CBS’s Dennis Dodd says UNT on AAC List

[97and03]

Athletic success seemed to have little to do with the last realignment. Not sure how much it will figure in this time. Athletic budget, fan support, facilities and such are likely much more important. I don’t know that we fare so well by that measurement. 

[Monkeypox]

Just now, MeanGreenTexan said:

No way.
I guarantee you if Frank Wilson is still at UTSA and they finish 2020 with 4 wins again (like UNT did), UTSA is only considered an "also-ran" like UNT, with the same reason ("They could get the SA market!!", or in our case, "They can help bolster the gigantic DFW market!!").
BUT!  They won last year, and they appear to be a favorite to outright win C-USA this year, so why wouldn't you want to add that PLUS the SA market?

Because conferences only care about what money you're bringing in. UT isn't going to the SEC because they are good at things. It's because they have a $200m+ program, no matter what they do.

Now, I disagree that UTSA isn't being considered. I think some might look at their enrollment and location and figure they have potential. I think they make more sense for the MW because with the addition of UNT and UTSA alone they at least get a foot into 2 of 3 market regions in Texas. But they (UTSA) really do have to get on those facilities. I just don't think their current or most recent record matters in the slightest. And seriously, they are 2-0 after going 7-5... nobody's like "They're DOMINATING CUSA! We better add them STAT!"

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Aresco (AAC commissioner) used to work for CBS, so I’m willing to bet he is feeding this to a former buddy. Another tweet already shut down the MWC schools being interested in joining (likely now coming from their school’s sources). That leaves UAB and the alternative list, which only mentions FAU, UTSA, and North Texas. 
 

Interesting piece is MWC trying to nab North Texas and Tulsa before AAC has a chance to finalize any moves. May be a situation where we have an opportunity to choose, best case scenario. Both are positive pieces of news. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

7 minutes ago, Monkeypox said:

Because conferences only care about what money you're bringing in. UT isn't going to the SEC because they are good at things. It's because they have a $200m+ program, no matter what they do.

Now, I disagree that UTSA isn't being considered. I think some might look at their enrollment and location and figure they have potential. I think they make more sense for the MW because with the addition of UNT and UTSA alone they at least get a foot into 2 of 3 market regions in Texas. But they (UTSA) really do have to get on those facilities. I just don't think their current or most recent record matters in the slightest. And seriously, they are 2-0 after going 7-5... nobody's like "They're DOMINATING CUSA! We better add them STAT!"

I'm not saying recent football success is the only thing any of these conferences would consider.

But do you think if UTSA was 4-8 in C-USA last year (continuing a multi-year losing streak), & 1-1 to start this season, while UNT was 7-5 last year and started 2-0 this year, the attractiveness of each school would be different, if not completely flipped?

And yes, once you dig past the football team's success, you find UTSA with virtually nothing to offer except the possibility of the SA market.    Winning football is floating them big time right now.

[Mean Green Matt]

1 minute ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

Aresco (AAC commissioner) used to work for CBS, so I’m willing to bet he is feeding this to a former buddy. Another tweet already shut down the MWC schools being interested in joining (likely now coming from their school’s sources). That leaves UAB and the alternative list, which only mentions FAU, UTSA, and North Texas. 
 

Interesting piece is MWC trying to nab North Texas and Tulsa before AAC has a chance to finalize any moves. May be a situation where we have an opportunity to choose, best case scenario. Both are positive pieces of news. 

I’m not so sure the MWC isn’t the better of the two if they stay intact. Us getting in there in that scenario would be a dream. Particularly for our basketball program. 

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Just now, Mean Green Matt said:

I’m not so sure the MWC isn’t the better of the two if they stay intact. Us getting in there in that scenario would be a dream. Particularly for our basketball program. 

I agree. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

1 minute ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

Aresco (AAC commissioner) used to work for CBS, so I’m willing to bet he is feeding this to a former buddy. Another tweet already shut down the MWC schools being interested in joining (likely now coming from their school’s sources). That leaves UAB and the alternative list, which only mentions FAU, UTSA, and North Texas. 
 

Interesting piece is MWC trying to nab North Texas and Tulsa before AAC has a chance to finalize any moves. May be a situation where we have an opportunity to choose, best case scenario. Both are positive pieces of news. 

Man, if those MWC schools stay pat, we need to get over there pronto.  I know Boise St & SDSU will likely jump to PAC16 when it happens, but dangit, the rest of that conference is still pretty strong too!   Probably much stronger than what the AAC winds up with.

[Monkeypox]

23 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

But do you think if UTSA was 4-8 in C-USA last year (continuing a multi-year losing streak), & 1-1 to start this season, while UNT was 7-5 last year and started 2-0 this year, the attractiveness of each school would be different, if not completely flipped?

I think currently both schools are about equally attractive/unattractive, and it's based on everything other than their football records. If we were 0-fer for our last 4 seasons but had $20m in donors and sold out our stadium every game, we'd be high on these lists.

Right now, the factors that the conferences (or media conglomerates) are interested in are ticket sales, budget, facilities, donors, markets. $$$$$$$ is what matters. What you have, and what you bring in. 

What's holding us back is NOT our recent football record. Nor is being slightly over .500 in one sport over less than two years putting UTSA high on anyone's list.

IF UNT and UTSA are being considered, it is due to enrollment and location, with conferences wanting a (higher) presence in one or both of those markets, and figuring that both schools can improve and that there's room for growth.

 

[MeanGreenTexan]

1 minute ago, Monkeypox said:

I think currently both schools are about equally attractive/unattractive, and it's based on everything other than their football records. If we were 0-fer for our last 4 seasons but had $20m in donors and sold out our stadium every game, we'd be high on these lists.

Right now, the factors that the conferences (or media conglomerates) are interested in are ticket sales, budget, facilities, donors, markets. $$$$$$$ is what matters. What you have, and what you bring in. 

What's holding us back is NOT our recent football record. Nor is being slightly over .500 in one sport over less than two years putting UTSA high on anyone's list.

IF UNT and UTSA are being considered, it is due to enrollment and location, with conferences wanting a (higher) presence in one or both of those markets, and figuring that both schools can improve and that there's room for growth.

 

You're not considering the amount of money winning football brings in.

I guarantee you, if NT is 0-fer for 4 seasons, our athletics coffers are virtually bare & I promise you, we're not being considered for anything. 

If we were to have continued those 9-win seasons for the last 2 years, and come off 4 straight 9-win seasons...   what do you think that would do for our budget/#of fans/donors/etc...   I promise you it would be much higher.     

Winning football changes a lot of things when it comes to money... as does losing football.

[rcade]

38 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

But do you think if UTSA was 4-8 in C-USA last year (continuing a multi-year losing streak), & 1-1 to start this season, while UNT was 7-5 last year and started 2-0 this year, the attractiveness of each school would be different, if not completely flipped?

I think people greatly overestimate how much UTSA's 7-5 record last year is helping them in realignment. We're not talking about a G5 with a 9- or 10-win season getting into a prestige bowl and winning it. They had one good year and got into the Heart of First Ticket Responder Bowl. We've done the same thing twice and even won it once when Derek Football threw for 256 yards and 2 touchdowns.

[Monkeypox]

Just now, MeanGreenTexan said:

You're not considering the amount of money winning football brings in.

I guarantee you, if NT is 0-fer for 4 seasons, our athletics coffers are virtually bare & I promise you, we're not being considered for anything. 

If we were to have continued those 9-win seasons for the last 2 years, and come off 4 straight 9-win seasons...   what do you think that would do for our budget/#of fans/donors/etc...   I promise you it would be much higher.     

Winning football changes a lot of things when it comes to money... as does losing football.

Okay, so how much more money did UTSA get with it's 16k fans for its home game vs Lamar? How much more money in  donations do they currently have because they've won like 9 games in the last two years? Whatever they have, they need to be putting it into their facilities budget, because they are crap.

You're acting like one or two good seasons means you have a bunch more money and it's going to stay, yet UTSA hasn't won as much in the last 3 years as we did from 2016-2018. So that would mean that we'd have more money still, right? Our coffers would be full. Or, does having two losing seasons reduce what we have, because if so, you have to admit that short-term success doesn't lead to a lasting increase in revenue.

EVERYONE at our level is subject to short-term gains and losses based on how they're currently doing in athletics. But that's why your current standing doesn't really put you in better position when it comes to conference affiliation. 

A couple of years of football success means diddly-squat.

[TheColonyEagle]

55 minutes ago, 97and03 said:

Athletic success seemed to have little to do with the last realignment. Not sure how much it will figure in this time. Athletic budget, fan support, facilities and such are likely much more important. I don’t know that we fare so well by that measurement. 

We have one of the highest athletic budgets in CUSA, arguably the best facilities, more on the way, we pay the highest coaching salaries. I think we fare pretty well. We beat UTSA in all of those things. They don’t have anymore fan support than we do. Yet they’re being mentioned and we’re not. 
 

They’ve won recently. We haven’t. Seems logical to me to assume football success (recent success) has a fair amount to do with it despite what happened last time. 
 

What else do they have that we don’t? I don’t think it’s the River Walk. 

[Monkeypox]

6 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

We have one of the highest athletic budgets in CUSA, arguably the best facilities, more on the way, we pay the highest coaching salaries. I think we fare pretty well. We beat UTSA in all of those things. They don’t have anymore fan support than we do. Yet they’re being mentioned and we’re not. 

Being mentioned by whom? Have any conferences come out and said who they're targeting? Anybody gotten invites? Or are we just talking about media speculation?

But if we're talking about the AAC:

1) First, they were targeting the remaining Big12 schools, who said "Hahahaha, no. I drink YOUR milkshake" and is now taking their best programs.

2) NOW, the AAC is saying it's targeting some of the MWC, who I believe will also laugh at them, because I don't think they have a real interest in joining the far-flung remainders of the AAC.

3) THEN, the AAC will target some combination of CUSA/Sun Belt schools. They will probably get their pick there, UNLESS..

4) The MWC decides to poach CUSA/AAC first to add teams/stability. If they did this, I really only see them adding UNT, UTSA, UTEP, maybe Rice, maybe La Tech (but probably not). 

So, if we're talking about UTSA being mentioned among the also-rans for AAC, then yeah, I could see them interested in adding them over us because of their market and their enrollment (potential). They already have SMU in DFW, and while we have better enrollment numbers and long-term potential, we aren't where we need to be in revenue in order to become MORE valuable to a conference than they are. So UTSA offers one thing we don't... a foothold into central Texas. It would be their best bet at replacing Houston (the problem Rice has is it's a small potatoes private, although it probably fits better in a conference with Tulsa, Tulane, SMU). Although, again, I could see them also offering Rice for that reason... keeps them in Houston and alive in 3 Texas markets.

However, if both conferences came calling, and the MWC said "we want UNT, UTSA, UTEP" and AAC said "we want UTSA, Rice, La Tech, UAB", that's where it could actually get interesting. Note I'm just throwing those out as examples, because I don't really know what the conferences think.

This is the game. The same one we got into last time that landed us in CUSA only to watch some of the better programs skedaddle. 

With SMU in the AAC, I just don't know that the AAC wants us. Not because SMU offers more than we do, but because we don't offer more than SMU other than potential. That said, I could see adding us if there's something they can look from a media distribution standpoint that says "SMU and UNT don't bring enough separately, but together, we can get (X package in DFW) to promote/distribute their games, because they have enough COMBINED eyeballs to make it worth it." 

 

[MeanGreenTexan]

10 minutes ago, Monkeypox said:

Okay, so how much more money did UTSA get with it's 16k fans for its home game vs Lamar? How much more money in  donations do they currently have because they've won like 9 games in the last two years? Whatever they have, they need to be putting it into their facilities budget, because they are crap.

You're acting like one or two good seasons means you have a bunch more money and it's going to stay, yet UTSA hasn't won as much in the last 3 years as we did from 2016-2018. So that would mean that we'd have more money still, right? Our coffers would be full. Or, does having two losing seasons reduce what we have, because if so, you have to admit that short-term success doesn't lead to a lasting increase in revenue.

EVERYONE at our level is subject to short-term gains and losses based on how they're currently doing in athletics. But that's why your current standing doesn't really put you in better position when it comes to conference affiliation. 

A couple of years of football success means diddly-squat.

A lot to unpack here.   Leaving out the "Perception" part of losing football VS winning football, which is obvious.  And if you don't think this is a consideration, maybe you're ignoring it to cope with NT's poor record recently.

I can't really speak to UTSA's current financial situation.   Maybe @Rowdy could?    And I absolutely agree UTSA's facilities are holding them back some.

Hey, speaking of facilities...   Did you know we broke ground on a really nice Indoor Practice Facility in October of 2018?   That's after coming off a C-USA Championship game run in 2017, and a surprising 5-win campaign in 2016.   Don't you think having those 2 nice seasons made a difference in raising the funds for that?   Not saying our coffers are "full", but if Littrell were hired and we continued on with 2 or 3-win seasons... that IPF might still in a fundraising stage.

And I absolutely admit that short term success doesn't lead to a lasting increase in revenue.   But it puts money in the bank right now (which happens to be when we need it), that's for sure.  The nice thing about that is you can spend it on cool things like an IPF!

I dare you to say that last part to Wren Baker's face.    Should get a hearty chuckle.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to money, and unless you're Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina or Duke, your money comes from Football success.   Win, more comes in, and you put yourself in a better position.   Lose, less comes in & you're left in the "also-considering" section.

 

[MeanGreenTexan]

42 minutes ago, rcade said:

I think people greatly overestimate how much UTSA's 7-5 record last year is helping them in realignment. We're not talking about a G5 with a 9- or 10-win season getting into a prestige bowl and winning it. They had one good year and got into the Heart of First Ticket Responder Bowl. We've done the same thing twice and even won it once when Derek Football threw for 256 yards and 2 touchdowns.

I'm definitely not saying UTSA's winning football record last year is the only thing getting them the AAC's/MWC's ears.    But it is absolutely helping.

[Mike Jackson]

Why would we want to go to the AAC?  The conference payout for the league is not going to be much bigger if they don’t get better programs to replace the ones leaving for the Big 12.  Are we really more hyped to play Tulsa and Tulane over over UTSA, Rice, La Tech and UTEP.   If we move we like only get to keep play La Tech and/or Rice.  Making SMU a conference game frees up some other non conference game opportunities but who would that be?  Another regional G5 that doesn’t generate as much interest as SMU game does now?  
 
Since we are throwing around nonsensical stuff hell I think sacrificing one home game season for the next decade to open up the State Fair of Texas against Texas Tech or Oklahoma State would be more important than ANY conference move we could make at the G5 level.  

[97and03]

11 hours ago, TheColonyEagle said:

We have one of the highest athletic budgets in CUSA, arguably the best facilities, more on the way, we pay the highest coaching salaries. I think we fare pretty well. We beat UTSA in all of those things. They don’t have anymore fan support than we do. Yet they’re being mentioned and we’re not. 
 

They’ve won recently. We haven’t. Seems logical to me to assume football success (recent success) has a fair amount to do with it despite what happened last time. 
 

What else do they have that we don’t? I don’t think it’s the River Walk. 

I think our overall athletic budget isnt that competitive with the AAC. Our HC salary seem ok for the MWC but the AAC is far more spendy on coaches.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/

Edited September 18, 2021 by 97and03

[MeanGreenTexan]

6 minutes ago, Mike Jackson said:

Why would we want to go to the AAC?  The conference payout for the league is not going to be much bigger if they don’t get better programs to replace the ones leaving for the Big 12.  Are we really more hyped to play Tulsa and Tulane over over UTSA, Rice, La Tech and UTEP.   If we move we like only get to keep play La Tech and/or Rice.  Making SMU a conference game frees up some other non conference game opportunities but who would that be?  Another regional G5 that doesn’t generate as much interest as SMU game does now?  
 
Since we are throwing around nonsensical stuff hell I think sacrificing one home game season for the next decade to open up the State Fair of Texas against Texas Tech or Oklahoma State would be more important than ANY conference move we could make at the G5 level.  

You gotta keep up friend.

NT wouldn't be the only team moving to AAC.   And in case you haven't seen, C-USA is sinking.   The question for you is, "Why would we want to stay in C-USA?"

[El Paso Eagle]

11 minutes ago, Mike Jackson said:

Why would we want to go to the AAC?  

Because they do not have 

[ColoradoEagle]

I spend half my days working with spreadsheets, so I wanted to quantify this in a way that isn't colored in perceptions. I made a comparison in 10 categories. I weighted in the following order:

• Football - 30%
• Basketball - 15%
• Facilities - 15%
• Financials - 15%
• Location/Media Market - 15%
• It Factor/Perception 10%* - *I actually doubled this number just to make a point

All categories are a ranking out of a possible 10 with some ties. Highest rank gets 10 points, lowest gets 1. This applies to all except facilities, location, and media market. Those are calculated as follows:

• Facilities - I did my best to rank these based on prior knowledge and pictures only. Schools could get up to 10 points for a new stadium. 2 points were removed if the school doesn't own the stadium. 2 points were removed (red) if no IPF. I left UAB at 8, despite their IPF not really being an IPF.
  • Basketball arena was pure eyeball and no adjustments were made (eg. IPF with football)
• Location - If the school is within the footprint, they automatically get 2 (poor UTEP). If they're next to a major international airport, 8 points are added. If they're near secondary airport, 6 points are added. If they're near a regional airport, 4 points.
• Media Market - This is the only category to go to 100. Schools get a percentage based on their market size compared with the largest DMA of the options (DFW).

Just to talk for a moment about the "It Factor" and Perception...I think this is vastly overrated. Short of a team coming off back to back top 25 appearances, I'm not sure why anyone would gravitate towards one school more than the other for a realignment that could last years or even decades.

That said, not only did I make it 10% of the ranking, I doubled the points as an added handicap. You'll notice the only school I marked worse than UNT is Charlotte in that category. This is not justification for people's reactions (or my view of UNT), so much as trying to work perceived bias into what will no doubt be an overall picture these conferences look at.

So with all of that out of the way...

*Quick note for Rice financials. They're undisclosed, so I gave them half a point for each. Could be higher or lower, but not really fair to assume either direction.

Edited September 17, 2021 by ColoradoEagle

[MeanGreenTexan]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoEagle said:

I spent half my days working with spreadsheets, so I wanted to quantify this in a way that isn't colored in perceptions. I made a comparison in 10 categories. I weighted in the following order:

• Football - 30%
• Basketball - 15%
• Facilities - 15%
• Financials - 15%
• Location/Media Market - 15%
• It Factor/Perception 10%* - I actually doubled this number just to make a point

All categories are a ranking out of a possible 10 with some ties, except facilities, location, and media market. Those are calculated as follows:

• Facilities - I did my best to rank these based on prior knowledge and pictures only. Schools could get up to 10 points for a new stadium. 2 points were removed if the school doesn't own the stadium. 2 points were removed (red) if no IPF. I left UAB at 8, despite their IPF not really being an IPF.
• Location - If the school is within the footprint, they automatically get 2 (poor UTEP). If they're next to a major international airport, 8 points are added. If they're near secondary airport, 6 points are added. If they're near a regional airport, 4 points.
• Media Market - This is the only category to go to 100. Schools get a percentage based on their market size compared with the largest DMA of the options (DFW).

Just to talk for a moment about the "It Factor" and Perception...I think this is vastly overrated. Short of a team coming off back to back top 25 appearances, I'm not sure why anyone would gravitate towards one school more than the other. That said, not only did I make it 10% of the ranking, I doubled the points as an added handicap. You'll notice the only school I marked worse than UNT is Charlotte in that category. This is not justification for people's reactions, so much as trying to work perceived bias into what will no doubt be an overall picture these conferences look at.

So all that said...

You have UTEP ranked way too high!

If I'm <whoever UTEP's president & AD are>, I'm really worried about what's going on around me.    UTEP brings virtually nothing to the table for anyone.

[Monkeypox]

5 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

You gotta keep up friend.

NT wouldn't be the only team moving to AAC.   And in case you haven't seen, C-USA is sinking.   The question for you is, "Why would we want to stay in C-USA?"

Also, the AAC has a much better media deal in place. I was going to point out that by the time it's up, it will again be small potatoes, but, for now, it's a MUCH bigger piece of the pie than we currently get.

But yeah, it's going to be a package of teams to AAC or MWC. We damn sure want to be in one of the packages. I think we need to be aggressive, rather than end up stuck in CUSA and praying we are able to backfill with the best of the Belt.

[El Paso Eagle]

1 minute ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

You have UTEP ranked way too high!

If I'm <whoever UTEP's president & AD are>, I'm really worried about what's going on around me.    UTEP brings virtually nothing to the table for anyone.

Not sure UTEP's president could care less about their athletics. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

2 minutes ago, Monkeypox said:

Also, the AAC has a much better media deal in place. I was going to point out that by the time it's up, it will again be small potatoes, but, for now, it's a MUCH bigger piece of the pie than we currently get.

But yeah, it's going to be a package of teams to AAC or MWC. We damn sure want to be in one of the packages. I think we need to be aggressive, rather than end up stuck in CUSA and praying we are able to backfill with the best of the Belt.

I mean, outside of the gridiron results, which as we've discussed, can swing wildly from season to season, What doesn't NT bring to the table for either conference?    Surely we'll wind up in one of the two.   If we're stuck in C-USA after all of this shuffling, something went horribly wrong, and we're in serious trouble.

[TheColonyEagle]

10 minutes ago, ColoradoEagle said:

I spend half my days working with spreadsheets, so I wanted to quantify this in a way that isn't colored in perceptions. I made a comparison in 10 categories. I weighted in the following order:

• Football - 30%
• Basketball - 15%
• Facilities - 15%
• Financials - 15%
• Location/Media Market - 15%
• It Factor/Perception 10%* - *I actually doubled this number just to make a point

All categories are a ranking out of a possible 10 with some ties. Highest rank gets 10 points, lowest gets 1. This applies to all except facilities, location, and media market. Those are calculated as follows:

• Facilities - I did my best to rank these based on prior knowledge and pictures only. Schools could get up to 10 points for a new stadium. 2 points were removed if the school doesn't own the stadium. 2 points were removed (red) if no IPF. I left UAB at 8, despite their IPF not really being an IPF.
• Location - If the school is within the footprint, they automatically get 2 (poor UTEP). If they're next to a major international airport, 8 points are added. If they're near secondary airport, 6 points are added. If they're near a regional airport, 4 points.
• Media Market - This is the only category to go to 100. Schools get a percentage based on their market size compared with the largest DMA of the options (DFW).

Just to talk for a moment about the "It Factor" and Perception...I think this is vastly overrated. Short of a team coming off back to back top 25 appearances, I'm not sure why anyone would gravitate towards one school more than the other for a realignment that could last years or even decades.

That said, not only did I make it 10% of the ranking, I doubled the points as an added handicap. You'll notice the only school I marked worse than UNT is Charlotte in that category. This is not justification for people's reactions, so much as trying to work perceived bias into what will no doubt be an overall picture these conferences look at.

So with all of that out of the way...

Love it.

That's good stuff....however....it kind of shows the power of perception no? Given all that, why is UNT ignored by the media when it comes to conference talk? And I agree with your analysis.