Should we invite Liberty?

MeanGreen_MBA · May 22, 2017

27 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

Liberty will be a fine addition to the SBCUSA East when it all realigns geographically--this is assuming that MUTS will be moving up to the AAC when they need a replacement next...

Liberty, ODU, Marshall, WKU, ULM, Appy State, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Ga Southern, Ga State, and South Alabama

Troy, UAB, USM, La Tech, ULL, Arky State, ULM, UNT, UTSA, Texas State, Rice, and UTEP

If Rice, UTEP, and/or UTSA get an AAC/MWC invite: you can replace them with Sam Houston, NMSU, and SFA as other options.

I know that many here won't like this scenario, but we are blocked forever to the AAC as long as SMU is there and our fanbase has made it completely clear they don't want to go to the MWC, so it appears to me that we will be a part of a league that will be made up of former SLC, SBC, and current CUSA teams.

Does SMU really have any clout to block us anymore???

UNTFan23 · May 22, 2017

3 minutes ago, MeanGreen_MBA said:

Does SMU really have any clout to block us anymore???

People on this board like to think they do. It can't be proven one way or another.

untjim1995 · May 22, 2017

1 hour ago, UNTLifer said:

None of this will happen.

Yes it will

UNTLifer · May 22, 2017

Who will the AAC need to replace? Why would they pick MTSU?

The MWC probably isn't expanding. Why should they? With revenues shrinking, why make a conference larger equaling smaller revenue per school?

The SBC and CUSA aren't merging, because with mergers, people lose jobs. That won't happen.

Stix · May 22, 2017

Ever notice the Cheshire Cat grin on the face in the avatar for "Coach Bill Lewis"?

The thread was started 9:36pm on Friday evening. Methinks one of the mods decided to have a bit of fun with us, while enjoying an adult beverage.

untjim1995 · May 22, 2017

1 hour ago, UNTLifer said:

Who will the AAC need to replace? Why would they pick MTSU?

The MWC probably isn't expanding. Why should they? With revenues shrinking, why make a conference larger equaling smaller revenue per school?

The SBC and CUSA aren't merging, because with mergers, people lose jobs. That won't happen.

When the Big XII implodes, something has to happen with either the AAC or MWC expanding, or most likely, the Big XII assuming teams from the other leagues to fill in, leaving the AAC with teams to replace their lost ones. Its not terribly difficult to see this coming, unless you don't want to.

The AAC stands to probably lose in that scenario, UH, Cincy, and Memphis. The AAC would gladly accept Rice to replace UH, to join with their other private brethren in SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa again. They would probably go pretty hard after NIU or Ohio to replace Cincy, and MUTS is the natural replacement for Memphis.

If the Big XII doesn't stay together and their remnants have to scatter like they did in the old SWC days, the AAC/MWC are picking up some combination of TCU, Baylor, KSU, and ISU, as well as potentially Tech, OSU, or WVU, if they all get left out (I don't think they will). Again, if that happens, let's say the MWC adds TCU, Baylor, and KSU, while the AAC adds ISU. That gives the MWC 15 teams and it gives the AAC 13 teams that play football. To me, the best option available at that point for the MWC is to get BYU back to get to 16 or to go after UTEP again. For the AAC, though, one market in their footprint remains open and would get filled pretty quickly with someone who has built up a nice winner in the two main revenue programs--that is MUTS.

Maybe it doesn't happen. Maybe the Big XII stays together, same with the MWC, AAC, and MAC. But no matter what, the SBCUSA has to split into geographical conferences, for savings on travel costs and increased attendance from closer travels for fans. It cannot go on like it is now, with Texas State playing Appy State in a conference and UTEP playing ODU in a conference. Its unsustainable. And seeing how we aren't leaving this mix of teams anytime soon, it is in our best interest to see this thing get realigned for teams in the lower G5, similar to what the MAC has done so successfully over the years.

You may not like playing with the old SBC/SLC teams, but it is what it is. We ain't jumping SMU---they have always had us blocked and they aren't changing that anytime soon. PonyFans pretty much confirms this--if we think we look down on UTSA, multiply that by 1000 and that is how SMU feels about us. They need the attendance, so they have us on their schedule. Otherwise, they'd drop us in a heartbeat if they had any decent fanbase of their own. But other conferences value SMU's name recognition, location, and their $$$. We don't have those advantages in sports over them. Now, if we went out West and made our way, similar to what TCU did, that could be the path that could change all of this...but the ultimate irony is that fans like you and the majority of the UNT fanbase want nothing to do with the MWC. So, its the ultimate double-edged sword. We are stuck below where we want to be, but if we were ever given the opportunity to join a conference that could produce something that would move us up the NCAA totem pole, our fans have made it especially clear they don't want it because of the Big West experiences we had as a startup I-A program over 20 years ago. So it is what it is...

UNTFan23 · May 22, 2017

I have doubts that the MWC would be interested in a Central timezone team unless the financial benefits are such that there is an increase in revenues for most, if not all, existing conference members.

Arkstfan · May 23, 2017

12 hours ago, untbowler said:

no way, no how, they belong in the Sun Belt until they can prove they can compete with FBS teams in most sports.

They've knocked on the door at the Sun Belt a couple times. President even did a tour visiting every Sun Belt school to lobby for admission. Like the door to door salesman who won't leave you alone, we gave them CUSA's address.

They are a looooong way from having the resume App, Georgia Southern, or Coastal brought to the Sun Belt or the metro size UTSA, ODU, and Charlotte brought to CUSA.

Arkstfan · May 23, 2017

11 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Where? Outside of reading opinions on the message boards, have there been any media reports with factual statements? Not trying to shoot you down, but this comes up every off season and yet nothing really happens.

Over the past 12-18 months the AD's at ODU, MTSU, and USM have all made on the record statements supporting the idea of geographically oriented realignment.

My studied belief is that the window of opportunity hasn't arrived yet.

2020 is the "magic" year. It is the first year that there are 7 CUSA schools meeting continuity of membership. It is the final year of the Sun Belt TV deal. The first year of the next bowl cycle. Both CUSA East, CUSA West, and any combination of 7 Sun Belt not including Coastal meet continuity the next year.

If you are going to redo the world, the time to do it sometime between January 2018 and June 30, 2020.

The CUSA TV deal for July 1, 2017 forward *MIGHT* provide a clue. If it is a short deal of four or fewer years that would be consistent with planning to shake things up.

As for the business of not wanting to associate with Sun Belt schools. Seriously that's like marrying a hooker then declaring you don't want to associate with hookers. USM, UTEP, UTSA, Rice, and Marshall are the only CUSA schools without Sun Belt membership on their resume and but for ULM and the two non-football schools the budgets are similar across the leagues. Ten years ago, CUSA drew 11,300 more fans per game than Sun Belt, last year the difference was 1800. This year's hoops numbers aren't out yet but last year the hoops attendance difference was 1500 and 10 years ago 2600. As Memphis NCAA units drop off the financials have been moving to the Sun Belt's favor in league revenue per team.

I absolutely don't believe in the idea of some happy little meeting where everyone sits down and works things out walk out holding hands. If there is an AD or president with the clout to make that happen I'd love to know who it is.

That's just not how things tend to work out.

Far more likely that someone likely that someone is out there working to find at least six more schools in their conference willing to break at the big moment find 3-5 more to add to the mix once they have their basics in order. That's how the SEC and ACC emerged out of the Southern, the Big 8 out of the MoValley, Pac-12 out of the Pacific Coast. The WAC out of the Border and Skyline, MWC out of the WAC, Great Midwest out of the Metro and Sun Belt, CUSA out of Great Midwest and Metro and people got left out every time.

Ryan Munthe · May 23, 2017

SMU doesn't care about blocking us. Such a dumb conspiracy theory.

MeanGreenTexan · May 23, 2017

14 minutes ago, Ryan Munthe said:

SMU doesn't care about blocking us. Such a dumb conspiracy theory.

Maybe back in the day when the SWC conference was forming, but now? No way. I doubt they would be happy about UNT joining their conference, but the ability to block us? Nah.

GTWT · May 23, 2017

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 9:41 AM, untjim1995 said:

Liberty will be a fine addition to the SBCUSA East when it all realigns geographically--this is assuming that MUTS will be moving up to the AAC when they need a replacement next...

Liberty, ODU, Marshall, WKU, ULM, Appy State, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Ga Southern, Ga State, and South Alabama

Troy, UAB, USM, La Tech, ULL, Arky State, ULM, UNT, UTSA, Texas State, Rice, and UTEP

If Rice, UTEP, and/or UTSA get an AAC/MWC invite: you can replace them with Sam Houston, NMSU, and SFA as other options.

I know that many here won't like this scenario, but we are blocked forever to the AAC as long as SMU is there and our fanbase has made it completely clear they don't want to go to the MWC, so it appears to me that we will be a part of a league that will be made up of former SLC, SBC, and current CUSA teams.

That is wrong on so many levels. First, I wouldn't wish Liberty on anyone - not even the F_U schools. Second, I'd rather see UNT drop down to the South Land than again be conference mates with Monroe & Troy.

VideoEagle · May 23, 2017

1 hour ago, Ryan Munthe said:

SMU doesn't care about blocking us. Such a dumb conspiracy theory.

57 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Maybe back in the day when the SWC conference was forming, but now? No way. I doubt they would be happy about UNT joining their conference, but the ability to block us? Nah.

You are both very correct!

I think people are basing the idea of SMU blocking on what happened 40 years ago when we were trying to get into the SWC. SMU opposed several expansions of the conference including both Texas Tech and Houston. Even then, SMU didn't have veto power but they were able to join with TCU, Rice, Baylor and someone else to prevent our membership from ever coming up for serious discussion.

I believe most conference want a 2/3 member vote to expand and the old SWC at the time had 9 members so 6 was needed to expand and 4 to stop it. In the late 70s Houston had just joined and was dominating the small privates so adding yet another large state university didn't make sense. At the time, I'd wished we'd tried to get into the Big 8 as we were actually a better fit - all state schools with similar enrollments. And other than OU, none got to showcase themselves in the area very often.

In the American, SMU is one of 12 or 13 depending on how you count Navy/Wichita State. If it is 2/3 to expand, then the magic number is 8. If we got 8, then SMU couldn't "block" us. The trick, obviously, is getting to 8.

You can't judge SMU's actual attitude by looking at PonyFans anymore than you can judge NT's by reading here!

Arkstfan · May 23, 2017

2 hours ago, VideoEagle said:

You are both very correct!

I think people are basing the idea of SMU blocking on what happened 40 years ago when we were trying to get into the SWC. SMU opposed several expansions of the conference including both Texas Tech and Houston. Even then, SMU didn't have veto power but they were able to join with TCU, Rice, Baylor and someone else to prevent our membership from ever coming up for serious discussion.

I believe most conference want a 2/3 member vote to expand and the old SWC at the time had 9 members so 6 was needed to expand and 4 to stop it. In the late 70s Houston had just joined and was dominating the small privates so adding yet another large state university didn't make sense. At the time, I'd wished we'd tried to get into the Big 8 as we were actually a better fit - all state schools with similar enrollments. And other than OU, none got to showcase themselves in the area very often.

In the American, SMU is one of 12 or 13 depending on how you count Navy/Wichita State. If it is 2/3 to expand, then the magic number is 8. If we got 8, then SMU couldn't "block" us. The trick, obviously, is getting to 8.

You can't judge SMU's actual attitude by looking at PonyFans anymore than you can judge NT's by reading here!

No idea about the SWC but in general conferences require 3/4ths vote. With 9 that would be 7 to expand and 3 to block.

untjim1995 · May 23, 2017

When we wanted to get into the second iteration of CUSA in 2005, after Louisville, Cincy, and USF left for the Big East, TCU left for the MWC, and Army went back to being an independent. CUSA, which still had UH, Tulane, Memphis, UAB, USM, and ECU, immediately invited UCF and Marshall from the MAC, as well as SMU, Rice, and Tulsa. But they still needed a 12th school, from the western part of their geography to fill in. The league looked at UTEP, La Tech, and us. We had just come off of a 4 year run at the top of the SBC, but had a bad year in 2005, going 2-9. That said, SMU hadn't a winning season since 1997 and wouldn't until 2009, nor were they any good in hoops. Yet they were immediately added. And they immediately decided to support freaking Louisiana Tech for membership, knowing full well that their podunk market wasn't getting picked, but it also made it clear they weren't supporting us to join them in their conference. So, the CUSA leadership went with UTEP, a far-flung school on the map, but with a history of basketball success from long ago in a pretty solid market, but one not nearly as huge as DFW, which could have easily hosted both of us.

It didn't help, of course, that we had a football stadium that Pop Warner would have thought was below his standards for kids to play on, much less men. but again, we are a huge school, having come off 4 straight SBC titles with back-to-back national rushing champions, and could offer the entirety of the DFW/North Texas region. And CUSA and SMU made it clear they wanted nothing to do with having us both--and that SMU's history, location, and cash did the talking, even though they sucked ass on the football field for the better part of 20 years after the Death Penalty.

I have no way to believe that the AAC, since its basically this entire group that moved up, except for small market Marshall and USM, as well as near bankrupt UAB and tiny enrollment Rice. All but Arkansas State, ULL, ULM, and Troy moved up to the current CUSA , for many of the same reasons that USM and Marshall got stuck in the current CUSA, because they provided no TV market. SMU would gladly support Rice, UTSA, and UTEP before they would support La Tech again...and LT is miles ahead of us in getting their support, which private buddies Tulsa and Tulane would gladly follow if UH, Memphis, Cincy, UConn, UCF, or USF ever leave. They'd love Rice back for the academics and to keep a presence in Houston and Rice would love to go back into a conference with them.

Arkstfan · May 23, 2017

Generals prepare for the last war.

The era of TV markets is over. Probably never existed once the ratings services moved past the diary to compile data. The Big 8 wanted Texas and TAMU and no one else. They didn't go looking for SMU, TCU, or Houston for markets. Taking Texas Tech and Baylor were nothing but the ransom paid by the Big 8 to get the two they wanted.

CUSA increased its market reach and took an 80% hit on rights. The Big East+AAC combined have greater TV markets than the old Big East but make $8.5 million less per team on average (and that's with the new Big East bolstering the per team average) than the offer on the table before the old Big East melted away.

You get paid based on whether a cable or satellite system will lose subscribers if your content isn't available and you get paid based on how many people actually watch. Under market theory Fordham or Stony Brook are super valuable if they'd just move FBS. Under market theory UAB is highly valuable because college football viewership in the Birmingham TV market is roughly the same number of viewers college football gets each week in New York City.

TreeFiddy · May 23, 2017

CUSA expanded into 'markets' because their TV partners told them to.

Arkstfan · May 23, 2017

Just now, TreeFiddy said:

CUSA expanded into 'markets' because their TV partners told them to.

The partners that cut the pay before the contracts expired?

TreeFiddy · May 23, 2017

yep

Arkstfan · May 24, 2017

5 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

yep

I think the TV partners story was a cop out. Before expansion a guy I know who has a pretty good in with the UAB program had told me after Memphis left that the debate was whether to go to 9 or 10. He believed UNT was in and FIU if they went to 10. The story was that ECU held out wanting Charlotte and ODU while UTSA and La.Tech came into the mix to close the gap between USM and the rest of the West and UTSA was picked up to round it up to 14 and prevent the Sun Belt from having two teams in San Antonio area.

I've no evidence to think he's wrong but nothing to confirm it, but with CUSA taking the cut I'm skeptical there was a significant per team difference between 10 and 14. With ECU's past on the record history of advocating for a 16 team CUSA that could eventually be split, the story fits.

TreeFiddy · May 24, 2017

If you think the TV partners at the time were not aware and approving, or even suggesting, each move then I believe you are underestimating the old adage of 'he who has the gold makes the rules'.

CUSA was not the only conference who had TV partners strongly influencing expansion decisions. TV has basically driven realignment from the start.

Arkstfan · May 24, 2017

8 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

If you think the TV partners at the time were not aware and approving, or even suggesting, each move then I believe you are underestimating the old adage of 'he who has the gold makes the rules'.

CUSA was not the only conference who had TV partners strongly influencing expansion decisions. TV has basically driven realignment from the start.

Uh they took the gold and left. Simply illogical that CUSA had to go to 14 to get a per team roughly on par with Sun Belt.