Jump to content

Oregon State AD: Pac-12 will look to add new schools quickly

NT80

By NT80
in Conference ReAlignment

 Share

Recommended Posts

Deep Throte Enthusiast

Deep Throte

Posted
Posted

North Texas was never interested in being involved in the PAC 2 expansion process.  They made that clear from the start.  That is why you are not seeing them mentioned in any of the reports as a candidate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Confused 1
  • Eye Roll 1
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Daddy Dumpsalot
Daddy Dumpsalot

LOL. UNT isn't going anywhere up. Why would the PAC want us? Losing football program, apathetic fan base, no baseball team. I'm shocked this is even a discussion after today's embarrassment. 

C Rod
C Rod

Next week's game vs Wyoming is huge if we want to make an impression on the new PAC. We need to learn from this embarrassing loss and then flush it from our memory fast. We can beat a MWC team ne

gangrene
gangrene

I'm confused...why would these schools plus OSU and WSU be better than the AAC?  

Posted Images

MeanGreenGlory Mentor

MeanGreenGlory

Posted
Posted

A look at if the PAC12 only takes Memphis and Tulane, and the AAC gets Air Force. I don’t love it, but I don’t hate it.
 

I’d rather be in the PAC with Memphis and Tulane, but being left in the AAC with Air Force is still better than MWC, CUSA, MAC, and Sun Belt. 

  • Upvote 2
MeanGreenGlory Mentor

MeanGreenGlory

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Deep Throte said:

North Texas was never interested in being involved in the PAC 2 expansion process.  They made that clear from the start.  That is why you are not seeing them mentioned in any of the reports as a candidate.

Why not? Rumors suggest that the PAC is on pace to assemble the “best of the rest” conference. Why not get your foot in the door and at least explore it as a serious possibility?

  • Upvote 3
  • Thanks 1
SMU2006 Mentor

SMU2006

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, cousin oliver said:

If they take Air Force and still need one more I would be ok with Texas State.

LA Tech?  I know they've been down recently but its a regional program that fits the geographic footprint of the AAC and keeps the conference in Louisiana.

  • Puking Eagle 2
keith Veteran

keith

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Deep Throte said:

North Texas was never interested in being involved in the PAC 2 expansion process.  They made that clear from the start.  That is why you are not seeing them mentioned in any of the reports as a candidate.

If true and somehow UTSA ends up in the new PAC and we do not, then everyone in a leadership role or within 50 feet of someone in a leadership role at UNT should be fired.

  • Upvote 6
  • Thanks 1
El Paso Eagle Grand Master

El Paso Eagle

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, keith said:

If true and somehow UTSA ends up in the new PAC and we do not, then everyone in a leadership role or within 50 feet of someone in a leadership role at UNT should be fired.

Why? It seems the inclusion of UTSA is based on the San Antonio market and the lack of competition in the market. Let's try to find out what the PAC criteria are for expansion and then judge what the administration at UNT did or didn't do. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
NT80 Grand Master

NT80

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, Deep Throte said:

North Texas was never interested in being involved in the PAC 2 expansion process.  They made that clear from the start.  That is why you are not seeing them mentioned in any of the reports as a candidate.

Why not?

...And why do the GMG.com Admins feel the need to banish these AAC Conference Football Membership threads to the junk pile?

Head In The Sand GIF - Head In The Sand - Discover & Share GIFs

  • Upvote 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
NM Green Experienced

NM Green

Posted
Posted

I listened to a pac expansion show this morning and they think it’s Tulane and utsa. They are not high on Memphis coming, perhaps they get vibes from Memphis uncertainty. They feel south Florida is too far east. 

Curiously they seem to decide on these programs for football success, investment in facilities and going to bowl games. They even mentioned academics as a detriment to Memphis and say that’s why Tulane should get the nod. Well San Antonio has okay facilities and has won one bowl game. If they take Tulane and UTSA let them go out west with no natural rivals. 

Bottom line is that they never mention UNT or Rice as options though these markets are rich. They don’t understand our investment which mirrors what CSU has done without the football success to follow like the Rams.

Memphis is the key. If Pernetti keeps the Tigers in the AAC along with South Florida lures AF and replaces Texas State if the runners leave, I’m good with us here. 

Five years until the ACC blows up is nothing in master time frames. Memphis and Tulane would do well to stay put invest, plot their move to the Atlantic Coast. Smu fan says the academics are a deal breaker for Memphis. The ACC is going to need recognized successful brands. Memphis if they stay the course will compete for a spot. At a minimum they enter the Big 12. 

This Clemson FSU situation actually helps the AAC. Now go get AF UNLV Nevada and La Tech if Tulane shifts west. Tulane and San Antonio are the most wobbly to me. 

GMG

  • Upvote 5
SMU2006 Mentor

SMU2006

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, NM Green said:

I listened to a pac expansion show this morning and they think it’s Tulane and utsa. They are not high on Memphis coming, perhaps they get vibes from Memphis uncertainty. They feel south Florida is too far east. 

Curiously they seem to decide on these programs for football success, investment in facilities and going to bowl games. They even mentioned academics as a detriment to Memphis and say that’s why Tulane should get the nod. Well San Antonio has okay facilities and has won one bowl game. If they take Tulane and UTSA let them go out west with no natural rivals. 

Bottom line is that they never mention UNT or Rice as options though these markets are rich. They don’t understand our investment which mirrors what CSU has done without the football success to follow like the Rams.

Memphis is the key. If Pernetti keeps the Tigers in the AAC along with South Florida lures AF and replaces Texas State if the runners leave, I’m good with us here. 

Five years until the ACC blows up is nothing in master time frames. Memphis and Tulane would do well to stay put invest, plot their move to the Atlantic Coast. Smu fan says the academics are a deal breaker for Memphis. The ACC is going to need recognized successful brands. Memphis if they stay the course will compete for a spot. At a minimum they enter the Big 12. 

This Clemson FSU situation actually helps the AAC. Now go get AF UNLV Nevada and La Tech if Tulane shifts west. Tulane and San Antonio are the most wobbly to me. 

GMG

The ACC and Clemson/FSU are literally ironing out an agreement that will secure the league's future along with dropping the lawsuits.  Memphis is not going to be a member of the ACC.  Ever.  From an academic perspective they are a fit in the Big 12 (since the Big 12, per Yormark, doesn't care about academics at all).

If they decide to stay in the AAC I would imagine it would be similar to Boise State staying in the MWC when the Big East imploded.  Remember the MWC offered Boise a sweetheart of a deal that gave them more money and exposure than the other members.  Perhaps Memphis (and to a lesser degree USF) are using the PAC interest to squeeze the AAC.

Edited by SMU2006
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
NM Green Experienced

NM Green

Posted
Posted

I do think that would be smart on Memphis’ part. Get the best deal for the Tigers and stay put playing smack on the middle of SEC Big 12 country. 

If that happens the AAC stays strong and equal to the PAC no matter who they come after. Plus if Memphis stays you lose interest from UNT which isn’t even on the radar and everyone not named Tulane and UTSA.

The runners have not tried life without natural rivals and close away games to travel to. It would be a sobering experiment for them because this program needs to win to keep San Antonio engaged. They are already about to struggle with a number 1 Texas for years to come in their sheshed. 

GMG

  • Upvote 1
SMU2006 Mentor

SMU2006

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, MeanGreen22 said:

I absolutely do not get the obsession with Tulane. Since the year 2000, they are 117-177 with 13 seasons of 4 or less wins. 

Recent success (Cotton Bowl victory over USC), great location, and great academics.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Eye Roll 1
MeanGreen22 Grand Master

MeanGreen22

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SMU2006 said:

Recent success (Cotton Bowl victory over USC), great location, and great academics.  

2 seasons out of 25. I’m not arguing us (or anyone) over them. I’m just pointing out from a conference point of view I don’t get the argument that they obviously should be a top target. 

C Rod Mentor

C Rod

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Deep Throte said:

That is why you are not seeing them mentioned in any of the reports as a candidate.

Posted just today via NY Times/The Athletic...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5776229/2024/09/18/pac-12-aac-mountain-west-realignment/

Quote

UTSA, North Texas, South Florida and Texas State are among the other central/eastern options the Pac-12 is looking into, with UTSA considered the favorite among the group. Getting into Texas is especially important for certain Pac-12 schools, and each prospective member has its own selling point. UTSA’s plan to merge with UT Health San Antonio will be a huge boost for the school and its resources — the kind of move school presidents like — and it’s located in a big city that has supported UTSA football. 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Puking Eagle 1
C Rod Mentor

C Rod

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SMU2006 said:

Like I've said from the get-go.  Hitch your wagon with UTSA and Tulane.  DFW is a massive market (bigger than SA and NOLA combined).  Pitch the market and the need for travel partners.  Gotta make it happen.

I'm on the same train of thought as you. Yesterday I posted that UNT and UTSA are better as a package deal, than standalone additions to the PAC. 

I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with an SMU fan but here we are...

  • Upvote 3
  • Haha 3
keith Veteran

keith

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, NM Green said:

I do think that would be smart on Memphis’ part. Get the best deal for the Tigers and stay put playing smack on the middle of SEC Big 12 country. 

If that happens the AAC stays strong and equal to the PAC no matter who they come after. Plus if Memphis stays you lose interest from UNT which isn’t even on the radar and everyone not named Tulane and UTSA.

The runners have not tried life without natural rivals and close away games to travel to. It would be a sobering experiment for them because this program needs to win to keep San Antonio engaged. They are already about to struggle with a number 1 Texas for years to come in their sheshed. 

GMG

With our partial shares we are already competing on an uneven playing field with respect to our conference mates let alone the rest of college football.  If certain members (Memphis, USF, take your pick) are able to extract additional concessions from the conference and we're still in it, then it will be a disaster for UNT continuing to play at a built-in disadvantage vis-a-vis the "chosen ones" for the foreseeable future.  It won't make the AAC stronger.  It may make Memphis stronger until they bolt at the next opportunity if it's not the new PAC.

  • Upvote 4
keith Veteran

keith

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Why? It seems the inclusion of UTSA is based on the San Antonio market and the lack of competition in the market. Let's try to find out what the PAC criteria are for expansion and then judge what the administration at UNT did or didn't do. 

Because right now, UTSA is out performing UNT not only in perception, but in reality..  It's merger with UT Health San Antonio cannot be understated.  

If UTSA gets the nod and we do not then it means an external entity (probably with input from industry experts) did its due diligence and deemed UTSA as more worthy to be affiliated with than UNT.  Even if we go as a package deal we will be seen as basically riding UTSA's coat tails.

It would be such a UNT thing to do if we didn't express interest or worse say we're not even going to consider it as an option.

  • Eye Roll 1
SMU2006 Mentor

SMU2006

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, keith said:

With our partial shares we are already competing on an uneven playing field with respect to our conference mates let alone the rest of college football.  If certain members (Memphis, USF, take your pick) are able to extract additional concessions from the conference and we're still in it, then it will be a disaster for UNT continuing to play at a built-in disadvantage vis-a-vis the "chosen ones" for the foreseeable future.  It won't make the AAC stronger.  It may make Memphis stronger until they bolt at the next opportunity if it's not the new PAC.

The problem with this line of thinking is Memphis does not have the luxury to wait around for an ACC or Big 12 invite that, in all likelihood, isn't coming.  The PAC is real and its right now.  Is it perfect?  No.  Is it better than the AAC?  Yes.

Passing this up would be catastrophically stupid for both Memphis and Tulane if (and this is a big IF) the money makes sense.

  • Downvote 1
keith Veteran

keith

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:

The problem with this line of thinking is Memphis does not have the luxury to wait around for an ACC or Big 12 invite that, in all likelihood, isn't coming.  The PAC is real and its right now.  Is it perfect?  No.  Is it better than the AAC?  Yes.

Passing this up would be catastrophically stupid for both Memphis and Tulane if (and this is a big IF) the money makes sense.

I wasn't suggesting that Memphis stays in the AAC.  I was responding to the premise that if Memphis was able to extract more conference benefits (at the expense of UNT BTW) and stay in the conference then it would make the AAC stronger and benefit UNT, assuming we also stayed in the AAC.  It would actually be a horrible scenario for UNT in my opinion.

NT80 Grand Master

NT80

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MeanGreen22 said:

2 seasons out of 25. I’m not arguing us (or anyone) over them. I’m just pointing out from a conference point of view I don’t get the argument that they obviously should be a top target. 

The SEC basically kicked out Tulane...

Tulane University left the Southeastern Conference (SEC) at the end of 1965 for a number of reasons, including:
  • Playing a more national schedule: Tulane's president at the time, Herbert Longenecker, said the school wanted to accommodate its diverse student body by playing a more national schedule.
  • De-emphasis of football: Some say Tulane had de-emphasized football.
  • Budget deficit: Others say the university was cutting scholarships due to a large budget deficit.
  • Over-signing of players: Some say other schools were over-signing players in each recruiting class.
  • Record: From 1953–1964, Tulane's record was 28–82–8, and they only won more than one SEC game in two of those seasons. 
     
     
Tulane joined the American Athletic Conference in 2022.
Edited by NT80

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Tell a friend

    Love GoMeanGreen.com? Tell a friend!

  • What's going on Mean Green?

    1. 31

      AAC Trend - Year 2 of 5 Firings

      Again, we have an athletic budget $10 to $16 million more than those other schools we've mentioned. Why can they afford baseball but we can't? Do we offer sports they don't? Something isn't adding up. For what it's worth regarding revenue vs non-revenue sport, ECU's stadium seats 6,000 and it's highest reported capacity was just over that against NC State this year. The stadium reportedly cost $11 million in 2005 so probably would be double today. I know ECU gets great support but that just shows the opportunity is there. Would a baseball stadium that seats 4k not yield a higher return on investment than say a new $50+ million basketball arena when we average around 4k in our current basketball arena?
      GMG_Dallas in Mean Green Football
    2. 10

      Honest tactical question here…

      We hired a coach that runs the Mike Leach run and gun offense.The concept is score fast which puts the defense on the field for a lot of the game. We knew this when we hired him so why are we surprised that this is what he is doing? The problem is that we have a shit defense to begin with, and when we go 3 and out they don't have time have a brief rest between possessions . If he can fix the defense net season we should be okay. If not make a another coaching change that based upon our history will change nothing.
      wardly in Mean Green Football
    3. 22

      Earth to GMG

      I ABSOLUTELY agree! We had 77 new players, but most were freshmen. You can’t win with freshmen. They leaned too much on this IMO. It’ll take a good 2.5-3 years for them to hit their stride. By that time…hello portal.
      3_n_out in Mean Green Football
    4. 9

      Flyover?

      They saw the stadium and thought the game was cancelled coz of all the empty seats.
      3_n_out in Mean Green Football
    5. 31

      AAC Trend - Year 2 of 5 Firings

      On the other side there is no reason to think we can compete in baseball. Its a financial drain that starts with the construction of a venue ,which I will ballpark [pun intended] the cost at at about $15 million which we don't have. Then the cost of staffing, scholarships ,travel ,Title 9 additions, etc. , all for adding an expensive non revenue generating sport seems irresponsible.
      wardly in Mean Green Football

  • Popular Contributors

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      15,479
    • Most Online
      1,865
    meangreen0015
    Newest Member
    meangreen0015
    Joined

  • Most Points

    1. 1
      El Paso Eagle
      El Paso Eagle
      167,034
    2. 2
      NT80
      NT80
      130,078
    3. 3
      KingDL1
      KingDL1
      128,415
    4. 4
      greenminer
      greenminer
      118,655
    5. 5
      TheReal_jayD
      TheReal_jayD
      105,084

  • Biggest Gamblers

    1. 1
      EdtheEagle
      EdtheEagle
      26,589,381
    2. 2
      UNTLifer
      UNTLifer
      4,156,819
    3. 3
      untphd
      untphd
      779,513
    4. 4
      flyonthewall
      flyonthewall
      670,422
    5. 5
      3_n_out
      3_n_out
      578,480
    6. 6
      SteaminWillieBeamin
    7. 7
      cousin oliver
      cousin oliver
      448,120
    8. 8
      meangreenfaninno
    9. 9
      South Texas Green
    10. 10
      outoftown
      outoftown
      314,541

WE BELIEVE IN THE MEAN GREEN!

News

Recruiting

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.