Poll: MWC or stay put?

Rudy · August 5, 2016

Yes. We all know the direction CUSA is heading. All of the schools in the conference that we want to be with are bolting at the first chance they get. We need to move on first chance we get too.

UNT90 · August 5, 2016

20 minutes ago, Rudy said:

Yes. We all know the direction CUSA is heading. All of the schools in the conference that we want to be with are bolting at the first chance they get. We need to move on first chance we get too.

But, but, but I won't be able to drive to Houston and San Antonio for games!!!

memememememememememememememememememememememe

emmitt01 · August 5, 2016

This shouldn't even be a question.

Boise State, Air Force Academy and Colorado State alone bring more name recognition and "draw" than anyone in CUSA. Add to that Fresno and UNLV and I predict season ticket sales would jump on day 1.

greenb.o.g. · August 5, 2016

As a simple answer to the poll: Hell yes!

But the scenario is completely unrealistic.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that the MWC wanted to expand its brand into Texas. They wouldn't just take one school, because that would give them 13 schools total, an odd amount. They would be more likely to take two schools.

So the question I have: who would you want paired with UNT?

southsideguy · August 5, 2016

We better get better real fast in football and basketball if we want to go anywhere.

MCMLXXX · August 5, 2016

If we were in a division that included a combination of at least 7 of the following schools UNT, UTEP, UTSA, Rice, UNM, Air Force, CSU, and Wyoming then I am in favor.

Ben Gooding · August 5, 2016

28 minutes ago, MCMLXXX said:

If we were in a division that included a combination of at least 7 of the following schools UNT, UTEP, UTSA, Rice, UNM, Air Force, CSU, and Wyoming then I am in favor.

Wyoming? Ugh. Gross.

Oh and I voted yes, obviously.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Ben Gooding

Got5onIt · August 5, 2016

Yes x10 to MWC.

LongJim · August 5, 2016

7 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

You may want to reconsider then Harry.
Read the first "assumption": All C-USA & MWC teams remain the same as they are today, meaning UTEP/Rice/UTSA aren't coming with us, and no teams are leaving the MWC.

Then I change my vote to no!

Mike Jackson · August 5, 2016

4 hours ago, UNT90 said:

The AAC wanted them. More than they wanted UNT.

And the Big 12 would take them in a NY minute if the only 2 choices were SMU or UNT.

Dont think we are in any position to talk smack.

Which sucks. Cause I like talking smack.

I would stay put but it would be a close call. MWC teams don't move the needle here locally. No dormant UNT Alumni are showing up at Apogee just because we are playing San Diego State, Fresno State or Colorado State (are the other team really worth mentioning). The only thing that would make me move the school to the MWC would be legitimate belief that the program would win a conference championship in the next 4 years. The advantages of the MWC don't do much for us if we don't win the conference. Only the Champion gets to play a P5 school in the MWC. But wining the CUSA probably gets us a P5 opponent in the Heart of Dallas Bowl.

UNT90 As often I agree with you I think you are not looking at the big picture like Big 12 officials would be. If they want a better chance to survive this next round of realignment SMU is not going to do much for them. SMU has low growth potential as an expensive small religious private school without any success of note since the death penalty. They can money whip a well known coach to lead the program but that is no guarantee. If Texas and Oklahoma were exclusively making the call and did not care about conference long term survival it would be a no brainer. They know SMU is a more controllable threat to their dominance of the conference. In the Big 12 we would have a couple advantages over SMU that would make us more difficult to manage for the Big 2. And TCU and Baylor would be happy about it either. I will be only discussing Texas recruits and Oklahoma recruits that could work out getting in state tuition after their freshman year with family ties in Texas.

1. As cheaper public university we would be more attractive to walk-ons than any other Big 12 in the state of Texas. (If you walk on at Texas or Oklahoma you are not going to play until the middle of your sophomore year or beginning of your junior year). Good luck with TCU, SMU, or Baylor tuition until you earn a scholarship. Those blueshirts, gray shirts, and walk-ons could be on scholarship at UNT

2. Better location than Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas and West Virginia

3. Plenty of space to expand and improve facilities with minimal cost compared to SMU locked north central Dallas

4. By playing Big 12 teams regularly you tap into the huge local Alumni fan base. UNT being in a conference the P5 Texas schools for as little as 12 years would create a generation of hardcore local fans.

So if I am conference commissioner and looking at keeping my job for the next 15 years more so than placating to the Big 1(2) I opt for UNT over SMU. UNT just has more long term upside. As successful as SMU was (while cheating) I have never met an SMU fan that wasn't an alumni or closely related to an alumni. SMU is Dallas' version of the U of Miami without the Hall of Fame players, Championships or a school name to unify people not associated with the school around. Even with all that Miami has trouble filling their stadium. If SMU were named the "University of Dallas or Dallas College" with all the same history and issues as SMU it definitely be a no brainer. But without a unifying name their "advantages" mean squat in 2016 and beyond.

NM Green · August 5, 2016

I agree that UNT has more upside in future realignment talks than SMU does. SMU has history on its side but when UNT gear starts showing up in the Sun Fresh Market near white rock next to the TCU, A&M and Texas gear combined with the wins that are coming you will see why UNT has more future upside. I like the fact that Wren has a seat at the big boy table. I like that both he and Seth are cerebral and look like thinkers and doers - make it happen guys. I like that Smastrek is so involved and will continue to be going forward.

I think when Rice leaves, UTEP, UTSA and UNT make a pitch to the MWC about joining. If we need a fourth get Texas State and offer up access to major markets like DFW, San Antonio and Austin and you reunite Utep's strong bball program with UNM and UNLV.

GMG

oldguystudent · August 5, 2016

I said move, but for rather frivolous reasons:

1) MWC seems a WHOLE lot more stable than CUSA

2) I'm from the west coast, so the teams that would be coming into Apogee are attractive to me.

Otherwise, I don't really know that any one G5 conference is better than any other in the long-term. It's the new 1-AA.

MeanGreenTexan · August 5, 2016

11 hours ago, greenb.o.g. said:

As a simple answer to the poll: Hell yes!

But the scenario is completely unrealistic.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that the MWC wanted to expand its brand into Texas. They wouldn't just take one school, because that would give them 13 schools total, an odd amount. They would be more likely to take two schools.

So the question I have: who would you want paired with UNT?

Hey!
Go make your own poll, buster.

MCMLXXX · August 5, 2016

1 hour ago, Eagle1855 said:

We hosted K-State for our final game in Fouts, which also wasn't a sell-out.

K-state was on a Thanksgiving weekend. Student attendance was low. A weekend earlier that game would have been SRO.

RBP79 · August 5, 2016

Yes...why wait for CUSA to get picked apart and be back in the hyped-up Sun Belt.

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · August 5, 2016

Yes, if we can go "football only" like Notre Dame to ACC or BYU to Big 12.

TIgreen01 · August 5, 2016

Wins sure didn't matter when we were the first school picked up by CUSA back in the last round of realignment. Todd Dodge had just finished nuking our football program when that decision came down. If the AAC has to replace schools from Texas now, it's coming down to us and Rice. The small privates likely band together to try to add Rice and increase their voting block, but we are not the chopped liver that it seems many on here now think we are. We don't have to jump at any opportunity thrown our way in order to survive. We don't fit in the MWC as it's currently configured, so I say 'no'.

Edited August 5, 2016 by TIgreen01

MeanGreenTexan · August 5, 2016

3 minutes ago, TIgreen01 said:

Wins sure didn't matter when we were the first school picked up by CUSA back in the last round of realignment. Todd Dodge had just finished nuking our football program when that decision came down. If the AAC has to replace schools from Texas now, it's coming down to us and Rice. The small privates likely band together to try to add Rice and increase their voting block, but we are not the chopped liver that it seems many on here now think we are. We don't have to jump at any opportunity thrown our way in order to survive. We don't fit in the MWC as it's currently configured, so I say 'no'.

That would be quite a gamble... saying "no" to the MWC because you're hoping/wishing/praying for an AAC invite.

TIgreen01 · August 5, 2016

5 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

That would be quite a gamble... saying "no" to the MWC because you're hoping/wishing/praying for an AAC invite.

Your assumption that we have to resort to 'hoping/wishing/praying' is on the dramatic side. That's the point I am trying to make. We have more going for us than many on here want to let themselves believe.

Just to entertain your argument, though, what IF we don't get selected...what's the most realistic scenario? We stay in CUSA and add Ark St or ULL to replace Rice. Both would immediately jump to near the top of the conference in football budgets. This is not a 'sky is falling' scenario we are dealing with.

In all reality, though, this is not how these deals go down. There is very rarely just one moving part. The MWC isn't even looking to expand, but should they suddenly be, I imagine that we would consider it as long as we were packaged with another Texas school.

UTSA Fan · August 5, 2016

12 hours ago, NM Green said:

I agree that UNT has more upside in future realignment talks than SMU does. SMU has history on its side but when UNT gear starts showing up in the Sun Fresh Market near white rock next to the TCU, A&M and Texas gear combined with the wins that are coming you will see why UNT has more future upside. I like the fact that Wren has a seat at the big boy table. I like that both he and Seth are cerebral and look like thinkers and doers - make it happen guys. I like that Smastrek is so involved and will continue to be going forward.

I think when Rice leaves, UTEP, UTSA and UNT make a pitch to the MWC about joining. If we need a fourth get Texas State and offer up access to major markets like DFW, San Antonio and Austin and you reunite Utep's strong bball program with UNM and UNLV.

GMG

From what I've read, my inference is UTSA is focused on building the program and looking for the next reallignment. It makes sense in my mind, if UT is going to bolt after LH network ends, that shake up is what you would want to prepare for. UNT/UTSA currently has favorable travel expenses in CUSA and there is a very real risk that a move now may not look as good after the next huge reallignment redefines the landscape. And let's be honest, both programs still have some work a head to be ready for such a move.

UNT90 · August 5, 2016

UNT isn't crappy UTSA, who has no facilities at all. We at least have a football stadium that we can be proud of.

Not to mention much more FBS football history.

IF UNT is trying to stay equal with UTSA, just shut the Mofo down, because athletics has already lost.

MDH · August 5, 2016

I'd accept before they could even finish the question. I've long been a hater of being in a league with FAU, FIU and UTSA.

Edited August 5, 2016 by MDH

GrandGreen · August 5, 2016

Based on the key assumption that many are ignoring, that NT would be the only area team in the league; it would be too big a risk in my mind. It would cost a lot to join and a lot to leave, and I am not sure that MWC will generate the revenue to offset those costs. Particularly, when the travel cost for 16 sports is factored in.

TCU is used by everyone as an example of what a stepping stone MWC can be. I am not sure how much MWC had to do with TCU rise. I think it had a lot more to do with the hiring of Patterson than any membership in MWC. By the way TCU record while in the MWC; was 47-4.

If NT could come close to duplicating TCU's record in any league including CUSU; I think the P5 would notice.

MeanGreenTexan · August 5, 2016

34 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Based on the key assumption that many are ignoring, that NT would be the only area team in the league; it would be too big a risk in my mind. It would cost a lot to join and a lot to leave, and I am not sure that MWC will generate the revenue to offset those costs. Particularly, when the travel cost for 16 sports is factored in.

TCU is used by everyone as an example of what a stepping stone MWC can be. I am not sure how much MWC had to do with TCU rise. I think it had a lot more to do with the hiring of Patterson than any membership in MWC. By the way TCU record while in the MWC; was 47-4.

If NT could come close to duplicating TCU's record in any league including CUSU; I think the P5 would notice.

This is good stuff here GrandGreen. Well thought-out counter argument.

I would just contend that a P5 conference would notice a little more if UNT were to go 47-4 in the MWC than going 47-4 in our current version of C-USA.
The Olympic sports would certainly be an investment. I would argue though that travel to/from California/Nevada is just as expensive as travel to/from Florida/N.Carolina. Where it will hit a little harder is travel to/from CO is more than travel to/from Houston/SanAntonio, so while the budget would have to be increased... it's not too terribly much.

Edited August 5, 2016 by MeanGreenTexan

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · August 5, 2016

2 hours ago, MDH said:

I'd accept before they could even finish the question. I've long been a hater of being in a league with FAU, FIU and UTSA.

This is where I am with the C-USA and football. The C-USA is, in reality, C-USun Belt. The C-USA schools that were here before us, save Southern Miss and Rice are gone. Oh, and Marshall...or, was Marshall still MAC then?

Anyway, it was very disheartening to have Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky, and The Floridas follow us. THEN, worse, all of the start-ups and jump ups: Old Dominion, Charlotte, UTSA. C-USA "leadership" under Banowsky was reactionary instead of proactive.

(SIDE NOTE: At minimum, to me, why the f*ck The Floridas instead of Arkansas State and Louisiana? I mean, if you are going to bring in more Sun Belters, why pass over the more competitive members? F*cking stupid all the way around, Banowsky.)

The truth is, no matter what time the games start (which is a stupid measure of which conference you want to be in), the MWC has higher visibility than the C-USA and has better competition.

I mean, we'll have 14 schools next year when UAB rejoins. It's f*cking stupid. Seven team divisions. It's too much.

Honestly, again, we need out if we can get out. AAC and MWC are the only acceptable, realistic choices. The C-USA and Sun Belt seriously need to square up, admit who, what, and where they both are, and reconfigure the conferences based on geography. No one P5 level is going to notice or care anyway, so just do it.

The vast majority of college football fans and commentators won't care or notice, anyway, either. So, just sack up and do it. Have no idea what C-USA and Sun Belt think they are trying to prove or whom they are trying to fool. It's total and complete llama crap any way your spread it.

Each conference should rake up it's pile of llama crap closer to itself geographically and be done with it. Hamster masters.