Report: Houston and Cincinnati Expected to Receive Big 12 Invites

[greenminer]

1 hour ago, MeanGreen2019 said:

I'd be sick if UTSA got into the AAC when their program is less than a decade old.

I believe they played their first football game ever exactly one decade ago.

 

[Mean Green 93-98]

2 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I would think OKSt is an attractive piece. 

Not for the PAC.  Their academics pretty much disqualify them.

And there's really not that much attractive about them.  The PAC considered them back when they were going to be part of a package deal to bring in OU and UT, but by themselves, they don't do much.

The PAC has an identity; Okie State doesn't match it.  And they may very well dilute the conference rather than adding to it.

[El Paso Eagle]

4 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Not for the PAC.  Their academics pretty much disqualify them.

And there's really not that much attractive about them.  The PAC considered them back when they were going to be part of a package deal to bring in OU and UT, but by themselves, they don't do much.

The PAC has an identity; Okie State doesn't match it.  And they may very well dilute the conference rather than adding to it.

I know academics are a big part of the B1G10. A lot of people wanted Nebraska booted out after they lost their AAU accreditation about the time they joined (only team in the B1G10 without it).

[wardly]

2 hours ago, MrAlien said:

You are assuming that Kansas, WV, and Iowa stay in the BIG12. All 3 of those schools have been linked to leaving.  Will adding a few G5 schools convince them to stay?  I think they will find better deals in other conferences.

They will stay in the Big 12 because no one wants them. This is about football , not men's basketball, and neither individuality nor collectively do they bring any increase in value to any other  P5 conference.Plus one of the things the "Alliance" agreed upon was status quo for their respective conferences. Poop runs down hill, and the only question now is which 4 football teams does the AAC add to get back to 12 gridiron programs. First, with SMU in the AAC its a given UNT will not get an invite , plus we bring nothing new to the table So assuming the the MAC and MWC are not targets that would leave a total of 24 programs from the SBC and CUSA to choose from. Which 4 would you choose?

[Mean Green 93-98]

4 minutes ago, wardly said:

They will stay in the Big 12 because no one wants them. This is about football , not men's basketball, and neither individuality nor collectively do they bring any increase in value to any other  P5 conference.Plus one of the things the "Alliance" agreed upon was status quo for their respective conferences. Poop runs down hill, and the only question now is which 4 football teams does the AAC add to get back to 12 gridiron programs. First, with SMU in the AAC its a given UNT will not get an invite , plus we bring nothing new to the table So assuming the the MAC and MWC are not targets that would leave a total of 24 programs from the SBC and CUSA to choose from. Which 4 would you choose?

I would think Southern Miss and Marshall have a decent shot, in large part because of their history with the AAC teams.  Marshall also has had a consistently good football team for a good while now.  Other good possibilities would be Louisiana Tech and App State.  I wouldn't completely rule us out, but with SMU in the AAC, it makes us more or less redundant.

[rcade]

11 minutes ago, wardly said:

First, with SMU in the AAC its a given UNT will not get an invite ...

"SMU will never let UNT in the AAC" sounds a lot like "Texas A&M will never let Texas in the SEC." Why do we assume that when the rubber hits the road, SMU has any power to stop anything that its conference wants?

[DentonStang]

9 minutes ago, rcade said:

"SMU will never let UNT in the AAC" sounds a lot like "Texas A&M will never let Texas in the SEC." Why do we assume that when the rubber hits the road, SMU has any power to stop anything that its conference wants?

Because you don't offer anything of value. You don't have TV ratings that will boost the conference finances.  There are a dozen other options that bring more revenue and are more competitive to bring publicity.  If we are just picking from all of those schools, why pick one that doesn't introduce any new geography?

Edited September 3, 2021 by DentonStang

[MrAlien]

23 minutes ago, wardly said:

They will stay in the Big 12 because no one wants them. This is about football , not men's basketball, and neither individuality nor collectively do they bring any increase in value to any other  P5 conference.Plus one of the things the "Alliance" agreed upon was status quo for their respective conferences. Poop runs down hill, and the only question now is which 4 football teams does the AAC add to get back to 12 gridiron programs. First, with SMU in the AAC its a given UNT will not get an invite , plus we bring nothing new to the table So assuming the the MAC and MWC are not targets that would leave a total of 24 programs from the SBC and CUSA to choose from. Which 4 would you choose?

First and foremost this is about money... and Kansas BB program would bring $$ to any conference. 

How many schools left in the BIG12 are happy with where its going?  how many wouldn't jump at the chance to join another power conference?  Every school except Baylor has been linked to possibly joining another conference already.  Is it really worth leaving the AAC, when no one knows who will be in that conference in a couple years?

If enough schools (3 or 4) leave the AAC then UNT absolutely has a shot at joining even with SMU, because they are going to be desperate for caliber schools.   

Edited September 3, 2021 by MrAlien

[El Paso Eagle]

Just now, DentonStang said:

Because you don't offer anything of value. You don't have TV ratings that will boost the conference finances.  There are a dozen other options that bring more revenue and are more competitive to bring publicity.  If we are just picking from all of those schools, why pick one that doesn't introduce any new geography?

The same thing the Big12 is saying about SMU

[Mean Green 93-98]

1 minute ago, DentonStang said:

Because you don't offer anything of value. You don't have TV ratings that will boost the conference finances.  There are a dozen other options that bring more revenue and are more competitive to bring publicity.  If we are just picking from all of those schools, why pick one that doesn't introduce any new geography?

You didn't read the question you supposedly answered.  Everything you say is correct (and would similarly be true if UNT's and SMU's roles were reversed), but the question was asked as to whether SMU had veto power over decisions the rest of your about-to-be-decimated conference would make.

[Tom McKrackin]

16 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

Because you don't offer anything of value. You don't have TV ratings that will boost the conference finances.  There are a dozen other options that bring more revenue and are more competitive to bring publicity.  If we are just picking from all of those schools, why pick one that doesn't introduce any new geography?

What I don't get is why you guys have such a damned probelm with us that you keep trying to keep us from getting into a conference with you?  What gives bro?

[DentonStang]

35 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

The same thing the Big12 is saying about SMU

Yes exactly

[DentonStang]

33 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

You didn't read the question you supposedly answered.  Everything you say is correct (and would similarly be true if UNT's and SMU's roles were reversed), but the question was asked as to whether SMU had veto power over decisions the rest of your about-to-be-decimated conference would make.

There is no formal veto. Whether everyone would honor a request if there is one?  Who knows. 

 

If UNT made the most financial sense there would be no reason to veto. 

Despite the bizarro SMU focus I see here on a regular basis, nobody at SMU particularly hates UNT. UNT does not come up on the SMU board (the real board on the 247 network, not ponyfans which is a couple of good old guys who refuse to pay for 247 subscription and about 15 really, really weird people run off from 247) outside of when we are playing.  

At this point money is more important than anything. 

[wardly]

37 minutes ago, MrAlien said:

First and foremost this is about money... and Kansas BB program would bring $$ to any conference. 

How many schools left in the BIG12 are happy with where its going?  how many wouldn't jump at the chance to join another power conference?  Every school except Baylor has been linked to possibly joining another conference already.  Is it really worth leaving the AAC, when no one knows who will be in that conference in a couple years?

If enough schools (3 or 4) leave the AAC then UNT absolutely has a shot at joining even with SMU, because they are going to be desperate for caliber schools.   

This is about BIG money so its about football, not men's basketball. Yes its worth leaving the AAC for the Big 12 which is a much better conference with far greater revenue projections than the AAC even without Texas and OU. Third, why would the AAC want two teams in the same market such as SMU and UNT? The Big 12 doesn't. Also define "caliber" schools. If you are talking about football programs that have a history of winning, draw fans to their t.v.'s or put cheeks in the seats then UNT is in the bottom two thirds CUSA. People watch a team like App. State. They don't watch a team like UNT, unless of course they are getting the crape beat out of them by the Mountaineers.

 

 

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

2 hours ago, DentonStang said:

Because you don't offer anything of value. You don't have TV ratings that will boost the conference finances.  There are a dozen other options that bring more revenue and are more competitive to bring publicity.  If we are just picking from all of those schools, why pick one that doesn't introduce any new geography?

No one at this level has TV ratings. The geography thing is taken for granted now because of the era of TV markets, but for a long time two teams in the same market wasn’t unheard of (think TCU and SMU). With streaming, we are basically going to a new era where geography isn’t as important again. Hence the changes. I think you underestimate UNT’s revenue, if nothing else due to its student and alumni population. I don’t disagree that we won’t get an invite, but I think it will be for other reasons (poor football performance, years of negative stigma, etc.) 

[Jonnyeagle]

6 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

No one at this level has TV ratings. The geography thing is taken for granted now because of the era of TV markets, but for a long time two teams in the same market wasn’t unheard of (think TCU and SMU). With streaming, we are basically going to a new era where geography isn’t as important again. Hence the changes. I think you underestimate UNT’s revenue, if nothing else due to its student and alumni population. I don’t disagree that we won’t get an invite, but I think it will be for other reasons (poor football performance, years of negative stigma, etc.) 

^^^
he is right

[untjim1995]

10 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

No one at this level has TV ratings. The geography thing is taken for granted now because of the era of TV markets, but for a long time two teams in the same market wasn’t unheard of (think TCU and SMU). With streaming, we are basically going to a new era where geography isn’t as important again. Hence the changes. I think you underestimate UNT’s revenue, if nothing else due to its student and alumni population. I don’t disagree that we won’t get an invite, but I think it will be for other reasons (poor football performance, years of negative stigma, etc.) 

Speaking of negative stigma…this is yet another example of just how little DFW even cares about us…this is from a realtor

 

[rcade]

2 hours ago, DentonStang said:

Because you don't offer anything of value. You don't have TV ratings that will boost the conference finances.  There are a dozen other options that bring more revenue and are more competitive to bring publicity.  If we are just picking from all of those schools, why pick one that doesn't introduce any new geography?

I didn't ask about UNT. I asked about SMU. What makes you think the rest of the AAC is giving SMU the power to veto the invitation of any other school?

It's not like your school is an AAC juggernaut. Your conference record is 42-48.

When you were invited out of CUSA, you were a small fish in that pond. Your record in the conference was 43-67 (39%). Ours is 45-54 (45%).

Your average attendance in your final CUSA season was 21,800. Our average attendance in 2019 was 21,300.

As for TV, in 2019 your game against Memphis set a new primetime ratings low for ABC's college football broadcasts.

Your enrollment is 11,000. Ours is 40,000. You have 45,000 alumni in DFW and 117,000 overall. We have 434,000 and 294,000 in DFW.

When SMU got the invite to the AAC, there's no criteria I'm seeing where it looked better than UNT does today.

SMU does spend $30 million a year more now than UNT on athletics, because you're so well-endowed.

But you're not getting any better performance than us! Which is what I always said going back to my college days. It's not the size; it's how you use it.

[LongJim]

3 hours ago, rcade said:

"SMU will never let UNT in the AAC" sounds a lot like "Texas A&M will never let Texas in the SEC." Why do we assume that when the rubber hits the road, SMU has any power to stop anything that its conference wants?

Have never understood that.  They have 1 vote like every other school.

[UNTexas]

2 hours ago, DentonStang said:

There is no formal veto. Whether everyone would honor a request if there is one?  Who knows. 

 

If UNT made the most financial sense there would be no reason to veto. 

Despite the bizarro SMU focus I see here on a regular basis, nobody at SMU particularly hates UNT. UNT does not come up on the SMU board (the real board on the 247 network, not ponyfans which is a couple of good old guys who refuse to pay for 247 subscription and about 15 really, really weird people run off from 247) outside of when we are playing.  

At this point money is more important than anything. 

That made me laugh. A couple of old guys that refuse to pay. They probably are my neighbors. Lol

[Mean Green Matt]

7 hours ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

The new Big 12 would be vastly superior than the AAC has ever been. And I'd argue they're better than the Pac12 in football and basketball. 

New AAC as  in top of the mountain of those not invited to the island. I think the Pac12 / Big 10 / ACC agreement shows where the new Big 12 without Texas and Oklahoma is going to be viewed. 

[UNTLifer]

3 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

Speaking of negative stigma…this is yet another example of just how little DFW even cares about us…this is from a realtor

 

What realtor?

[NT93]

4 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

What realtor?

Probably a UNT grad.

[untjim1995]

16 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

What realtor?

I should’ve said it’s from a title company…but still, this is DFW and we aren’t anywhere near being on a schedule magnet for local college football when there are 8 other schools listed? That’s the reality of our situation in DFW, stuck behind 8 schools, and that’s not even counting the national powers that also get more attention and coverage than we could ever dream of around here. 

[UNTLifer]

Company?  I would like to know who to not do business with.