untjim1995

Homers are gonna homer...

Listening to the Hardline right now and they are talking about how awful a choice for the Big XII that Houston would be...all for the reason I listed above. The Big XII has two choices that will help them--BYU and Cincy. Everyone else takes away from their members in some form. As for the B1G, they are giant state schools, except for Northwestern. You may not care about Iowa playing Minnesota here in Texas, but they sure do in the Midwest. The SEC and the B1G matter the most because of viewers, both in person and on TV. The ACC, Big XII, and Pac-12 don't have the interest from their fanbases like the other two do. SO when you compare the Big XII to the ACC and the Pac-12, the problem always comes back to being a lack of eyeballs outside of Texas. The Pac-12 has LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, and Salt Lake City. The ACC has Boston, Pittsburgh, Washington DC, Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Tampa, and Miami. Both of those carry a lot of eyeballs that the Big XII cannot offer outside of Texas--Kansas City is the biggest market outside of Texas. Otherwise, its Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Wichita, and Des Moines. The Pac-12 will need to get their network going at a higher rate than it currently runs, which will require expansion eastward. The easiest solution, politically, for the Pac-12 is to add 4 schools from the Big 12. It could be the Texoma 4 or it could be Texas, OU, KU, and Iowa State. No matter what, the LHN killed the future of the Big XII because it created an unfair advantage for Texas. So whatever the Big XII does to expand in the near future is really just lipstick on a dead body. There is no way it can continue to exist. And when that happens, the MWC and AAC will be there to take up those leftovers (TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Iowa State are all potential leftovers).

I think that at this point, UNT just has to prove they can be a winning program more than once in a blue moon. When you realize that we have had exactly 5 winning seasons in the last 25 years, it's very easy to believe it just can't happen here. If Littrell can't turn this around, the rest of the CFB world isn't going to hold it against him because outside of this website, nobody believes you can win here. But if Littrell does turn us into a winner in the next three years, he's going to be hailed as a miracle worker. He's got a FCS roster, with very little size and talent. To build this up is going to take a huge upgrade of talent. And that talent has to get developed in the years ahead. It's why a <2 win season won't tell us anything about Littrell as a head coach, just like it didn't tell us anything about Chad Morris at SMU last year as a head coach. I think people on this site don't want to admit just how much of a crater we are in from the McCarney regime. You cannot go 4 years with terrible recruiting that now leaves us with less than 70 scholarships. A category 5 hurricane decimated this place on Homecoming last year. You cannot endure something like that and expect to be able to bounce right back up. It's gonna take years (at least three) to get a winner around here.

Except for 2013, average in the SBCUSA would be a dream...

Sure, they are our rival. But, it's not a true rivalry because we have only recently played them again. SMU can and will end the series when it provides no value to them. And value to them is winning games to bolster their record. When that becomes jeopardized, they will bolt because of their cash. Losing to us caused them to get rid of their coach after the 2nd game of the season. Now, with Morris there, they aspire to becoming a winner again. If they lose to us, it evens the field. When they don't play us, it slants back to their advantage because of their history, name, and money. If they do become a winner, they will dodge us again for awhile, just to avoid losing to us. ive said it before and I'll say it again. SMU only plays us when they are really bad and need a win over a program that can show their rich fans that they can beat someone they've heard of before. See 1989, 1990, and 1992. See 2006-2007. And think of where they are right now after the last two seasons. This series was always meant to be a 4 gamer to them, while are fanbase thought it was definitely going to be 12 years straight. That's not how SMU works with UNT--never has been, never will be.

If SMU cancels the series, after 2017, then it could be the very best thing for us. A real AD can bring in an OOC game in Denton against a FBS team ranked above 100.

Because TV and eyeballs matter and the Big XII has about three schools that anyone cares about nationally--UT, OU, and KU basketball. TCU and Baylor don't bring the eyeballs. Tech, OSU, KSU, and ISU are all looked at like they are stepchildren of their big brothers. WVU is kind of a national name, but don't bring many eyeballs either. The SEC and the Big Ten blow them out in eyeballs that follow their schools. The PAC and the ACC both have more populated areas to pull in viewership from than the Heartland schools and West Virginia... A conference built on one school being the CEO (UT), a CFO (OU), and a COO (KU) who all make way more money than the bottom serfs is one that won't last.

The single best thing SMU could do for us is to stop this series and allow our new AD to actually attempt to schedule someone that might be ranked above 100 at some point in a preseason poll. Let SMU go...they don't want to play us anyway, unless it helps them. Right now, they need the wins, but if they become a winner this year or next, they will drop us in a heartbeat. And that would be the chance for an improving Littrell team to actually schedule and beat a team at home that would bring some much needed attention to the program

For the life of me, how the Big XII can choose UH over Cincy is just beyond me. Cincy gives you a new market, as well as a bridge to West Virginia. Houston, as a market, already belongs to the Big XII. It brings nothing to the conference, from a revenue standpoint. Cincy would, though. Not to mention the hoops upgrade you get with Cincy over UH. The Big XII always makes the wrong decisions at the top, which is why it will not be a power conference within the next 8 years. Picking UH does nothing for them. And, for UH, getting into the ACC or PAC-12 would be much better for their long term future. Don't bet against the PAC taking UH someday as a way to get into Texas. If UT doesn't go west, UH will still have an academic profile that would fit out west much more than, say Tech...

I'll gladly admit to being negative about our place in the future of college football's hierarchy. I have heard the terms "potential", "sleeping giant", and "great location to take advantage of" since I first stepped into Denton in 1990. Hasn't mattered who is in charge, who has been the head coach, the conference we have played in, or the stadium we have played in. It's almost always the same, sans 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2013. That's 5 winning seasons in 25 years. Now, it's supposed to all be better because we have chosen to focus more on athletics than we ever have before, but everybody above the SBCUSA has been doing this for years/decades before us. That's why I feel like the reality is that the best we can probably expect is being in a conference with teams we have played in various leagues (SLC, Big West, SBC, and CUSA) for our long term future. We don't have the clout, the history, or the support of other teams above us in FBS to be included in the haves and the almost haves that the power conferences and their affiliated leagues (AAC and MWC). We started too late. I like Seth Littrell and Wren Baker. I think they are tremendous hires. But I think they are also gonna have to climb out from under a mountain of dog$hit left behind by their predecessors. It will take years to do, even if it's just to build us back up from being the worst team in FBS to just being a bad G5 team. If we are really, really lucky, we follow the USM three year plan and Seth Littrell turns this around and gets hired somewhere else after pulling off a major turnaround. But, as far as I'm concerned, in regards to UNT revenue sports, which is all I care about, I'm gonna look at it from the Bill Parcells viewpoint--"Don't tell me how hard it is being pregnant, just show me the baby." And Ill gladly admit to being wrong if/when the MWC or AAC admits us and the league still holds its place as the top non-power leagues, as CUSA was before the AAC came into existence. But we offer those two leagues absolutely nothing right now that they don't have or that they need. Only way that it changes is if we win big--bigger than we ever have since the Fry years.

There is some serious delusion on this thread. The MWC ain't expanding here in Texas beyond filling up a void created by a current MWC team leaving to go to the Big XII, which probably isn't happening, either. The MWC can easily wait out the Big XII falling apart and taking in the scraps they want. TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, UH, ISU, and KSU are possible/probable casualties of when the Big XII falls apart. Beyond them, UTEP represents a school in Texas that has history with those schools, a solid basketball program (which they care about big time in that league), a bowl game tie-in possibly, and a market that is big that is centered around UTEP. Rice will replace UH in the AAC when they go to the Big XII, so that is another one that will be gone. That leaves us with UTSA as being the next Texas option for the MWC to consider. IOW, it ain't happening... We blew that chance for the MWC a long time ago. That ship sailed and we have to accept that our future is with SBCUSA schools. I suspect that within 10 years, our conference affiliation will include this setup: NMSU, UNT, Texas State, UTSA, ULL, ULM, Arky State, La Tech, UAB, USM, SFA, and Sam Houston. All are schools that are regional, have either no TV market or bad revenue sports, and have close travel for the future that non-FBS teams will find critical to contain costs and encourage fan travel.

No doubt, but your crazy if you think they don't care about it. It's a giant revenue source for their league. TCU hired Jamie Dixon because of that, otherwise, they could have continued with their Benford coach (Trent Johnson) who lost a lot. Instead, they bought him out, then paid handsomely for a name coach.

I've been saying this for years. It doesn't really matter now--we aren't going out there for two reasons: 1. The MWC ain't inviting us anytime soon. 2. Our fans don't want to go there. They want to play in CUSA against regional teams. I think it's a gigantic mistake, but not much you can do but accept it. Same with how they accepted SMU as a premier home opponent at Apogee.

Yeah, they really don't care about basketball...even though it's been the toughest league by RPI standards for the last few years. TCU is here because they NEEDED another team in Texas to replace A&M that the northern schools could use to get DFW exposure.

That's why I said it's the worst case scenario, that his offensive gameplan ends up looking like Dodge's did. Its not a leap to worry that our pass happy offense can't keep a horrible defense off the field. Just like it wasn't a leap to worry that Dickey's run offense couldn't keep us in games and McCarney basically copied.

This is the worse case scenario for the years ahead. We basically have a Dodge offense that could only move the ball outside of the red zone, but more importantly, never gave a really bad defense any breaks to stay off the field. That was three and a half years of the worst defense that I've ever seen us roll out there. Now, it was more fun than the McDickney run until the clock runs out offense, but the defense could actually stop people every once in a while. And when the defense was great--and the special teams--we had our best years here as a FBS team since we moved up. If we go back to being a team like we saw under Dodge, where conference mates and fellow G5s are murdering us, we might be lucky to have a season attendance average of 10k. At that point, the newness of apogee will have completely left and that would most likely mean that we will have had one winning season in about 15 years.

SMU is not going to ever be in a power conference. Ever. The AAC is as good as it gets for them. Granted, we have never had anything close to what they have had in conference setups (ever), but their alumni and students don't give a rats ass about measuring themselves against schools like us. They are all SWC arrogant SOBs that are still pissed at: 1. The Texas media who broke their story about having a payroll in the 80s, just to have a great football team (how ridiculous). They were basically Baylor-esque in that they didn't care about rules or laws, just wanted to tell other SWC fans how much better they were because they won at football. 2. The NCAA for using them as a piece of trash that they disposed of and used as a trial balloon to see what would happen if a school lost its program. It was so devastating that they will never issue it again. But make no mistake, it was very deserved. 3. The Big XII for originally gutting the SWC and leaving them forever on the outside of big time power conference football. 4. TCU--once the Frogs starting getting good in football in the late 90s, they made it abundantly clear that they never wanted to ever be in a conference with SMU again--and they haven't. Leave WAC and SMU for CUSA, then leave CUSA after they admitted SMU to go to the MWC. Then they leave for the Big East and before SMU can weasel there way into the conference, TCU bolts for the Big XII and the Big East falls apart to be the AAC. I don't care who at Belo owned media outlets or in Dallas leadership think that SMU should get added to the Big XII. As long as UT, OU, and TCU are in the conference, not to mention Tech and Baylor, SMU won't be there--the Big XII owns DFW already. They aren't going to water down the league with another small school to feed. There's a reason the SWC broke up--too many small schools and lack of attendance to make the bigger SWC schools want to stick around. SMU just holds a place on the FBS totem pole higher than us. That is all because of their SWC history, their money, and their Dallas media hyping them up. We have never had any of that and never will.

I agree with you completely. The Big XII would be wise to expand, just to get to 12 and to be able to have a conference championship game. They are the third best conference right now, behind the SEC and the B1G, and I think a championship game would solidify this. To me, the ONLY two schools that make any sense for the Big XII to get are BYU and Cincy. BYU gives them a national name with lots of eyeballs, while Cincy gives them a good school in sports, academics, and in a good market that gives them a foothold in Ohio, as well as a bridge to WVU. UH gives them nothing. No extra TV or recruiting market. No extra eyeballs. And a team that has been a couple of times recently, but doesn't offer as much as Cincy to the Big XII. If the ACC expanded, UH would be a good fit. Same with the Pac 12. But lots of teams are ahead of UH on both conferences wish list. What needs to happen is what you said. the Big XII survives for a long time, like into the 2030s, without UH, who stays in the AAC with SMU. This causes the MWC to realize they need Texas schools again, and they offer UTEP, Rice, UTSA, and us to move over. That would keep us at the FBS level, even if it's at a non-power league. But at least it wouldn't be in CUSA, which will be on the outside looking in at the FBS level in the years to come. The SBC, CUSA, and the MAC are just full of teams that don't carry enough cachet to get fan or media attention.

You are high as a banner if you think the MWC wants anything to do with us right now. When the Big XII implodes, Baylor, TCU, Tech, and UH will be immediately invited to the MWC. Beyond that, UTEP and Rice are already mentioned as interested in the MWC. I figure we are in competition for 7th in Texas for the MWC to consider with UTSA, who has a destination city, bowl game, and big media market to tap into without local competition. That ship sailed long ago, when TCU left and the MWC decided Utah State and San Jose State were better replacements than anyone in Texas that was available at that time. Now, the MWC is just rubbing their hands at getting Big XII schools to join their league in the near future. They would be colossally stupid not to wait out the Big XII's implosion to add schools from Texas much higher up the totem pole in FBS than we have ever been. And that's not including teams like KSU, ISU, and even possibly OSU that will be available, as well. Only way we jump the other Texas schools in CUSA to get into the MWC would require about 4-5 straight CUSA division and conference championships in football, as well as winning CUSA hoops titles and wins in postseason tournaments. Unfortunately, we have about a 2-3 year rebuild ahead of us in football at a bare minimum, and hoops has to endure another Benford year before a new coach can try and rebuild, meaning you are looking 2-3 years from now. By the time you could have finally built up a winner to get their attention, the Big XII should be imploding.

If it features a lot of handoffs and two yard bubble screens, his last head coach in college will give him a case of Grey Goose to soothe over the losing that will occur in Sherman.

You shouldn't...he never has let us down, nor has he had to endure our family short changing him or having to watch other dogs in the neighborhood enjoy a better existence than he gets. He has it great because he is supported fully for being a great dog. He also doesn't have to worry about a cat getting all the attention and support around our home because the cat lovers hate dogs and have basically tried everything possible to allow dogs to even have a chance to thrive. And he hasn't ever had to watch me use a different username to troll a message board, either...so he has that also going for him.

Baker took the job because it paid well and got him the hell out of Mizzou, the worst big university in the country right now--seriously, the last administration member to leave needs to remember to turn out the lights in Columbia. Littrell took the job because it was a huge step up in pay, gave him the chance to build up his resume very fast, and see if he can cut it as a head coach at this level. If he fails, he will have a job like he had at UNC pretty much anywhere he wants, both from his success at UNC and the fact that nobody in the college football ranks is going to hold it against him if he can't turn this around from the mountain of dogshit we are under right now. We made two very good hires, on paper, but the reality is that if either of these see football succeed here in the next three seasons like it did at Southern Miss last year, neither of them will be working here afterwards.

At this point, I think we have to realize that things will probably get worse here, conference wise, for us very soon. Rice, our connection point to the old SWC and the Gulf Coast of Texas for alumni and recruiting, is about to go to the AAC to replace UH and join with their private buddies in SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane. If we lose UTEP, as well, to replace any MWC team that jumps to the Big XII, the SBC we left to finally move up to the best conference affiliation we have bad in 50 years will be gone. And if you lose MUTS to replace Memphis and Marshall somehow gets taken to replace Cincy, you are looking at CUSA replacing 4 schools, probably with SBC teams that aren't anywhere close to here. We made our bed. It's what we have to lie in and just accept. It doesn't mean we cant follow our alma mater anymore, but it does mean we have to understand that there is a very real probability that we won't be moving upward while others around us in CUSA will be. Winning could change that, but it's basically got to happen like 2013 in football and 2011 in basketball. And neither of those have realistic chances of occurring anytime soon, probably 2018 at the earliest, and even then, most conferences would want to see if we could keep it sustainable for at least 5 years. Well, by that time, it's probably when the Big XII leftovers, the MWC, and the AAC all merge into two big conferences that are allowed to continue being FBS schools, just not power leagues. The rest of the G5 will be demoted to the new I-aa of our day and merged with the bigger FCS programs to be a new level of play, one that is permanently lower than the leagues in FBS.

Well, this time the power conferences have been given control over this from the NCAA schools. The NCAA knows that these schools will break away if they push back, so this time probably will be different...just a matter of when it happens over the next decade. The Big XII is the ticking time bomb. If it can exist, as is, with UT, OU, and KU as its bellwether schools, then it can diffuse this to some degree. But assuming it explodes, the leftovers will be stuck in non-power leagues. And I believe that the non-power leagues that will still get to play the power schools in OOC and in bowls will be a collection of two leagues of 28-32 teams. And I believe that unless the MWC invites us before the big XII dissolves, which would be very short-sighted, we aren't gonna be in that grouping. And what nobody can answer is how our fanbase will react to being at a lower level again inside college football--will we still get around 15-20k a game as we do today or will we go back to less than 10k a game for attendance? That's the scariest possible scenario that we would have to deal with again...

Rice will be first to leave, for sure. They replace UH to give the AAC a Houston presence, plus they have the backing of the three small private schools of SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa. If Cincy goes, I expect the AAC to poach a MAC school, either Ohio or NIU. If it's CUSA school, it will be Marshall. If Memphis leaves, MUTS is the sure replacement. If Colorado State leaves the MWC, UTEP will be the replacement. My guess is that the Big XII expands by four, adding BYU, Cincy, UH, and Memphis.