untjim1995

I disagree with this big-time. If JJ gets back to another NCAA tournament, he won't need to win a game to get consideration for a move up. Heck, most of the time we would be a high double-digit seed, so you play a big-time team usually in the first round. In reality, I think another school will look at JJ and see what he has built over the years at UNT with a great facility, but with absolutely pitiful attendance and will gladly offer him a contract ith the thought being that he can build a program from scratch and with more support and $$, he could be a great coach for their school for a long time.

Good post--I just look at the fact that SMU went out and PAID for a top coach AND staff to come to the Hilltop as the reason they have seen the turnaround that they have enjoyed. In a jaded way, you could argue that SMU just went and bought coaches this time versus buying players like they did in the 80s, but I believe that SMU has finally figured out the right course of action. IMO, the two ways you improve your program are to find an eager young coach who you believe is ready for the next step up (i.e. Sumlin at UH, Kragthorpe at Tulsa, or Briles when UH hired him) or you go out and get a real coach who has skins on the wall--Fry at UNT, Fran at TCU, Jones at SMU, Price at UTEP, etc.. To me, the latter usually has proven to work at a non-BCS school faster than the former way. We did it before, albeit 35+ years ago, but the price of poker has changed. No one can expect us to match SMU's or TCU's pockets, but our administration really needs to ask itself if the university wants to succeed at football on a non-BCS Division-1 level. Having a smaller stadium than any other school in Texas isn't going to send that message, nor is keeping around a coach who doesn't go to a bowl game in his 4th year after going 5-31 just because it is cheaper than buying out the contract. In all seriousness, if we cannot find a way ADMINISTRATIVELY to fund this thing at a higher level than what we are even looking at after the student fee goes into effect, I just wonder how much different the next 15 years will be from the past 15 years. If we cannot afford to pay for a good coach and his staff, then we don't need to talk about competing with the non-AQ teams in Texas or around the region, much less talk about leaving the SBC because its not good enough.

Ok, I agree that those 4 private schools are not going to be able to add a 5th to their conference. No way any other private school is leaving voluntarily from where they are. So, lets play the assumption game that CUSA gets raided in this manner--the Big Ten takes Pitt or Rutgers, which makes the Big East choose someone, lets say its Memphis, since they fit their conference perfectly, or Central Florida because they can be a travel partner to USF and are in Florida. Then CUSA has to fill that void of one team. Well, the Eastern teams are still Memphis or UCF, Marshall, ECU, USM, and UAB. The West is Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, Rice, UH, and UTEP. Now if those 4 private schools are going to vote together, wouldn't you also assume that they have some pull with the other schools, particularly to the East where they just lost a school in one of their two big markets (Tennessee or Florida)? Usually, the votes for admission into a new conference require a strong majority, not 6-5. In my scenario, if I were MTSU or FAU right now, I would like my chances A LOT!! If I was a western-oriented public school in a market that already had a school who has a strong history, sits in the middle of the media center of that market, and oh by the way, has more money then God, sitting there saying to their buddies, "Uhh, I don't think they fit with us.", I think that would have a lot of pull. It certainly has for a long time, which is exemplified by SMU backing podunk-market LA Tech for CUSA admission over a school with a tad more potential up the road. IMO, our road to significance isn't going to be in CUSA--unless SMU leaves. Pray that TCU stops looking down their noses long enough at SMU right now to consider them for admission into an expanded MWC. Then we are the perfect fit for CUSA. Otherwise, I think its in the SBC with our current bunkmates for at least the next 10 years or splintering off with some of the western SBC and joining a WAC that has a strong Eastern Division. BTW, I think the SBC with our current bunkmates minus a MTSU or FAU, but adding USA and eventually UTSA or Texas State, would probably be ok, especially since I believe the MWC/PAC-10 will eventually raid the Western WAC heavyweights at some point. I guess the other possibility in all of this is that we got our stuff together in the next five years in both football and men's hoops (multiple bowls and tourney appearances), see stronger attendance, and the MWC asked TCU to take us on as a travel partner and that was agreed upon by the Frogs. Other than a BCS invite or a new SWC being formed, the best possible alternative would be this scenario.

I just can't see a scenario at play ever where we are in the same conference as SMU. I just don't think that will ever happen. I think the private schools in this scenario are always going to vote together to protect their own interests--SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Rice.

I believe that the Big 10 has much better TV contracts than the Big 12. Plus, Iowa has many traditional rivals in the Big 10.

My dream scenario would be something like that happening--UNT gets into the Big XII. The ONLY way that would happen, though, is for the two bell-weather Texas schools that are joined at the hip (UT and A&M) to join the SEC. This scenario plays out if the following occurred--the Big 10 takes Mizzou, and the Pac-10 took Colorado, which then starts the domino rolling fast. The Big XII looks at who to replace them with and go to Memphis, Utah, BYU, and UNT to fill out the remainder of the equation. They take UNT over TCU because of UNT's size and potential and both Tech and Baylor block TCU (both hate TCU now). Then out of nowhere, UNT plays in a south division that looks like this: UNT, Memphis, OSU, OU, Tech, Baylor and the North is BYU, Utah, K-State, KU, Nebraska, and Iowa State. Meanwhile, the MWC loses its two flagship teams, so they add Boise State and Fresno State--which pisses TCU off, so they join CUSA to replace Memphis. The WAC decides that La Tech is out of their footprint at this point, so they get the Montana schools to agree to move up to replace BSU and FSU, while La Tech is forced to take UNT's spot in the SBC. Again, folks, its just a dream...

It depends--if its just Mizzou, then I think they try for Arkansas, but if that fails (which it would), they would probably go with Memphis. If both Mizzou and Colorado were to leave--CU to the Pac-10 has been bandied about--then I believe they will get Utah and BYU. Apparently, BYU and Utah are tied at the hip, even though one is private and one is public. I know the Big XII has trademarked the Big XIV, so that has to be considered, too, but I believe that those will be the targets.

Which is why SMU, Houston, and UTEP probably have no interest in having us in a conference with them--it works the same way.

I thought this was a good article form the WSJ about UT and its support. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...Tabs%3Dcomments

There is NO CHANCE that Marshall will move up to the Big East. Let me repeat--NO CHANCE. Not only do they provide no viewership whatsoever, WVU would put a stop to that in a second. East Carolina--maybe. Memphis is going to move up because of what they have to offer--big city, bowl game, big-time hoops program. Central Florida is really the wild card here because they have Orlando, a bowl game city, and a large enrollment. It would be interesting to see if USF would be on board with them moving up, though. I could see them blocking their efforts. Very similar to UNT being blocked out by some of the other Texas schools when CUSA expansion talks go on, which I don't blame SMU or anyone else for doing. They are just protecting their turf. It appears that a lot of our fans feel that way about Texas State and UTSA, too. Again, my guess here is Big Ten gets a Big East team. The Big East then gets Memphis to get back to 16 for hoops and 8 for football. BTW, this is a win-win situation for both conferences if the Big Ten chooses Rutgers. The Big East gets better in their prized sport--mens hoops--with Memphis, while the Big Ten gets whatever NYC market share that Rutgers will bring. CUSA then has to figure out where to go, which I believe will be either MTSU or FAU. Then then SBC replaces them with South Alabama when they get up to FBS, which I believe is in a few years. That gets the SBC back to nine.

If we are not going to be included on any expansion, but the SBC loses one of its teams to the East, like MUTS, FAU, or WKU, how does that make you feel for our athletic department? We will be adding USA soon, so a replacement would already be in the works if we were to lose one of them, but what would it mean to UNT? Obviously, we all want to be in CUSA, but it appears that they will not add a Texas team, unless one leaves. Even with a new stadium on the way, how much "potential" do we have if the SBC is the only conference that we can be a member of for the next 10-15 years, especially if we lose a school like one that I mentioned above? I have always appreciated the SBC for what it is, a place where we could go and build up our program at the D-1 level. But, at this point do we as a university owe it to ourselves to talk with UTSA and Texas State about combining forces (once they get up and running at the FBS level) to look into the WAC ? That would create a league with 12 teams, which would include La Tech, UNT, UTSA, Texas State, NMSU and USU to the East, while San Jose State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, Boise State, and Idaho to the West would be the other division. It would seem the WAC would get huge markets to expand to and get some possible bowl matchups in the Southwest. We would finally get Texas schools that we are similar to as conference mates and have some other schools with which we have some history of playing, all while getting to cut down on the major costs of playing lots of those western schools every year. Just curious to hear your thoughts. I would love trips to some of those places.

Not to mention the fact that during the last CUSA expansion, SMU backed La Tech for an invite--not the school just to the north of them. I suspect that an opening in CUSA will be filled with either La Tech, Florida Atlantic, Middle Tennessee, or maybe even South Alabama, which would bring the Mobile bowl game with them, presumably. The eastern CUSA teams are not interested in getting a 5th conference member in Texas.

A lot of them already do. A&M plays Arkansas here. Baylor and Tech now play here. OSU is looking into playinga game here, which doesn't include the Cotton Bowl that they will appear in this year. Plus, Waco isn't that far away from the Metroplex. The B12 North teams are still able to recruit in Texas heavily by scheduling Texas teams, too. Unfortunately, we suck so bad and have such a piss-poor stadium that K-State will pass on playing here, even though it would be a great recruiting tool for them. Our position in the Metroplex is only attractive to a conference that has no viewers here. The Big XII owns this area, which is why they didn't need SMU or TCU here. CUSA has sufficient coverage here with SMU and the MWC has sufficient coverage with TCU here. The WAC is the only conference that could use the Texas market, but we wouldn't go that way. Its why the SBC is the best place for us and why we will be here for a long time. Only way that changes is if SMU leaves CUSA for the MWC, or if a new Southwest Conference forms.

I don't know about this. In the first game, we probably didn't belong there in the first place, but we squeaked in against a very good Colorado State team, who spanked us. The second game, we won. The thrid game, we lost to a very good Memphis team in a very good game--this one I could see maybe the distraction-thing happening. The last game, though, against Southern Miss was a complete mismatch, both in talent and coaching. That USM team was so much bigger and faster than us. We didn't lose that game because of too many distractions. Memphis, maybe, but the CSU and USM losses were butt-kickings by much better teams.

If Arkansas gave up that much money and prestige from being in the SEC, then they deserve what they get. Arkansas, by the way, may have tradition, but they don't exactly bring a huge emdia market into play for the Midwest-centric Big XII. I think they are perfectly happy in the SEC--and now that the Aggies are giving them a platform from which to poach Texas kids every year at JerryWorld, they get the best of both worlds. I could see Mizzou leave the Big 12, but if that happens, I would expect the Big XII to go in two directions--get BYU and their NATIONAL FANBASE into the league or get a team like Memphis into the mix, which would give the conference a top hoops program, a bowl game tie-in with the Liberty, and a growing TV market. They will not replace a school in the North with anyone from Texas. As mentioned, TCU adds nothing to the pot, and UT, A&M, Tech, and Baylor want nothing to do with them. Its kind of ironic actually--Baylor wants nothing to do with TCU, which wants nothing to do with SMU, which wants nothing to do with UNT. If they all would stop looking down at each other--same goes with La Tech against the Louisiana schools and UTEP versus NMSU, a very good and strong conference could be cobbled together here in the Southwest again. Oh well.

If I were guessing on this, I would say that Pittsburgh would be the one school that fits the best for them. Geographically, academically, and athletically. Remember that Pittsburgh has been good in football recently and has been great in men's hoops recently. Syracuse has been great in hoops, but even Pitt has outperformed them over the last 5 years in the Big East. And, of course, with football, you get some serious plusses involving tradition, fanbase, and a great stadium to be able to visit and hold a conference championship in with Heinz Field. Not arguing that Syracuse wouldn't be a good fit, but I think Pittsburgh makes more sense to me. Let's say it any of those Big East teams that the Big Ten adds (I don't see a Big XII team moving) to the fold. The Big East immediately adds Memphis to their conference since they have basketball team and rivals to bring them over. This creates an opening in CUSA, which I believe goes to a Southeatern school (i.e., non-Texan) like Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky, Louisiana Tech, Florida Atlantic, or a MAC school. The eastern CUSA schools already hate that the conference is so Texas-heavy that I believe they will not entertain UNT right now, especially since SMU is now good again in football. If the SBC loses a team, I believe that they will talk to La Tech about coming over, which will not happen, so they will stick with 9 teams once USA gets up to FBS status. if the WAC loses La Tech to CUSA, which is also doubtful, I believe that they will then talk to the Montana schools about moving up.

or Richard Bridges

Not exactly. It would be Arkansas State, ULL, SMU, La Tech, UTEP, UH, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, NMSU, etc.

If/when they do break off (the top 60-75), they will probabbly create their own playoff system to make up fo that scheduling issue. Although some of those schools will always get 7 home games per year, such as Texas, Bama, LSU, etc, most would play 6 games at home and make up for it by sharing the dollars. How this realtes to UNT is fairly simple. Most likely, we wouldn't be int hat group, unless some miracle occurs, but to be in a conference/classification that involved the next 50-60 would be somewhat acceptable, as long as it included being in a league with other local schools. I still believe that the support would be as good if not better than what we currently have if we were in a below the super-wealthy schools and got to play in a league made up of Western CUSA, Western SBC, and Eastern WAC schools.

By a mile, March Madness is the best sporting event going. You get more fun and enjoyment for three weeks in the NCAA Tournament than you do in anything else in sports. From the seedings and the brackets to the actual games, the NCAA Tournament rarely lets me down. Last year, the title game was not great, but the rest of the tournament was great. The year before, the tournament had almost no upsets, but then had one of the best championship games of all-time. If the NCAA does tweak it, I don't have an issue with it, as long as everyone has a place at the table and that place doesn't require 6 play-in games so that the BCS leagues get 6 extra .500 teams in to the tournament. What I wouldn't mind is having multiple networks involved, say CBS and ESPN, which would allow you to watch just about every game you want without buying that package each March. They could even switch each year on who has the Final Four and the Regional Finals.

I think it said something like--"Hey, UNT, this won't cost you much at all." Sold.

My buddy has season tickets for UT games and we went to the UT-Tech game in September in Austin. Those tickets, for the upper deck, at about the 30, and about 3/4 of the way up, cost $95 each--after he pays $2500 a year to the Longhorn Foundation. One of his friends that used to sit about three rows behind him decided about 4 years ago to raise his Longhorn Foundation contribution to $5000 per year to move up--he now sits at the 35, in the upper deck, and about three rows in front of my buddy's tickets.

They had a great basketball team, which opened up the door for them to get into a better hoops league and have their football team compete in the weakest AQ-BCS league. If they were still in CUSA, they wouldn't be going to any BCS game this year because their SOS would have dropped them below Boise. Instead, they get Pittsburgh, WVU, USF, UConn, Rutgers, and Louisville to compete with year-in and year-out. Makes their progress much easier, similar to what USF got by just being in CUSA with basketball and then being in a prime location in Tampa for the Big East. We gripe about our "dead years" in I-AA, for which we may never fully escape, but allowing our hoops team to not stay affiliated in a league with Louisville, Cincinnati, and others in the old MVC was just as bad. USF was always in a conference with those schools, so when the time came to move up, they blew right by UCF, ECU, and other top notch non-BCS teams due to their location and the university's vocal support of being a top-notch program. When you look at where we could have been with a leadership that actually supported athletics completely, we would, at the very worst, be in CUSA today. It definitely hits home even more when you look back at the great NO bowl victory over Cincinnati. That very well could be the last time those two schools could ever be that close in football again, both in prestige and in money.

FFR, I totally agree with not scheduling these teams. If you are going to get a check, schedule a game against a team like Arkansas or Tech or something like that and then just play 11 games. I just can't imagine how ridiculous a UT fan must feel when they pay $95 to watch the Longhorns play Florida Interntaional. What a colossal waste of time and money most of the time. Sure, Arkansas State might play you close, but then you leave the stadium thinking that your team sucks, not that the visiting team showed lots of heart. Probably serves them right, but when someone gladly spends that much money to watch the lions eat the Christians, you really wonder how much "governance" and "competition" that the NCAA cares about, not to mention the UTs, OUs, LSUs of the world. ust end the farce--let them play against each other and form their own level of play--call it NFL-lite if you want to, because that is all it really is at Alabama, Florida, USC, etc. I know that Boise State and TCU are the outliers here, but they get screwed over anyway, so they all might as well just continue to play in a division of team that they already compete with or get over their AD budgets up tothe Super-level that I speak of. I think everyone thinks of a newy created division as another i-aa (FCS) deal, but their is MUCH more support for non-AQ teams and even low-level BCS schools that would still create enough interest and support amongst fans and alumni. Imagine Baylor playing TCU, UNT playing UTEP, and La Tech playing ULL in conference games that mean something for either bowl slots, or more preferably, playoff positioning. Let the BCS schools keep those bowl games and the new division can just own December with the interest of a playoff that would create interest and would be much more competitive. We can cry all we want about fairness and that the NCAA/Congress should step in, but that is equivalent to wanting peace on earth. There is just too much money on their side, too many legislators who come from those schools who will not pass meaningful change, and way too much interest from the NCAA to protect the status quo. I guess it all fits into my belief that getting UNT into a conference/system that would benefit our alumni, programs, and the university would make me thrilled. Meaning simply that being in a conference with teams that are located within Texas and surrounding states and having a system in play to win a national championship would mean so much to me. Where things are right now, we are just about at the opposite end of the spectrum, and I don't believe it will ever change unless a major transformation in how college football is configured occurs.

Just for a point of reference--Texas' football revenues have more than QUADRUPLED under Mack Brown. In 1997, they brought in $21.3MM. IN 2008, that figured was $87.5MM. I can only imagine that 2009 revenue will be even higher because of success, BCS Championship appearance, and another full year of sold-out DKR. This is why I really wouldn't mind there being separate divisions for football. No, that doesn't mean we now compete with SFA and Nicholls State again. But it means that if your AD budget is more than $50MM, then you have a separate level of competition than those whose AD budget is between $10MM and 50MM. Take those top 60 teams and put them in the Super League and then take the next 60 and put them in the AAA-version of college football. That would still give us teams to compete with and succeed against that we consider peers. I know that the bigger schools would get most of the attention, but I can argue that they already do. We would all still follow UNT when we play La Tech or Troy or UTEP. If we want to play a game against those teams, then go ahead. I just think that the current definition of Division 1-A is to loose. UT, A&M, OU, and others of that ilk just have way more resources than those of us in the SBC, CUSA, MAC, or the WAC.