms of overall conference value. They really have nothing to lose by adding us and everything to gain.

I'm hoping the merger stays.

i decided this wasn't worthy enough for it's own thread... but still worth posting for the laugh

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2011/11/smu_alum_has_idea_for_boosting.php

We both post on ponyfans, and no, we're not all like that.

You two seem like good guys, but you have to understand that there are a lot of d bags who are associated with SMU that think thier shit doesn't stink, just because they have money. When we played you guys here, "Cash beats trash" was written on a car. Last season when I stopped by the Tom Thumb on Lovers to pick up some tailgating items before a game, one of your "finer" fans made some smart ass comment that nearly got him a freezer door implanted on his face.

You two don't seem to be like the two examples above, and I applaud that. But please understand we've seen far too many on our boards that are the opposite of you.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Rudy

Whatever SMU may ever have done is nothing that couldn't have been easily overcome by sufficient commitment on the part of our school administration and influential friends and alumni to see NT competitive in football at the highest level. At our core there is still clearly commitment lacking. And in their defense, we have to recognize that there are other issues to address also. I am looking at the 2010 edition of the US News college rankings. Both SMU and NT are ranked in the 'National Universities' category. SMU was 68 and UNT was in the 'fourth tier', which means somewhere between 200 and 260. Further, this type of deficiency plays a part in conference affiliations.

The good news is that several CUSA members are also in this lowly domain (including UH), and some are not even 'National Universities'. I don't think there is any better school that CUSA would have any interest in getting. Have you tried to get to Ruston?

Yes, believe it or not, Louisiana Yech is in the 'third tier'. There is not a lot of pride in being in the fourth tier. We are right there with Oakland University (located on Squirrel Road in Rochester, Michigan), which I could have sworn was a 'for profit'. I shouldn't make fun of them. If we don't get out of the belt and 'the other OU' decides to field a football team, it may only be a matter of time before the Golden Grizzlies are feasting on us.

Whatever SMU may ever have done is nothing that couldn't have been easily overcome by sufficient commitment on the part of our school administration and influential friends and alumni to see NT competitive in football at the highest level. At our core there is still clearly commitment lacking. And in their defense, we have to recognize that there are other issues to address also. I am looking at the 2010 edition of the US News college rankings. Both SMU and NT are ranked in the 'National Universities' category. SMU was 68 and UNT was in the 'fourth tier', which means somewhere between 200 and 260. Further, this type of deficiency plays a part in conference affiliations.

The good news is that several CUSA members are also in this lowly domain (including UH), and some are not even 'National Universities'. I don't think there is any better school that CUSA would have any interest in getting. Have you tried to get to Ruston?

Yes, believe it or not, Louisiana Yech is in the 'third tier'. There is not a lot of pride in being in the fourth tier. We are right there with Oakland University (located on Squirrel Road in Rochester, Michigan), which I could have sworn was a 'for profit'. I shouldn't make fun of them. If we don't get out of the belt and 'the other OU' decides to field a football team, it may only be a matter of time before the Golden Grizzlies are feasting on us.

That is incorrect. UNT is currentlty ranked tier 2 by US News. UNT is actually close enough to obtaining tier 1 status that it could become a reality within the next few years or sooner. Not to mention there are several rankings and US News is one of the least regarded.

I would'nt worry about the Golden Grizzlies.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/unt-3594

Edited November 5, 2011 by DJstars21

That is incorrect. UNT is currentlty ranked tier 2 by US News. UNT is actually close enough to obtaining tier 1 status that it could become a reality within the next few years or sooner. Not to mention there are several rankings and US News is one of the least regarded.

I would would'nt worry about the Golden Grizzlies.

http://colleges.usne...lleges/unt-3594

For North Texas to be elgible for the same Tier 1 that UH received recently to get to their full reseach university T-1 status here in the state of Texas a school has to have a least $400 million endowment among other criteria which includes academics, size of library, ect. . North Texas has no problem with the academic and library part but we are shy about $300 million to reach the $400 million. (T. Boone, are you listening out there)? Last I heard, our admission standards for athletes was more stringent than 1 or 2 Big 12 schools.

The UT-Austin president said years ago in a Dallas Morning News feature article that he questions the criteria, those who are doing the data gathering and how all these tiers are created period and all but said he think politics played a part in it. Politics/? Can you imagine politics since we know politics and schmoozing at happy hour had absolutely "NOTHING" to do with any of these re-alignment scenarios beginning with the Big East.

GMG!

Edited November 3, 2011 by PlummMeanGreen

That is incorrect. UNT is currentlty ranked tier 2 by US News. UNT is actually close enough to obtaining tier 1 status that it could become a reality within the next few years or sooner. Not to mention there are several rankings and US News is one of the least regarded.

I would would'nt worry about the Golden Grizzlies.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/unt-3594

Actually I said the 2010 edition, which used 4 tiers. You did not read the tier explanation they are using now. They rank numerically all the top 75% in the category (National Universities) now and call everything else 'Tier 2.' That means bottom 25% or ...... fourth out of 4 groups just like in 2010.

Actually I said the 2010 edition, which used 4 tiers. You did not read the tier explanation they are using now. They rank numerically all the top 75% in the category (National Universities) now and call everything else 'Tier 2.' That means bottom 25% or ...... fourth out of 4 groups just like in 2010.

You're right I did not see the explanation but it does not change my point.

There are several different ranking systems; Carnagie, AAU, etc. AAU is the best with only about 60 schools, second would be Carnagie. Carnagie has three classifications for large national research Universities. RU/VH being the best, RU/H being second and then DRU. UNT is RU/H along with SMU and several other familiar universities. Oakland university is ranked DRU..

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/basic.php

As far as US News goes, it is concidered the least reliable of all. Reason being, outside of the top 25 or so it's very difficult to ascertain an accurate numerical ranking. Many factors outside of academics and overall education quality play a large role in their rankings. So they should be taken with a grain of salt.

@plumm: The $400mm endowment req. is only 1 of about 6 different reqs. To obtain tier 1 a University need only satisfy 4, any 4 of the 6 to be clear.

Definitely recognize the limits of the rankings, but it is hard enough to compare schools using any one of them. Adding others makes it very complex and so eventually it will boil down to one.

Our endowment situation is deplorable. A case could be stated that we should scrap all efforts to build recognized athletics and focus all promotional efforts to build the endownment. However, the usual chicken and egg challenge comes into play: realistically I think it is necessary to develop recognizable (recognized for success that is) athletics programs as a pathway for building connections that will allow significant endownment growth. My own personal support for UNT has grown considerably, and that growth is directly attributable to success of the football program starting in 2001. If we don't get back to that, it is likely that the level of support will slide back, because there are a lot of other things competing for my caring.