CUSA thread - UNT gets some props

[MeanGreen61]

Thread discussing Tech's plight & posters, but UNT gets some mention & props.

http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/confusa/invi...ST&f=22&t=26797

Edited July 6, 2005 by MeanGreen61

[NCMeanGreen]

Sounds like we are definitely gaining more respect. I believe even two years ago it would not have been like this, with these type of responses. Yes, C-USA would be nice. Building the Belt would be nice too. I am happy where we are as long as we keep growing and, more importantly, keep winning!

[PlummMeanGreen]

The ones on the La Tech board who know how the cow eats the cabbage with all this WAC business are the ones who are fairly silent on their board on that subject. If they post their concerns, they get accused of being negative and listening to all those 'Belt folks when they offer a dose of the truth to their fellow alums.

What a school is able to do with its facilities is a pretty darn good barometer of the shape of any school's present athletic situation and its future. NT is catching up for years of neglect for ours thank goodness. The timing of doing all this in Mean Green Country could not have been any better.

Edited July 6, 2005 by PlummMeanGreen

[DeepGreen]

Funny to me the UH fan said he wanted UNT only if SMU was out of the conference. I assume this is in reference to our close proximity to one another. Now tell me this, exactly how far is Rice from the UH campus? 

Rice and U of H (< 5 miles?) are much closer to one another than SMU and NT.

[pollock]

Reading that reminds me of how much I hate the Marshall fans on that board. Herdzone and ccs-whatever are two of the biggest jerks to ever obtain internet access. Between them and Lynndie England, my opinion of West Virginians is falling fast.

Also, I like how the guy on the LaTech board does a travel cost comparison between ULL and LT, on a year when ULL went to NMSU and Idaho. Those two are now on the LT schedule and off ULL's. Not to mention that LT didn't go to Hawaii that year. He really cherry-picked those numbers to make a point.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Reading that reminds me of how much I hate the Marshall fans on that board.  Herdzone and ccs-whatever are two of the biggest jerks to ever obtain internet access.  Between them and Lynndie England, my opinion of West Virginians is falling fast.

Also, I like how the guy on the LaTech board does a travel cost comparison between ULL and LT, on a year when ULL went to NMSU and Idaho.  Those two are now on the LT schedule and off ULL's.  Not to mention that LT didn't go to Hawaii that year.  He really cherry-picked those numbers to make a point.

HerdZoned did post on the Georgia Southern board a fairly positive (for him) post about NT of which he included a rendering of our new football stadium. It was an uncharacterstically positive post about NT from ol' HZ, in fact.

He did go on to say that our facilities were not ready for that of a school that coveted CUSA membership; but to a great extent that is the truth, too.

NT can ill afford to not have all our facilities in place for the next go-around of non BCS conference musical chairs. That would not help the psyche of our NT fan base whatsoever and might possibly have the same effect as 13 years of NCAA D1-AA did on many of our alums back in that day and even still has with our program today to an exent.

Just think about it, though, why would a school that has had 1 winning season in 2 decades receive membership in CUSA over one that has been to several bowls and has some nationally recognized momentum going on as a football program? One word......F-A-C-I-L-I-T-I-E-S. (In all fairness to NT, if we had singularly been competing for one spot in CUSA vs SMU, we would have had a much better chance to get in, but as we all know, the Stangs' got invited to CUSA as part of a consortium of schools which dramatically helped their cause in gettting in. SMU's Gerald J. Ford stadium played a rather large part, too.

HATE TO SAY THIS BUT............that same CUSA private school consortium is the very thing that makes me think CUSA membership for NT in the future will never become a reality. We need to transcend and do a Road-Runner "beep beep" with every CUSA Texas member and we can do this with what we have going on on those 200 acres between Denton's 2 interstates. Florida State did this in the 70's when they started to build their program to surpass the 2 conferences that always stiffed them most of the time in that era, ie, the SEC and ACC.

What could be the the most hillarious and ironic part of all this for NT is if the Sun Belt Conference dramatically grows and succeeds in the next 5-10 years as to have us thinking: Why'd we ever entertain the idea of leaving the 'Belt in the first place?

Edited July 6, 2005 by PlummMeanGreen

[TechFan]

Also, I like how the guy on the LaTech board does a travel cost comparison between ULL and LT, on a year when ULL went to NMSU and Idaho.  Those two are now on the LT schedule and off ULL's.  Not to mention that LT didn't go to Hawaii that year.  He really cherry-picked those numbers to make a point.

The numbers come from the 2003-2004 state report. That includes the 2003 football schedule.

In 2003, Idaho and NMSU played in Lafayette. You did travel to Denton, Stillwater, Hattiesburg, Mufreesboro, South Carolina and Minnesota that year.

We traveled to Michigan, California, Nevada, El Paso and Tulsa.

6 ULL roadtrips versus 5 La Tech roadtrips.

[stebo]

TechFan,

I just have one question for you... Do you (personally) think that Tech is in a better place NOW, then it was before the WAC? I am talking football here. I really could care less about the rest. Think about wins and losses, think about reputation, think about facilities. Think about where TECH was just 5 years ago as far as national prestige.

Now think about North Texas and even Troy for that matter. Where were the two of us five years ago? Where are we now?

Ok, now those are the two top Belt teams - lets look at UL-Lafayette... they averaged over 20K last year down there. They had a Nationally televised game from their home stadium with full stands. Look at Monroe, 5 years ago I personally thought that they would drop their program. They are not only back on solid ground; they are predicted to have a winning record this year. I could go program by program telling you how the REGIONAL teams have benefited from the Belt. The far flung schools - NMSU, USU, and Idaho - have ALL slipped off even more. It will take them 4-5 years in the WAC to put the pieces back together (both Idaho and USU were just going to bowls in the Big West).

So I will go back to the original question - is your team better off now then it was 5 years ago? I know that I think of Tech in a different way. It is really kind of sad. Now realize that the positives of the WAC have just left (SMU, Tulsa, Rice, UTEP) - and you are now back in the Big West.

North Texas turned the WAC down. Why did we do so? Which program is moving forward and which is receding? I have read over and over again that you guys have zero respect for your administrators over there in Ruston. Maybe it is because they make stupid decisions. Sure, you can break even in the WAC with the extra money for a couple of years; but the damage it will do to your program (other then the financial stuff) will take longer and longer to repair.

[pollock]

The numbers come from the 2003-2004 state report.  That includes the 2003 football schedule.

In 2003, Idaho and NMSU played in Lafayette.  You did travel to Denton, Stillwater, Hattiesburg, Mufreesboro, South Carolina and Minnesota that year.

We traveled to Michigan, California, Nevada, El Paso and Tulsa.

6 ULL roadtrips versus 5 La Tech roadtrips.

Not completely sure which side of the argument (WAC vs. SBC for Latech) you're on, but.....

Regardless of the actual schedules that were compared, the fact remains that NMSU, Idaho, and USU are now in the WAC. So a more appropriate comparison would be LaTech's and ULL's travel costs for schedules which reflect the new conference alignments.

Not trying to change your mind about the WAC, if that's what you're sold on. I just think people need to read into statistics that are presented in any debate.

Also, just so that nobody gets the wrong idea, I did not travel to "Denton, Stillwater, Hattiesburg, Mufreesboro, South Carolina and Minnesota" in 2003, as I am Mean Green fan, not a ULL fan.

[PlummMeanGreen]

So I will go back to the original question - is your team better off now then it was 5 years ago?  I know that I think of Tech in a different way.  It is really kind of sad.  Now realize that the positives of the WAC have just left (SMU, Tulsa, Rice, UTEP) - and you are now back in the Big West. 

Seems like a national politician asked the "were you better off" type of question years ago.

You're in the zone and hittin' 3 pointers, stebo. Good post!

[MeanGreen61]

BIG OUCH Broadside for Tech from a Tiger poster.

QUOTE ..... (Tech Poster)

We might not have a choice a fewyears down the road but the WAC is much more respected conference than the Sun Belt. It is the truth. I would not step down until we absolutely have to.

(Reply from Tiger poster- Catdaddy 2402)

Correction...the WAC was more respected. Now the WAC is just an oversized Big West. You replaced teams in media markets like Dallas, Houston, Tulsa and El Paso with teams in Moscow, ID, Logan, UT, and Las Cruces, NM. You bash the Belt....yet you took two of the Belt's cellar dwellars and another team that never had a winning record while a member of the Belt. The only respected teams in the WAC are Boise and Fresno...and they'll have to play a Murder's Row OOC slate to overcome how weak the WAC schedule just became.

The problem with La Tech is they feel like their program is a lot more prestigous than it really is. You brag about beating Oklahoma State in '02...but fail to mention you followed that groundbreaking opening day event up with only three more wins the rest of the season. You brag about beating Michigan State....but again just three more wins the rest of the way. Your coach is in over his head, and the Dr Jeckll/ Mr Hyde style that your team plays with is a prime indicator of that. I knew he was a fool after the '01 Humanitarian Bowl, where our worst defensive team in 35 years at Clemson punked your supposedly high octane offense. Bicknell was crying after the game that we ran up the score and there would be payback in the regular season game in '02. Then came your big win over Okie State and your fans really started woofing then. Only to be pimp slapped even worse than you were the year before. Typical La Tech...all bark and no bite.

Your facilities would be second rate in 1-AA. Your budget would be average in 1-AA, as would your team. You are an afterthought in your region to a school located 250 miles away. You are losing ground every day that facilities are being upgraded in Denton, Troy, and elsewhere. You have very little wiggle room budget wise because your travel expenses for conference games in every sport to got a little higher. The conference who's "respectability" you cling to like a life preserver is a MWC overture away from being decimated even more than it already was. The "bell cow" program of your athletic department is dying a slow death because it can't keep up withthe new powers in women's basketball money wise. Your already pathetic attendance is going to be hurt even more by the fact that the closest conference team to you is 1000 miles away, and you have played a grand total of 31 games against the members of your conference combined.

But you go ahead and let pride decide your fate. Meanwhile North Texas, Troy, and others enjoy progressing while you pridefully fall that much further behind.

Edited July 6, 2005 by MeanGreen61

[TechFan]

Not completely sure which side of the argument (WAC vs. SBC for Latech) you're on, but.....

Regardless of the actual schedules that were compared, the fact remains that NMSU, Idaho, and USU are now in the WAC. So a more appropriate comparison would be LaTech's and ULL's travel costs for schedules which reflect the new conference alignments.

Not trying to change your mind about the WAC, if that's what you're sold on. I just think people need to read into statistics that are presented in any debate.

Also, just so that nobody gets the wrong idea, I did not travel to "Denton, Stillwater, Hattiesburg, Mufreesboro, South Carolina and Minnesota" in 2003, as I am Mean Green fan, not a ULL fan.

I am not using my earlier statement to illustrate either conference as better, just to point out an error in your arguement that "He really cherry-picked those numbers to make a point. "

[PlummMeanGreen]

Dammmmmmmnnn.... talk about getting lit up!

Makes some good points about the WAC tho, without the top two teams, they have nothing that half the belt cant compete with

I wonder if NT had spent another 5 years in the Big West (had it remained intact) where our program would be today?

[TechFan]

TechFan,

I just have one question for you... Do you (personally) think that Tech is in a better place NOW, then it was before the WAC?  I am talking football here.  I really could care less about the rest.  Think about wins and losses, think about reputation, think about facilities.  Think about where TECH was just 5 years ago as far as national prestige.

Do I think we are better off now than five years ago. It is all a matter of perspective.

On the positive our conference payout is higher than it has ever been, thanks to SMU, Tulsa, Rice and UTEP surrendering their portions. Our administration has finally announced a campaign for some much needed facility improvements and other funding increases. Last year, 11 of our 12 football games were televised. We have some great wins against OSU, Michigan State, Boise, Fresno, and Alabama.

On the negative side, we were passed over bu CUSA for UTEP. Our facilities need some upgrade (finally going to happen). We are still a small school (8,000 undergrads). We have some embarassing losses (UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, and San Jose State).

Despite all our shortcomings and a 6-6 record, we still averaged 17,548 fans last year.

At the time, the WAC made sense for us. For the short term, it still makes some sense. The WAC did not make sense for UNT based on economics. The conference payouts were too far down the line for UNT to justify the expense of the WAC.

In time, the WAC will not make sense for Tech. As long as the payouts remain high, we should consider staying. If a better deal comes along from the Belt or CUSA then we should jump.

[TechFan]

(Reply from Tiger poster- Catdaddy 2402)

Correction...the WAC was more respected. Now the WAC is just an oversized Big West. You replaced teams in media markets like Dallas, Houston, Tulsa and El Paso with teams in Moscow, ID, Logan, UT, and Las Cruces, NM. You bash the Belt....yet you took two of the Belt's cellar dwellars and another team that never had a winning record while a member of the Belt. The only respected teams in the WAC are Boise and Fresno...and they'll have to play a Murder's Row OOC slate to overcome how weak the WAC schedule just became.

The problem with La Tech is they feel like their program is a lot more prestigous than it really is.

Yes the WAC does have some national prestige. Most of the prestige is from Fresno and Boise. Hawaii and Tech have added a little with some key wins, but the overwhelming majority is from the previously mentioned two schools.

Losing SMU, Tulsa, and Rice and replacing them with NMSU and Idaho.... does that hurt or help? Neither. Trading cellar dwellers does nothing for either program. Losing Mike Price not UTEP hurts.

If Boise and Fresno leave, then the WAC has some serious credibility issues. Is the WAC better than the Belt? Without continous head to head competition, you can only go on OOC records. While I have not researched our head to head record we are 4-1 since 2000 against Sun Belt teams. Can't say that means we win the Belt, since we have yet to play UNT. The only problem the Belt has is the perception that it cannot win OOC games. This can and will change in time. Most likely against Tulsa.

Do we have some fans who are somewhat overconsumed with pride? Yes we do. I can name them for you, but you already know who they are. I get into as many arguements with them as I do fans from Marshall (another overly prideful group of fans).

You hope that most schools with some resemblance of success has these types of fans. If they do not, then they really have a marketing issue.

[stebo]

Do I think we are better off now than five years ago. It is all a matter of perspective.

On the positive our conference payout is higher than it has ever been, thanks to SMU, Tulsa, Rice and UTEP surrendering their portions. Our administration has finally announced a campaign for some much needed facility improvements and other funding increases. Last year, 11 of our 12 football games were televised. We have some great wins against OSU, Michigan State, Boise, Fresno, and Alabama.

On the negative side, we were passed over bu CUSA for UTEP. Our facilities need some upgrade (finally going to happen). We are still a small school (8,000 undergrads). We have some embarassing losses (UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, and San Jose State).

Despite all our shortcomings and a 6-6 record, we still averaged 17,548 fans last year.

At the time, the WAC made sense for us. For the short term, it still makes some sense. The WAC did not make sense for UNT based on economics. The conference payouts were too far down the line for UNT to justify the expense of the WAC.

In time, the WAC will not make sense for Tech. As long as the payouts remain high, we should consider staying. If a better deal comes along from the Belt or CUSA then we should jump.

I just think you are playing with fire. Sure you might make an extra couple hundred grand in conference revenue because of the money left behind - but what you lose as a result of it is really damaging. Two more years in the WAC and La Tech could be down to Idaho level. There is that old saying that you have to crawl before you walk... and walk before you run... Well, 5 years ago Tech was RUNNING - they were the envy of many non-BCS schools. Now they are an afterthought. They have gone back to walking. Another 2 years in the WAC and you will likely be crawilng. Then you got to start all over again. If your payments are great for the next two years of the WAC, then apply for SBC admission for 2007. Once you have been accepted (and you would be) - you tell the WAC that you will stick with them through the transition (they need you guys now, they have to have at least 6 teams playing together for 5 years in order to be recognized as a conference)... that way you don't lose your payouts. If all else fails and the WAC gets AWESOME somehow, you pull out of the Belt and pay the freaking $50K penalty to stick with the WAC. If Tech has become a world beater, someone else will come along (CUSA, MWC), if you guys have gone down the road that most of us think you will - then the Belt will be right up your ally by then. It is called hedging your bets... Right now Tech has all of its chips on the table on the number WAC... Not a safe bet when you can pay the insurance of only $50K and hedge your fall back bet on the Belt. If the Belt has just gotten TERRIBLE in the next two years (lost its bowl, down to 6 members, lost NT or Troy or MTSU to someone, etc..) then freaking pull out of the deal - it is only $50K! But, if the Belt has continued to evolve as it has for the first four years... you risk not getting in and having to go Indy.

Man, I dunno. I know that it "looks" like a lot of money for you guys over the next two years beause of the defectors, but durely you have to have SOME sort of game plan for AFTER those two years are up. I have yet to see the answer to that. The best answer that I have seen is to hope that you become world beaters and force CUSA to create a 13th spot. That just ain't gonna happen, brotha.

[TechFan]

Man, I dunno.  I know that it "looks" like a lot of money for you guys over the next two years beause of the defectors, but durely you have to have SOME sort of game plan for AFTER those two years are up.  I have yet to see the answer to that.  The best answer that I have seen is to hope that you become world beaters and force CUSA to create a 13th spot.  That just ain't gonna happen, brotha.

Tech has implemented a plan to raise money and conduct facility improvements over the next three years.

Where the Money Would Go

$50,000 to Athletic Academic Center for tutors

$100,000 to Marketing and Promotions

$200,000 in coaches' salary adjustments

$125,000 to recruiting for all 16 sports

$2.4 million over three years for facilities improvements (Artificial Turf for Joe Aillet Stadium, Video Scoreboads for Joe Aillet Stadium & Thomas Assembly Center)

$100,000 to fund home game guarantees in men's and women's basketball

$750,000 for elimination of football guarantee game

Is this the dream plan. No way, but it is a start. This is additional money to be spent above and beyond our meager athletic budget.

Will we have to force CUSA to create a 13th spot? No, there will be more shake up in the future. South Florida is not going to sit in the Big East for long without some type of help from expansion. It is total speculation, but Central Florida, ECU, Marshall, and Central Florida would make a 12 member league and leave CUSA with 3 holes. UNT, Tech and one other would salvage the CUSA. Like I said speculation only, but South Florida is not going to sit there with nearest conference mate in Kentucky for long, just like Tech cannot sit in the WAC with NMSU as its nearest opponent for long.

[ccs178]

Reading that reminds me of how much I hate the Marshall fans on that board.  Herdzone and ccs-whatever are two of the biggest jerks to ever obtain internet access.  Between them and Lynndie England, my opinion of West Virginians is falling fast.

Also, I like how the guy on the LaTech board does a travel cost comparison between ULL and LT, on a year when ULL went to NMSU and Idaho.  Those two are now on the LT schedule and off ULL's.  Not to mention that LT didn't go to Hawaii that year.  He really cherry-picked those numbers to make a point.

One of the biggest jerks to ever obtain internet access? I know I can be a jerk, but one of the biggest? Wow, it's good to know I have fans.

I didn't say anything bad about UNT, so I don't understand what got your ire up, but oh well. I'm not from West Virginia either and I'm not a Marshall fan. I respect them, but I'm a Southern Miss fan. So, I guess you can hate on Mississippi and Southern Miss instead.

I can easily see UNT receiving a C-USA invite in the next shuffle. It wouldn't bother me one bit either. Sorry to disappoint you on that.

[pollock]

One of the biggest jerks to ever obtain internet access? I know I can be a jerk, but one of the biggest? Wow, it's good to know I have fans. 

I didn't say anything bad about UNT, so I don't understand what got your ire up, but oh well. I'm not from West Virginia either and I'm not a Marshall fan. I respect them, but I'm a Southern Miss fan. So, I guess you can hate on Mississippi and Southern Miss instead. 

I can easily see UNT receiving a C-USA invite in the next shuffle. It wouldn't bother me one bit either. Sorry to disappoint you on that.

Hmmmm.... I must have you confused with somebody else. Last winter when the last CUSA invite was up in the air, I lurked on that board frequently, and the Marshall fans were constantly ripping on UNT. Probably just because they wanted a conference mate within driving distance, but it was pretty harsh talk for people that probably know NOTHING about our school.

Maybe it was someone with a similar username. Anyway, sorry for calling you out.

I have nothing against Southern Miss, except with regard to the stomping you guys gave us in New Orleans last year. Hopefully we'll get another shot at you soon, and all the better if it's a conference game.

[ccs178]

Hmmmm.... I must have you confused with somebody else. Last winter when the last CUSA invite was up in the air, I lurked on that board frequently, and the Marshall fans were constantly ripping on UNT. Probably just because they wanted a conference mate within driving distance, but it was pretty harsh talk for people that probably know NOTHING about our school.

Maybe it was someone with a similar username. Anyway, sorry for calling you out.

I have nothing against Southern Miss, except with regard to the stomping you guys gave us in New Orleans last year. Hopefully we'll get another shot at you soon, and all the better if it's a conference game.

No harm, no foul. To be honest, a lot of crap was slung during the time period you referenced. As a mod I had to wade through a good bit at it. It's possible that in dealing with some UNT fans that UNT got caught in the crossfire, collateral damage as it were. I do have a lot of respect for UNT though and I'm old enough to remember when Southern Miss was having to deal with the very same issues you guys are right now. If I had my way I'd schedule a series between Southern Miss and UNT. We could call it the "Rumble For The Roost" or something like that.

[Quoner]

Wouldn't it just be easier if we rebumped the old ones?

[ScreamingEaglesFan]

Before I saw the date I thought there had been a PlumMeanGreen sighting, but alas no

[greenminer]

TechFan,

I just have one question for you... Do you (personally) think that Tech is in a better place NOW, then it was before the WAC? I am talking football here. I really could care less about the rest. Think about wins and losses, think about reputation, think about facilities. Think about where TECH was just 5 years ago as far as national prestige.

Why are you dismissing other sports in a conference affiliation debate?

[LoveMG]

Why are you dismissing other sports in a conference affiliation debate?

football and less travel are the main reasons to change conferences.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Sometimes people ( or colleges) just can't afford what they want. I don't think LaTech can afford to stay where they are. A lot of folks in Florida and California wanted really big condos and now they are reposessed and they have nothing. Wake up.