Arkstfan

The Sun Belt UNT dominanted. UNT. First year back in FBS 1995 ASU. First year back in FBS 1992 Idaho. First year back in FBS 1997 ULL. FBS since 1974 ULM. First year back 1994 MTSU. First year FBS 1999 NMSU. FBS since 1959 Utah State. FBS since 1939 * (joined in 03) Troy. First year FBS 2002 * (joined in 04) As to start-ups FIU & FAU joined in 2005 WKU joined in 09 after a successful FCS run and has finished second the last two seasons. USA start-up joined this year. UNT was the third newest back to FBS of the original 7.

The thing is, the CUSA TV deals are expressed as gross revenue (rights fee plus production costs) instead of as net (rights fee) and there is no assurance that any of those don't get renegotiated especially if CUSA loses more. Remember UTSA is transition year 2 when they enter, ODU transition year 1, with Charlotte yet to come. CUSA doesn't go up to full strength in football until 16. The other element is who (if anyone) does CUSA yet lose. MWC is pinned down with two regional choices that don't fit their model. If they can't lure Boise and SDSU back, then they have to come into the Central time zone in order to pry UTEP loose. If the Big East thing melts, the new wreckage league may take as many as three CUSA schools if I'm counting noses correctly. Essentially what happens is that just as the WAC for all intents became the Big West it once disdained, CUSA becomes the Sun Belt with different uniform patches. And the truly sad thing could well be that it is all done in response to what is merely a bubble in TV rights fees that may soon burst.

Here is the issue of name. Harry and I discussed this the other day. The name and logo are assets of the conference. If the conference dissolves the name and logos are assets to dispose of just like office furniture. If the league were to vote to dissolve one of two things happens to the name. 1) It goes up for sale at an auction to get maximum value. 2) one coalition or another of the league makes an offer to the other for them to release their ownership interest, essentially buying out their rights to the name. The name really doesn't matter much to the NCAA. You either meet the definition of an autobid league or you don't, it only matters if you are availing yourself of the grace period. The BCS deal for 2014 and beyond I don't believe has been reduced to a final agreement yet so that just needs to have a name change based on whomever is a conference. If I were laying money down. Here is my guess although I'd not put down more than $20. I don't think the A-21 plan will cut it. I think the more likely outcome would be that seven sisters will talk to UConn first and foremost but may also approach Cincinnati and possibly Temple. They will present the options. Option 1. The seven are leaving and under NCAA rules the league will have lost so many members that NCAA units devolve to the school earning the units. You guys get the Big East name but you lose the NCAA money you didn't earn yourself. The MSG contract is now voidable and will almost certainly be canceled and handed over to our new league or the A-10, if the ACC doesn't beat us to it. Option 2. We approach the schools that still owe buyouts and offer to waive the buyouts if they will assign their rights to the NCAA units to us. We then vote to dissolve the league (this presumes that Temple does not yet have a vote). Option 3. Assuming Temple does have a vote and can block dissolving, then you offer the following deal, and I bet they start with UConn. We again offer to release the others from the buyout in return for their units. The Big East is dissolved with the seven sisters buying the name. UConn and who knows maybe Temple and Cincy are given full membership in the "new" Big East, a non-football conference. Those three then look to get a new league up and running in football with the other schools but will be football only members. Option 4. The seven sisters, Temple, USF, UConn, Cincy reach a deal. They do nothing with the league other than agreeing to rescind the all-sport invites to Houston, SMU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis and pay whatever damages. My guess is they go with a deal that dissolves the Big East prior to June 30, 2013 and one or more Big East football member becomes a member of the new Big East. SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, UCF form a new conference that will likely include USF and might pick up another one to three CUSA schools and maybe even UMass with one or more football only members out of the new Big East. It's CUSA 2.0 but it leaves you with essentially the league that Boise and SDSU said they were joining.

In the current Big East TV deal if you break out what the non-football received vs. the full members share basketball was assigned 2/3rds of the value of the current contract with football worth 1/3 of the contract value. The agreement with Boise and SDSU requires that they essentially flip those numbers with football being assigned not less than 70% of the value of the TV contract and basketball not more than 30%. If you are one of the seven sisters, how are you not concerned when basketball was assumed to be 66.67% of the Big East's TV value and now they walk in and say no, no that was wrong, basketball is only 30% of the league's TV value. I tend to think in reality 66.67% over-valued hoops and 30% under-values it. The Big East provides a LOT of hours of content to ESPN and family in basketball even though it doesn't deliver the sort of ratings football does. When you look at the overall income of the league, the Big East earns more in NCAA units than it does in bowl units. Throw in the mint they make off the Big East tournament at MSG and the league is highly dependent on basketball revenue.

Let's turn the clock back a few months. The Sun Belt designated a committee for expansion with stated goal of pursuing La.Tech and UTSA. The committee came back having invited Georgia State. If anyone had cornered RV on the right day after that happened, I suspect his comments wouldn't have sounded much different than those.

They can get autobids by having six members that have competed together in basketball for five years. 1. UCF 2. ECU 3. Memphis 4. Houston 5. SMU 6. Tulane The critical element is that Tulane and ECU have to leave July 1, 2013 to join them.

I would have pulled the trigger in 2009 at ASU. 2008 won at TAMU and then staggered out 2-4 to finish the season, twice losing two score fourth quarter leads. By the end of 2009 the season and a half record was 6-12 and Roberts was as good as done.

I would be surprised if the A-21 came into being even though it is simpler logistically. I think the 7 sisters are leaving one way or another (dissolve BE, leave BE either for A-21 or form new league). That will leave Temple, UConn, Cincy, USF, UCF, ECU, Memphis, SMU, Tulane, Houston to try to pick up the pieces and move on while trying to keep Boise and SDSU on board.

The guy was calling the plays for two BCS wins by Boise State and running the offense there. Mack didn't think he could handle it and split the job with AppleDumplin.

I said when UNT made its hire, that the Mean Green made the hire they needed. In fact I said the same about the Cajuns, ASU, and before that WKU. The evidence is sketchier on Mac at this point but I'm not sure people want to think about the recruiting situation. A few years back I watched UNT play ULL in person and watched a very very mediocre group of Cajun receivers more than once blow past the UNT defense, then have to come back to catch a poorly thrown pass and UNT defenders still not there. They were just flat being outrun. There was more to fix at UNT than there was at ULL or ASU.

I was never that impressed with Mario. He went 2-4 against ASU. The first win was the Hilton Heave when T Y fumbled and picked it up and threw it for the winning TD. The other was against a staggering 4-8 team that only lost by 7 in Miami to the Sun Belt champs. Mario was 23-26 in games TY appeared in and 4-20 when he didn't.

History does matter because it sheds insight on what drives someone. Remember that Texas wanted to take TT, TAMU, OU, OkSt with them to the Pac-12 and the deal collapsed when TAMU started talking to the SEC. TAMU wanted in the SEC when Arkansas left. Then they vote to give third tier to the schools, Texas gets LHN and TAMU gets cover to make the move they tried to make back in 1989. History tells us that NMSU finds a conference affiliation in football in desperate times. The Valley had run out of options and took them. The Big West had run out of options and took them. The Sun Belt couldn't get off the ground without them. The WAC ran out of options and took them. Right now MWC is at 9 full 10 football but the Big East is at 13 for football and has to add one more for the west to work but there have been multiple reports that they are contemplating 16 for football. The claims are out there that adding Central time zone teams and calling them western isn't appeasing Boise and SDSU so you have to think MWC loses one or two more to the Big East unless the league punts on the western experiment. The MWC if it loses one full member is at the NCAA minimum, Hawaii then has to come in for all sports to be at 9. More importantly if MWC loses one more to the Big East that makes it all but certain that hopes of luring Boise and SDSU back are dead. I don't see MWC taking anyone today but once that invite happens they have to come east or they have to settle for being the new WAC (10 former members) or the new Big West (five former members) with no place to turn except to an NMSU and Idaho that don't fit the model MWC has followed.

You have to understand what makes someone tick if you want to guess correctly what they will do in a given circumstance. Understand their logic and things should make more sense. When CUSA formed up, Tulsa had the chance to be a part of it but affiliating with TCU, SMU, Rice was a greater draw for them. They left the WAC as a package (sans TCU). They only got in CUSA because Tulane insisted that Tulsa, SMU, Rice be admitted or they would leave CUSA to join the WAC. The hook that made CUSA their destination is now erased except for Rice. With UTEP they had found the affiliation with the rest of Texas to be a positive but SMU and Houston are now gone. Their history has been with New Mexico, Air Force, Colorado State, and Wyoming, If they can get some sort of Texas connection, MWC is their perfect fit, probably their ultimate ideal. So you've got a UTEP that can really benefit coupled with a Tulsa that is just disgusted that TCU, SMU, Tulane, three of the four schools important to them are out of the picture. While UTSA is likely a positive in the mind of UTEP, they are undoubtedly a negative in the eyes of the Tulsa administration as a start-up program. If you are the MWC and want to raid three to five schools to round out to 12 or 14 after losing Fresno, you start with Tulsa and UTEP. That makes everyone in the western part of CUSA nervouse and ready to jump and Tulsa has some degree of input (though likely no vote) on who the third or the third, fourth and fifth team are. If you look at the conference expansion models. The history of CUSA has been market, market, market, with the sole exceptions being La.Tech (which I believe was related to a joint action to put the WAC out of business) ECU (forced on the league by the Liberty Bowl but with a great winning history and great attendance) and Marshall (good winning history and good attendance). The MWC with the exception of SJSU and UNLV has selected members based on good football and good gate receipts. The problem the MWC has now is the well is exhausted. There is nothing left to select in their region except two programs with poor winning histories, poor attendance and very small markets. They have to come east for protection.

Tulane (and their 3,000 seat hoops arena) aren't worried about the athletic side of it. Tulane draws a significant number of students from the Northeast. It's all about recruiting students who pay full price.

Big East ain't going to die as long as quality programs like ECU will accept football only.

#1 Freeze inherited a team that had four guys worthy of NFL contracts including one draftee. #2. Freeze had experience at QB and WR. #3. Freeze had been the OC the year before so wasn't installing a new offense and he knew which assistants were worth keeping. Malzahn took over a 10 win team returning its QB and all but one skill starter on offense.

Yep. Clears up any misconceptions I had regarding character.

I hate seeing the trashing of Belt on the way out the door by some. The only negative the Sun Belt brought UNT was making it easy for Dickey to win and allowing him to think you don't have to recruit hard. But we didn't make you hire Dodge. As to TV if stAte makes a bowl game this year, half our games in 2011 & 2012 will have been on the ESPN family. No complaint from me. Saturday was the first game this year I didn't see in person or on real TV. According the Houston Chronicle Houston - SMU on Fox Regional barely outdrew two Ft Worth high school teams on Comcast. That's the flaw of being on non-broadcast non-ESPN channels.

A start-up gets a measure of grace that others don't get. 1. When they win its "wheeee lookit what they are doing". 2. When they lose its "well they've only been playing a couple years." 3. Start-ups get new dollars that they weren't getting before with some people buying in because that new program is seen as a good civic amenity. That takes away pressure to worry about making budget year in and year that burdens many programs scheduling. 4. Start ups market like crazy and offer ticket deals programs worried about budget would never offer. Then they tout those crowds to generate buzz. 5. Start ups don't have to deal with, "I went to a game five years ago and some team I'd never heard of pounded you." 6. Start ups don't deal with, "Why aren't you lower level? I saw the score and the #2 team in America ripped you up." 7. Start ups just don't have to contend with past negative perceptions. Let UTSA go through four or five sub .500 seasons in CUSA and see what happens. UAB attendance has fallen quite a bit from the heady days when they were brand new to CUSA.

My two bit analysis. Neither defensive coordinator can be happy about this game. For John Thompson he faces a team that seems to have a physical offensive line. Arkansas State has struggled dealing with teams that are physical upfront (have really serious depth issues on defense). USA gave ASU more than we wanted, and WKU was able to rally back from 13 by pounding the ball with mostly a few short quick hit passes. For John Skladany he faces a team that loves to snap the ball a lot of times and maintain a very high tempo. Arkansas State wants at least 80 offensive plays per game and is averaging 75 helped in large part USA's slow pounding offense and three ASU turnovers keeping ASU at 59 snaps. UNT is 1-3 when giving up 70 or more plays with FAU being the lone win at 71.

From the game notes It is the 63rd homecoming game for North Texas and the Mean Green has an all-time record of 40-21-1. North Texas has faced Arkansas State twice on homecoming, in 1999 and 1986, both of which were wins for the Red Wolves.

Since 2005, Arkansas State has been bowl eligible four times, three of those times, ASU's sixth win of the season was against North Texas and twice it was at North Texas.

The ASU defense is not as good as last year (but we lost 8 starters, one to the NFL draft, three more went free agent so there was obviously some very good talent lost). If you look at total defense ASU is 52 which is rather out of line with scoring defense ranking of 80. The difference is special teams not defense. ASU has a pretty average defense but special teams errors have led to direct scores and short fields resulting in 31 points given up on the season, but for two missed field goals would be 37. Factor the special team botches out and the scoring defense pulls into line with the total defense numbers.

What I hate is schools that only use twitter as one-way communication. Here's the latest press release. God help you if you ever need a question answered by our SID office and ask it via Twitter. Waste of your time.

Colony as an example (although I'm sure the precise timing was dumb luck) of making sure to sell the "brand", going into LR a huge percentage of commuters come in via I-30 from the north. The first billboard in Little Rock since summer has had Gus Malzahn's photo with the slogan "Game On". Wednesday morning commuters saw a new sign replacing it. Just the wolf logo with "Red Wolves Rising". Start with whatever the "hook" is and move to the brand. I suspect serious football fans in DFW know Coach Mac. Heck I don't follow the Big XII closely and I knew and respected him because he gave us fits coming into Arkansas raiding kids to Iowa State that we thought were absolute steals if we got them. And of course Apogee in of itself is marketing tool. If UNT hasn't done a wing-spread eagle logo superimposed over that wild end zone, I imagine it is simply a matter of time until some marketing genius says "hey that sort of looks like an eagle flying". I'm a big Sporting KC fan and they will market anything. The stadium, the players, anything they think will hook some interest. My mantra is "It takes years to be an overnight success." Get that foundation laid and then when the last pieces fall together everyone thinks "Wow look what they did IN JUST ONE YEAR" ( or two years). I've lived in a community with a fairly large private college and I doubt many people realize the advantage UNT holds over SMU. There is a built-in bias amongst most people against private colleges and their students. There are people who will come support UNT who have never taken a class there and none of their friends have either who would never do that for SMU.