Is D1 Split Coming Soon?

GrandGreen · June 25

3 hours ago, MeanGreenZen said:

I will bet you $1 that SMU never wins an ACC championship in football as long as the real ACC schools are still in that conference. You won’t have many chances.

Never underestimate the resources SMU has. I don't know who or how many, but SMU has fans that have kept them relevant despite pitiful overall fan support.

TIgreen01 · June 25

57 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Never underestimate the resources SMU has. I don't know who or how many, but SMU has fans that have kept them relevant despite pitiful overall fan support.

This is fact. Which is why they are absolutely chomping at the bit with excitement right now. The pay to play era, free of the "cheating" label now, is something that they can absolutely do well in. You'll note that the mere mention of any kind of model to level the field, even out revenues, or add competitive balance is met by their fans like a cross to a vampire. Which I think is a great analogy for their rich donors.

DentonStang · June 25

3 minutes ago, TIgreen01 said:

This is fact. Which is why they are absolutely chomping at the bit with excitement right now. The pay to play era, free of the "cheating" label now, is something that they can absolutely do well in. You'll note that the mere mention of any kind of model to level the field, even out revenues, or add competitive balance is met by their fans like a cross to a vampire. Which I think is a great analogy for their rich donors.

Give me a break. Every "level playing field" has just been a tool for the top schools to keep everyone else suppressed w.hile they absolutely aren't on the same level field.

It's still not level, but at least you CAN move up if you can marshall the resources now. We've gone from feudalism to a free market. The aristocrats still start with most of the money but there Is a way.

I might also remind you, the annual NIL values aren't so big YOU couldn't be leveraging it if you could mobilize your billion alumni and a few Denton businesses. UNT is the perpetrator not the victim in NIL failure.

TIgreen01 · June 26

18 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

Give me a break. Every "level playing field" has just been a tool for the top schools to keep everyone else suppressed w.hile they absolutely aren't on the same level field.

It's still not level, but at least you CAN move up if you can marshall the resources now. We've gone from feudalism to a free market. The aristocrats still start with most of the money but there Is a way.

I might also remind you, the annual NIL values aren't so big YOU couldn't be leveraging it if you could mobilize your billion alumni and a few Denton businesses. UNT is the perpetrator not the victim in NIL failure.

The pay for play isn't new and the field has never been level. Yeah, no argument there.

DentonLurker · June 26

Took another step closer to a split today, in my opinion. Unlimited coaches is going to lead to some G5 coaches moving up the ladder for what were previously off-the-field positions.

NT80 · June 26

6 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Never underestimate the resources SMU has. I don't know who or how many, but SMU has fans that have kept them relevant despite pitiful overall fan support.

$mut has always had $$. They didn't just get it a couple months ago. But all those resources still didn't get them invited to the Big12... three or four different bypasses. Why? Because those schools who associated with them from the SWC knew they have no fan following and no media market value.

GrandGreen · June 26

1 hour ago, NT80 said:

$mut has always had $$. They didn't just get it a couple months ago. But all those resources still didn't get them invited to the Big12... three or four different bypasses. Why? Because those schools who associated with them from the SWC knew they have no fan following and no media market value.

However, SMU bought themselves into the ACC without a doubt. Which is in my view, a lot harder to believe than being able to get an offer from the crumbling B12.

Have you looked at the ACC. That is probably as good a conference as there is outside of the SEC.

ADLER · June 26

What other people are saying about this subject:

DentonStang · June 26

18 minutes ago, ADLER said:

What other people are saying about this subject:

Look at the comments. That's not what people are saying. That's what some really low quality clickbait hacks are saying. Look at all their videos. It's laughable. But even their argument doesn't make sense. "Broke SMU bought their way into ACC". If we are broke how did we buy our way in? What? And what does it even mean to "buy" in? We aren't spending out of pocket and we are making more than we made in AAC. That's a fan argument, not a journalist argument.

The B12 didn't take us because we added nothing they don't have. Dallas is covered with TCU and partially with Baylor and Tech. It was much more advantageous for them to go elsewhere and add new markets. We would only add competition for existing schools locally. I wouldn't add us either if I were them.

It's the same reason UNT was never going to get an invited into a conference with SMU until it was obvious we were leaving and a DFW backfill was needed.

Edited June 26 by DentonStang

Meangreen Fight · June 26

On 6/24/2024 at 4:52 PM, jtm0097 said:

It's not really going to impact us that much. Our students, almuni, and the citizens of Denton are already apathetic to UNT Athletics. What's going to change after this split?

People don't like the truth. 🤷🏽‍♂️. And you forgot to mention that it only in the last 15 years that we have had University Leadership not directly on the Athletic Department payroll that has cared about sports. At a time of existential crisis for all DI Football below the top 20-50 brands people scoffed at even trying to get Deion Sanders here. That is when I mentally started preparing for the day Mean Green Football would return to the FCS level or something in between FCS and FBS.

And the irony is that the TV product they are creating beyond the playoff will suck. You are going to have what Basketball has now; only a few rivalry regular season games getting the ratings that any matchup of undefeated teams with 3 wins would get. The stakes of 2 highly rated teams matching up will be drastically reduced. Player and coach movement disconnects them from the schools and community. Without the school connection, atmosphere, and history people won't watch semi-pro football. Aggie HC leaves to be Longhorn HC. That didn't happen in football but I believe it serves as a good historical markers for the rapid decline of FBS we are about to witness in the coming 10 years.

Edited June 26 by Meangreen Fight

NT80 · June 26

9 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

However, SMU bought themselves into the ACC without a doubt. Which is in my view, a lot harder to believe than being able to get an offer from the crumbling B12.

Have you looked at the ACC. That is probably as good a conference as there is outside of the SEC.

The ACC is a good conference...now. But the better schools want out of it to join the SEC and Big10.

That is why they "Let" $mu pay for admittance into it, lol, so they wouldn't end up with less than the required members, like the Pac 12, when the better schools start bailing. And that will happen sooner than later. Plus, $mu can't compete within the ACC. Will their 100 football fans still be fans when the team goes 4-8 every year?

emmitt01 · June 26

9 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

However, SMU bought themselves into the ACC without a doubt. Which is in my view, a lot harder to believe than being able to get an offer from the crumbling B12.

Have you looked at the ACC. That is probably as good a conference as there is outside of the SEC.

Today...and that clock is ticking.

GrandGreen · June 26

1 minute ago, emmitt01 said:

Today...and that clock is ticking.

I do agree that geographic horror of a conference will not survive, just look at a map of it. It makes no sense for SMU to be a part of it. SMU is not close to any other member school. I cannot imagine not only the cost but how much class time will be lost due to travel. For football and men's basketball, travel cost may not be that big a factor. However, SMU has equestrian, rowing, swimming & diving, and track. Are they really going to transport horses that far, I doubt it.

It was a desperate move for SMU and it will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

GMoney · June 26

15 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

However, SMU bought themselves into the ACC without a doubt. Which is in my view, a lot harder to believe than being able to get an offer from the crumbling B12.

Have you looked at the ACC. That is probably as good a conference as there is outside of the SEC.

ACC is trying to stay relevant while their biggest schools are trying to jump ship. The ACC we see it today won't be the same in 5 years! I don't blame SMU for going to a "bigger" brand, but we'll see how long that last. The ACC is imploding from within while the G5 are being attacked from those on the outside with the power! I think I'd rather be in SMU's spot right now.

Edited June 26 by GMoney

UNTLifer · June 26

14 hours ago, DentonLurker said:

Took another step closer to a split today, in my opinion. Unlimited coaches is going to lead to some G5 coaches moving up the ladder for what were previously off-the-field positions.

The article I read, posted in The Eagle's Nest, states that it doesn't change the number of staff members a school may have.

The proposal does not change the number of off-campus recruiters. FBS teams remain limited to up to 11 staff members and FCS teams remain limited to 13 staff members who may participate in off-campus recruiting activities. National service academies are permitted an additional four off-campus recruiters. Both subdivisions must include the head coach as an off-campus recruiter, and only staff members who regularly engage in on-campus coaching activities with student-athletes can be counted as off-campus recruiters.

FBS programs also remain able to have up to four graduate student coaches and no more than five strength and conditioning coaches. Limits for student assistant coaches will be the same as the number of permissible off-campus recruiters for a football program.

Edited June 26 by UNTLifer

El Paso Eagle · June 26

22 hours ago, UNT_FH_FR_YR said:

Some people question why so many posters are not posting anymore. Maybe they are tired of the Mods allowing a UNT board to give a free run of the boards to posters from other schools. I don't believe I have seen this on other school boards outside of game week.

DentonLurker · June 26

35 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

The article I read, posted in The Eagle's Nest, states that it doesn't change the number of staff members a school may have.

That’s just for off-campus recruiters.

SMU2006 · June 26

1 hour ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Some people question why so many posters are not posting anymore. Maybe they are tired of the Mods allowing a UNT board to give a free run of the boards to posters from other schools. I don't believe I have seen this on other school boards outside of game week.

George Bush Booty GIF

NT93 · June 26

7 hours ago, ADLER said:

What other people are saying about this subject:

I’ve got bad news for these two guys: Baylor may be in the same boat as SMU when the dust settles.

UNTLifer · June 26

2 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

Flipping The Bird Middle Finger GIF

wardly · June 27

On 6/26/2024 at 10:25 AM, NT80 said:

The ACC is a good conference...now. But the better schools want out of it to join the SEC and Big10.

That is why they "Let" $mu pay for admittance into it, lol, so they wouldn't end up with less than the required members, like the Pac 12, when the better schools start bailing. And that will happen sooner than later. Plus, $mu can't compete within the ACC. Will their 100 football fans still be fans when the team goes 4-8 every year?

Will ours?

wardly · June 29

On 6/26/2024 at 11:12 AM, UNTLifer said:

The article I read, posted in The Eagle's Nest, states that it doesn't change the number of staff members a school may have.

The proposal does not change the number of off-campus recruiters. FBS teams remain limited to up to 11 staff members and FCS teams remain limited to 13 staff members who may participate in off-campus recruiting activities. National service academies are permitted an additional four off-campus recruiters. Both subdivisions must include the head coach as an off-campus recruiter, and only staff members who regularly engage in on-campus coaching activities with student-athletes can be counted as off-campus recruiters.

FBS programs also remain able to have up to four graduate student coaches and no more than five strength and conditioning coaches. Limits for student assistant coaches will be the same as the number of permissible off-campus recruiters for a football program.

FYI, the NCAA has increased the application fee for FCS programs who want to move up to FBS from $5,000 to $5 million dollars. This should deter some schools and make it more difficult for conferences like CUSA to back fill any member loses.

TheColonyEagle · June 30

On 6/26/2024 at 6:26 AM, DentonStang said:

That's what some really low quality clickbait hacks are saying.

"There are more people watching Locked on Big 12 (your low quality clickbait hacks) than watched SMU vs Rice on ESPNU in primetime"

"It was beat out by Princeton/Dartmouth the same week"

"It got doubled in viewership by Kent St/Akron"

Maybe you can send money to households to watch the football team...then the TV numbers (which is all that matters) will be at the level of the schools you think are your equal.....

Edited June 30 by TheColonyEagle

greenminer · June 30

On 6/29/2024 at 1:08 PM, wardly said:

FYI, the NCAA has increased the application fee for FCS programs who want to move up to FBS from $5,000 to $5 million dollars. This should deter some schools and make it more difficult for conferences like CUSA to back fill any member loses.

Pricing them out of the option. Makes it easier to handle the inevitable split when you know you aren't adding any more schools to the mix.