Will Anyone Ever Win The Sun Belt Fb Crown

[emmitt01]

It's called "Muts Luv"

Yes it is.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

What if in 2001 it had been the other way around? We lose to Middle on the field but they lose to ULM. We beat ULM that year and wind up co-champions. They would have had a better record but I would still want to claim our share of the crown. The reason is because we both had the same number of conference wins and losses.

The reward for beating thim on the field was the bowl bid and that's satisfaction enough for me. And, personally, if I have to lose one game I'd rather lose it to Middle than to the boys from Monroe.

[GoMTBlue]

This is my point. They've always lost head to head against the other "co-champion", yet they never list it as a co-championship. They've never outright won the Fb championship on the field.

True champions win the games they HAVE to win.

In my book when they lost head to head, they aren't a co-champions, MUTS just won the same number of league games as the league champ did. When you lose to the champion, you finished in second place.

You are doing the same thing. Been thru this before, it's getting old. Agree or disagree that's the way the rules are set up. You are claiming North Texas has 4 SBC Championships. According to the rules North Texas has 3 championships and 1 co-championship. You insist that MT call it a co-championship, but you don't follow your own logic. If you claim North Texas has 4 championships you will have to agree that MT has 2 championships based on the same logic (it's not debatable that the SBC says any team ending the regular conference season with the same record will be co-champs, it's in black and white. I actually disagree with the rule, but that is the current rule set forth by the SBC.).

FYI, if you think the rule stinks I understand. MT fans thought the rule stunk when NT went to a bowl game in 2001 with a losing record. Since then the rules have been changed. Agree or disagree with the logic of the rule, it is the rule the SBC has set up.

[emmitt01]

You are doing the same thing. Been thru this before, it's getting old. Agree or disagree that's the way the rules are set up. You are claiming North Texas has 4 SBC Championships. According to the rules North Texas has 3 championships and 1 co-championship. You insist that MT call it a co-championship, but you don't follow your own logic. If you claim North Texas has 4 championships you will have to agree that MT has 2 championships based on the same logic (it's not debatable that the SBC says any team ending the regular conference season with the same record will be co-champs, it's in black and white. I actually disagree with the rule, but that is the current rule set forth by the SBC.).

FYI, if you think the rule stinks I understand. MT fans thought the rule stunk when NT went to a bowl game in 2001 with a losing record. Since then the rules have been changed. Agree or disagree with the logic of the rule, it is the rule the SBC has set up.

But here is the vital difference, one that the MUTS seem to conveniently forget every time. Football is a sport. In sports there is a winning team and a losing team. When NT and MUTS faced off in 2001 MUTS was the losing team. You can say what you want until you are blue in the face (pun intended) but when the chance to prove who was the better team arose you lost. And you can't call it luck, a fluke, or whatever...I think we went on to win about 26 straight SBC games after that.

[PlummMeanGreen]

What if in 2001 it had been the other way around? We lose to Middle on the field but they lose to ULM. We beat ULM that year and wind up co-champions. They would have had a better record but I would still want to claim our share of the crown. The reason is because we both had the same number of conference wins and losses.

The reward for beating thim on the field was the bowl bid and that's satisfaction enough for me. And, personally, if I have to lose one game I'd rather lose it to Middle than to the boys from Monroe.

And speaking of that ULM game....

What a night for you guys (and girls) who made the fateful 2001 trip to ULM as to what would happen post-game which a UNT Board of Regent (who should have really been out focussing most his time in fund-raising to increase the UNT System Endowment); anyway, with a pseudo intercollegiate football expert who would step way, way, way out of his boundary lines to change a UNT AD's bold decision of which his being veto'd on that decision would give UNT several more years of non-Top 25 football and what finally took the last half of last season for many to really begin to see what we had had most all the time.

I (like many of you) have had some curiosities about if Rick V was really interested in staying at UNT as AD in the past, but I really believe he is the best we've had in a long time in Denton but that he still needs to dramatically tweak his ancillary staff to give himself a chance to be more successful and to then hire those with similar skins and potential talents as we all feel Todd Dodge brings to the table. (No, I will not repeat that long sentence and the thoughts that go with it).

If not for a coaching change and (therefore) Todd Dodge being our new MG HFC, Troy U would be the school I would have given a very good chance to make a 4 year bowl run because they seem to be on top their game these days as to what it takes in the Sun Belt (which we know from the past has hardly been upper NCAA 1--A quality; and I think we'd all still trade Fouts Field even up for what the Trojans have with their stadium.

PS: And as far as my below "new" signature manifesto is concerned, I defer to the fact that I don't think our AD will forever be in Denton because I really do think he has the charisma & talents to be an AD at a Big 6 BCS school in the future. I just know many of us would prefer him to have a new 40,000 seat stadium on his future resume' rather than a 31,000 seater at the Mean Green Village, that's all.

Also believe folks like UT, TAMU, OU, OSU, Texas Tech, Nebraska, etc, etc, etc, will say if we only build a 31,000 seat stadium in Denton: "Why don't you UNT folks just play us at the Cowboys new stadium instead of Denton; 31,000 is still too small for us to play in."

Edited June 6, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[GreenBat]

This is simple.

The SBC champion goes to the New Orleans Bowl.

How many New Orleans Bowls has Middle Tennessee State been in?

[GrandGreen]

NT was co-champion with MTSU but won the right to the bowl game by winning head to head. NT is still the only Belt team to win a football championship out right, in fact three of them. MTSU has just has much right to call themselves champion as NT in the year they were tied. Yes NT beat the MUTS but also lost to a woeful UlM team.

Every year it is always touted that the Belt is vastly improved. I don't see it; Troy had a good team last year just as NT had good teams a couple of years that could compete with at least the second third of the NCAA. The Belt still is far behind most conferences with most of the members being correctly triple digit rated. How many big victories did the league get last year? I can think of two: Troy over Rice and ULL over Houston. They did improve their record against 1aa teams.

I think that there will be a dominant team arise that could match NT four straight conference championships that will be the club that moves on. IMO NT has as good or better chance then anyone to achieve this. However, I do not think that the 26 straight conference victories will be approached that was truly an impressive run.

[Charlie NT 73]

I am not sure about this- at the MTSU stadium, do they have signs or awnings that say "Sun Belt Champions" ? I remember seeing a photo of their stadium and noticed the sign.

Since they lost to North Texas, can the muts justify they are SBC champions, and put up these

signs ?