How Bout That Sunbelt Conference?

BleedGreen64 · December 23, 2007

I have been following UNT since 1960 but do not recall when we were conference mates with Southern Miss.

NT80 · December 23, 2007

I have been following UNT since 1960 but do not recall when we were conference mates with Southern Miss.

We were not that I can find. We were in a conference with Houston before. Perhaps he was thinking of the Missouri Valley, which included us with Louisville, Memphis, and Cincinnati, but not USM.

SUMG · December 23, 2007

We were not that I can find. We were in a conference with Houston before. Perhaps he was thinking of the Missouri Valley, which included us with Louisville, Memphis, and Cincinnati, but not USM.

Also, the reason why Hayden Fry left the Missouri Valley...is that the conference expanded. He wanted the league to add USM. Instead, they added Southern Illinois (and I think Indiana State). So, we wanted to be in a league with them...back in 74....but the MVC had other thoughts.

I think the Belt has gotten better, but to say that it's better than the CUSA is a heckuva stretch. Of all the Belt teams...how many would jump at the chance to be in CUSA? Probably all of them.

Of all the CUSA teams...how many would jump at the chance to be in the Belt? NONE of them.

NT80 · December 23, 2007

Also, the reason why Hayden Fry left the Missouri Valley...is that the conference expanded. He wanted the league to add USM. Instead, they added Southern Illinois (and I think Indiana State). So, we wanted to be in a league with them...back in 74....but the MVC had other thoughts.
I think the Belt has gotten better, but to say that it's better than the CUSA is a heckuva stretch. Of all the Belt teams...how many would jump at the chance to be in CUSA? Probably all of them.
Of all the CUSA teams...how many would jump at the chance to be in the Belt? NONE of them.

Yes, I remember something about the rift going on in the MVC back then. The football schools wanted more southern exposure and USM and the basketball schools wanted to add northern basketball schools. This may have been about the time Cincy and Louisville were going to leave also for the Metro Conference?

As for the SBC/CUSA debate, no question CUSA football is still ahead. They have better facilities, better attendance, and more media and Bowl slots. It would be so much easier for our fans to travel to Tulsa, SMUt, UH, & Rice. An all-sports conference (all 1-A football playing) makes it better too.

CajunNation · December 23, 2007

Also, the reason why Hayden Fry left the Missouri Valley...is that the conference expanded. He wanted the league to add USM. Instead, they added Southern Illinois (and I think Indiana State). So, we wanted to be in a league with them...back in 74....but the MVC had other thoughts.
I think the Belt has gotten better, but to say that it's better than the CUSA is a heckuva stretch. Of all the Belt teams...how many would jump at the chance to be in CUSA? Probably all of them.
Of all the CUSA teams...how many would jump at the chance to be in the Belt? NONE of them.

You're talking about perceptions. To some people, perceptions have nothing to do with reality.

Some people will never accept reality if it doesn't fit the way they think things ought to be.

Do you realize that there are still people that get paid to give their opinions on TV that still think Boise didn't deserve to be on the same field with Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl?.

The fact is you could take all of the players from the majority of the teams in the SBC and CUSA, and mix them up, put them on different teams, and nobody would notice.

stebo · December 23, 2007

The only thing that I think that the Belt has gotten better at is talent. CUSA has us beat in TV, bowls, name recognition - heck - you name it... but I think that the best of the Belt can beat the best of CUSA now. I couldn't say that before - but the heavy hitters have moved on the the replacements are mediocre at best. I think that Troy, FAU, and even ULM (given a home field advantage) could tee it up with anyone in CUSA and win. I also think that on the average, we are a better group - talent wise. We have three bottom dwellars, UL, FIU, and NT. I have confidence that NT and FIU will pull out of it - and UL was winning up until this year. I just feel great that we were able to shake off Idaho, USU, and NMSU - those teams were always pulling the conference down.

CUSA added Tulsa, Rice, UTEP, and SMU - all great names... but bad to mediocre ball. Tulsa is probably the best of that group but they have a history of getting really bad really fast. Same with UTEP- right now they are doing fine, but "We Take Em Points" was the joke of college football until 2000. Guess who one of the the coaches that helped turn them around and got them to that 2000 Human bowl game? Gary Nord... the Offensive Coordinator at FAU now. Coincidentally, Nord was Schnelly's OC at OU during his one year stay in 95. FAU and FIU have so much damn money that they will get better. They are doing it with smoke and mirrors but so did UCF and USF. Both gave the appearance of being big time well before they were even close to being big time. FIU has struggled; but they are actually building already. FAU will build, I guarantee it. Schnelly will make sure of it. Troy is really freaking good - scary good. WKY will be just as good. We are on our way back. WKY - There is a reason those guys are so cocky. USA - well, that is a different story - but by then we will need a newbie to beat up on - that is YEARS away.

And you are right, USM and the MVC is what I was thinking of - but it never came to fruition - but the point is, we were all level not long ago and it won't be hard to level up with them again.. we're almost there already.

PlummMeanGreen · December 24, 2007

SUMG's post: Also, the reason why Hayden Fry left the Missouri Valley...is that the conference expanded. He wanted the league to add USM. Instead, they added Southern Illinois (and I think Indiana State). So, we wanted to be in a league with them...back in 74....but the MVC had other thoughts.

I think the Belt has gotten better, but to say that it's better than the CUSA is a heckuva stretch. Of all the Belt teams...how many would jump at the chance to be in CUSA? Probably all of them.

Of all the CUSA teams...how many would jump at the chance to be in the Belt? NONE of them.

You're talking about perceptions. To some people, perceptions have nothing to do with reality.
Some people will never accept reality if it doesn't fit the way they think things ought to be.
Do you realize that there are still people that get paid to give their opinions on TV that still think Boise didn't deserve to be on the same field with Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl?.
The fact is you could take all of the players from the majority of the teams in the SBC and CUSA, and mix them up, put them on different teams, and nobody would notice.

OK already, please do leave out some of the WAC "discussion" of a few weeks ago (since that was all it was as is anything on this sports forum of HSO's) but........

...........for all of us who call themselves UNT'er's a simple question: Did perception have anything to do with the fact that an area CUSA school president went completely across the border of Texas (ignoring a neighboring school) and in a DAmn blurb recommended another non-Texas NCAA D1-A school over UNT for CUSA membership back when they were looking for another member to replace TCU?

UNT could very easily find itself staying the same (similar) course of recent decades with "short-term thinking" kinds of decisions that could keep Mean Green football land-locked into what we've basically had the last 30 or so years. Any of you really want the next 30 years in Denton to be like the last 30?

Talking to another fellow alum recently part of our discussion was this: It all but seems that UNT has a decades long mandate to pretty well keep things business as usual as far as staying the course (a much oft' used phrase of recent weeks).

We've all seen our alma mater hire thru the decades some very well-meaning employees albeit apparently & obviously without the necessary talent to deliver us out of what they themselves inherited when they arrived in Denton (and that for most of the last 30 years wasn't much on a national NCAA stage if we would all review media guides); yet it seemed to all but be a perpetual and unbroken cycle that most always fed upon itself from one hired group at UNT to the next group (and on and on and on and on). You all but had to feel sorry for the mess many of them inherited, & then get pissed with the mess some of them left.

We've seen few of our past athletic staff members go higher than UNT once they leave Denton (abeit I believe we have a handful on our present athletic staff who could go up the ladder to the next step when the time comes). Yet (present group not included) our past upper echelon leadership seemed to set a course for UNT which most always seemed to keep us or future athletic administrations from being able to catapult Mean Green football (and thus, athletics) to the kind of dramatic upgrade we saw schools that UNT used to be at a similar level pass us by and (once again) I list those schools:

......begin with UNT's former conference-mates of decades-past such as UHouston, UCincy', ULouisville, UMemphis & UTulsa; we now can also add UTEP, South Florida, Southern Miss, Central Florida and even a Florida State Seminole football program of the early 1970's. God help us that we don't see even 1 (or even 2) SBC schools do the same although I think it could be highly probable for such to happen if we don't take care of business in Denton now. We really do need to stop worrying about what SMU, TCU and all the other ex SWC schools are doing or even have plans to do. We can't control their destiny--but we can control much our ours.

WHEN WILL WE BE ABLE TO SAY OUR OWN MESSIAH HAS COME? Some of our UNT community I've talked think the only thing that will change the last several decades of whatever you want to call what we've been doing football-wise in Denton (with the real barometer of any NCAA D1-A program's progress, ie, Top 25 ranked varsity programs even being near our radar).....

......yet some think what has many times seemed like a contiuous non-direction of MG football many of our adult lives as UNT alums can only be changed the 180 degrees that it really needs to be changed for us to be successful in NCAA D1-A can only be accomplished by a Big Donor-type few on this board think possible. Yet isn't it sorta' funny how the Dallas Cowboys signed just "one" of its players to a services contract ($63 million) of which such similar monies would so dramatically change the course of Mean Green football history (and UNT athletics, in general)?

With all the mega-monies being spent in sports-crazy America, many cannot fathom why UNT can't seem to (at this point) reel in just one Big Fish--because one is all we really need...............but don't many of us still have hope above al hopes that the future 2'nd Largest University in Texas will soon get a new college football stadium financially jump-started by merely getting the kind of monies that just "one" Dallas Cowboy will be making in the next few years)?

Edited December 24, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

ipEAGLE · December 24, 2007

You are kidding...
really you want to point that out... OK let me go back and rethink.... Nope Didnt change my mind the sunbelt Still SUCKS more...
But I decided to add that 2/3 of your "bowl eligible teams did not go bowling while 100% of CUSA Bowl eligible teams are going bowling.
Yep both conferences still suck.
Ok and someone will start with their useless percentages in 3.....2.......1.......

Who pissed in your cheerios... damn.

dodgefan · December 24, 2007

plummMeangreen proclaims! "We need to stop worrying about what SMU, TCU and all the other ex SWC schools are doing or have plans to do. We can't control their destiny--we can control much our ours"

YES!!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE HAS TAKEN THE BLINDERS OFF!!!! THERE IS HOPE FOR SOME OF YOU! Like I have been saying....even IF, a president of a certain school, voted for another school over NT....IT WOULD NOT MATTER, IF NORTH TEXAS HAD PREPARED ITSELF...AND TAKEN CARE OF IT'S OWN BUSINESS!!!!

PlummMeanGreen · December 24, 2007

plummMeangreen proclaims! "We need to stop worrying about what SMU, TCU and all the other ex SWC schools are doing or have plans to do. We can't control their destiny--we can control much our ours"
YES!!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE HAS TAKEN THE BLINDERS OFF!!!! THERE IS HOPE FOR SOME OF YOU! Like I have been saying....even IF, a president of a certain school, voted for another school over NT....IT WOULD NOT MATTER, IF NORTH TEXAS HAD PREPARED ITSELF...AND TAKEN CARE OF IT'S OWN BUSINESS!!!!

dodgefan, it is a theme that has been expressed by many posters several times on GMG.com the last few years, but it is a theme we still do need to remind ourselves from time to time. (I believe you actually stated the same thing in a post several days ago as I recall).

AnotherEagleFan · December 24, 2007

Who pissed in your cheerios... damn.

No one did anything to my cheerios.... that I know of...

It just seems to me that saying the sunbelt is better then CUSA is like saying that you are the smartest kid in summer school... WHO CARES??? I mean really who would care unless your standard is being worst or 2nd worst....

Yes I do get facts wong on this board all of the time because I go from memory rather then spending the time to go look it up.. But I am not about to go look up all of the facts to dispute that CUSA does or does not send its best team to the NO Bowl.... for someone to try to say that they beat the 2nd best team in CUSA this year at the NO Bowl is a very very long stretch. In fact, only a "homer" would make that statement.. Memphis was a bad football team this year. Just like Southern Miss. Any conferance champion should have beeten both teams. The difference is that a bad CUSA team will still go to bowl game. Again just being the smartest kid in summer school. Our Champion against your Champion would be a very boring game.. Top to Bottom CUSA is better... Ya'll did very good against SMU and Memphis this year... But did not beat another team.

But for the record Stebo just what are you talking about when you say that Southern Miss was a bad team "for so long".. When was that??? Bowers first 3 years???? Bower did not take Southern Miss to the next level. That is why he is gone... WE were winning long before Bower.

And UNT would not hire bower... This board went crazy when Nix was mentioned because it was the old "buddy" system. UNT would not have looked at Bower because he was from Southern Miss.. UNT got what they wanted Dodge.

Edited December 24, 2007 by AnotherEagleFan

TheTastyGreek · December 24, 2007

Yes I do get facts wong on this board all of the time because I go from memory rather then spending the time to go look it up.. But I am not about to go look up all of the facts to dispute that CUSA does or does not send its best team to the NO Bowl....

Who does CUSA send to the New Orleans Bowl? 2002-2006

Don't tax yourself, slugger. Already took care of that for you. Try to commit it to memory.

As for all the other stuff and the crazy colors and fonts... I got a little too immersed in PlummMeanGreen world for a few days. That stuff can be contagious.

NT80 · December 24, 2007

Bower did not take Southern Miss to the next level. That is why he is gone... WE were winning long before Bower.
And UNT would not hire bower... This board went crazy when Nix was mentioned because it was the old "buddy" system. UNT would not have looked at Bower because he was from Southern Miss.. UNT got what they wanted Dodge.

What is considered the "next level" for USM? A Boise type year or better conference? I know USM can draw some good home game opponents: A$M, Illinois, Cal, Nebraska? Is USM happy with CUSA and it's current lineup? How about if Memphis or UCF left for the Big East, who would they push to replace them?

stebo · December 24, 2007

I know why I considered NT to be in the same conference as USM for a few years - it was because we we kinda were. During the late 70's to early 80's was the golden era of Indy football. During that time, NT and USM played regulary. 4 or 5 times over a 6 or 7 year period. That was right before NT was reclassified to the new "IAA" due to stadium size. And when I said that USM had a history of being bad - I merely meant mediocre - and that is by your own fans' admittance. Yes, there were some stellar years in there (I looked it up and 88 was a pretty spectacular year for USM and even got them to the Indy Bowl which they won)... but since then it has been sporadic. Really, CUSA kinda saved your hides - much like the Belt saved ours. USM was struggling financially and with fan support given the rough landscape of being an Indy in the 90's. CUSA came along and everyone kind of laughed at it. Sure it would have solid basketball but the schools that joined had pretty mediocre and start-up football and that was going to be the conference's 2nd sport. Fast forward to present day and in CUSA, football is driving the bus.

USM has had success nearly every year thanks to its CUSA home. You have had a few big wins - A win over a 5-7 Illinois team one year, A couple of wins over a 3 and 4 win Okie State team, and a win over a 3-8 Alabama team back in 2000. But North Texas has been able to take advantage of some down programs as well. We beat Texas Tech a couple of times (both times Tech ended up with winning records of 6-5 in 97 and 99, both in Lubbock), Oregon State in 95, Baylor in 2003. Other then that - the majority of our wins have been in conference, against MAC, WAC, Belt, or CUSA teams. Really the state of the programs are very similar but you are ahead of us because you made it through the reclassification era without moving down and we had to start over from scratch after a 13 year death sentence in IAA ball. You have been able to improve your facilities nicely for a mid major; but they aren't spectacular. Your budget is not much higher than ours. You are regarded as a better team nationally and have a better reputation - but really, when you break it down - there isn't THAT much difference between the two schools and the two programs. The Sun Belt has been great for us and CUSA has been great for you guys.

I try to never look down upon schools. ULM is an easy target but they play some nasty football in Monroe in that old run down stadium. Their fans are as die hard as they get and they have had to work for every single bit of support that they have. Nothing has been handed to any Belt school, they have all had to fight very hard to stay alive and are very lucky to be in the shape that they are in now. Our conference was a joke when it started - but we knew we would play good basketball. Football definitely was going to be an afterthought. But look at us now... we are ranked ahead of CUSA, a 1st for the Belt (we were ranked over the MAC one year to end the season - but this is the first time we have ended over CUSA). Our budgets are comparable. Our teams are winning OOC games. We are drawing well at home for the most part. Fans that have long endured ridicule are finally finding something to brag about. Sounds a lot like year 6 or 7 of CUSA to me. Same history.

Now - will the Belt move it forward? Can we get a better TV deal? Another bowl? I think so. We have done an awful lot in the last few years and the future is looking pretty damn good right now. If we were to get an invite to CUSA we would jump at it in a heartbeat, there is no doubt about it... not because the competition would be better; but because the regional rivalries would bring in more money at the gate in both football and basketball. But I truly believe that the Belt has caught up to CUSA in football talent. Like the other poster stated - I think that you could take all the players from the Belt and CUSA - put them into a hat - pick out the names - and you would get the same results the next year. The talent is very much caught up now. That's just my opinion. FAU spanked Memphis, it was a good old fashioned ass whooping. Troy would have done the same. So would have ULM. ASU did it already this year. And you can't have it both ways - you can't say that Memphis only beat the 6 teams in conference that suck - and then say that the conference is better, lol. Anytime a conference has half of its members that suck (according to your standards) - it has problems. So I think that we really agree - in that the conferences are about the same in talent... you just look down on it and I look at it as a compliment (and PROGRESS).

AnotherEagleFan · December 26, 2007

What is considered the "next level" for USM? A Boise type year or better conference? I know USM can draw some good home game opponents: A$M, Illinois, Cal, Nebraska? Is USM happy with CUSA and it's current lineup? How about if Memphis or UCF left for the Big East, who would they push to replace them?

Unfortunately MS is a small state with 2 schools in BCS conferences. I doubt that we would get a shot at a BCS program without major reform to the current structure of the BCS. So the next level for most Southern Miss fans is to be in a position to win CUSA every year with a true BCS run every few years. So basically where Boise is currently but being able to sustain it over time. Most schools peak then fall back (see Tulane and Utah). On another note, Coach Bower has never beaten a top 20 team (one of the main reasons that he was fires). He was also fired for not increasing our winning % during his tenure. Prior to Bower we would often beat these top 20 teams just to lose to a weak mid major. Our winning % stayed the same under Bower with a weaker schedule.

Concerning CUSA... I think that it can be the best mid major conference top to bottom. The only reason that we are down now is because 3 teams left to go to a BCS conference. We do have some really good programs who are building.

Who would replace Memphis or UCF? I dont see Memphis getting the invite. I do see UCF going fairly soon. I am not sure who will replace them. Most likely school with a large market closer to Marshall.

AnotherEagleFan · December 26, 2007

Stebo - it was a long post so I am not going to try to address everything.. It is hard for me to defend the Southern Miss VS UNT comments without coming across as talking bad about UNT so I will leave that alone on this board. But in terms of talent Southern Miss currently has 13-15 players in the NFL. I cant speak to the other universities in CUSA and the Sunbelt with authority. But my guess is that you would have a difficult time putting the players for 2 Sunbelt teams together to get 13-15 players in the NFL (not counting the "other" leagues). The only way that we are even having this conversation is because the Sunbelt is "up" right now and CUSA is "down" right now. But again we recently sent 3 teams to a BCS conference. We (as a conference) will not stay down long. We will start surpassing all other Mids shortly then we will have to replace 2 teams that will likely go to a BCS conference - That is if the Big east wants to stay part of the BCS. Sending teams to a BCS conference is part of being a superior Mid Major.

Eagle1855 · December 26, 2007

Stebo - it was a long post so I am not going to try to address everything.. It is hard for me to defend the Southern Miss VS UNT comments without coming across as talking bad about UNT so I will leave that alone on this board. But in terms of talent Southern Miss currently has 13-15 players in the NFL. I cant speak to the other universities in CUSA and the Sunbelt with authority. But my guess is that you would have a difficult time putting the players for 2 Sunbelt teams together to get 13-15 players in the NFL (not counting the "other" leagues). The only way that we are even having this conversation is because the Sunbelt is "up" right now and CUSA is "down" right now. But again we recently sent 3 teams to a BCS conference. We (as a conference) will not stay down long. We will start surpassing all other Mids shortly then we will have to replace 2 teams that will likely go to a BCS conference - That is if the Big east wants to stay part of the BCS. Sending teams to a BCS conference is part of being a superior Mid Major.

oh yeah , like Southern Miss has ever had any legendary sure-fire hall of fame NFL players... :rolleyes:

ha, but seriously, you do make some good points.

A lot of people on this board don't want to see the reality that is the Sun Belt. It's still the bottom of the D1 conferences. We all know this (or at least, we all SHOULD know this). It has improved, but top to bottom it isn't all that great. C-USA has had a couple down years, which is to be expected for a conference that sent 3 teams to the Big East (which are doing pretty well, I might add), but top to bottom it is clearly a better conference. As is the WAC. That doesn't mean it's a better conference for UNT, but they ARE better conferences, both in perception and in results. This is not to say that the Belt can't improve, but it's a much longer road for the SBC than it is for the WAC of C-USA.

I think the thing our fans see is that despite our (USM, UNT) current respective situations, UNT has more "upside" potential than USM. This is not to say it will ever amount to anything- it's just potential- but it is there and it shouldn't be ignored.

To beat a dead and bloated horse, it's a large (and ever-growing) state school in a state full of talented players, including the DFW area, which is among the best in the nation. In THEORY, we should ultimately develop of a respectable top 50 team that occasionally breaks the top 25 and be able to maintain that. In THEORY. Of course, U of H is in a similar position with many of the same problems and has hard a difficult time getting back to a level of respectability, but they have done so to some degree.

The problem for USM is they are right in the middle of SEC country (which is not unlike UNT and the Big 12), in a state where 2 out of the 3 programs are BCS schools. Plus, State and Ole Miss are both poised to have decent 2008 seasons. I do think Fedora will prove to be a good hire, but it will take some time (much like our situation).

UNT just needs to take care of their own situation and hope by doing so they open themselves up for an invite to a better conference. I assure you RV and the rest of the UNT admin would accept any invite from C-USA or better. They'd be stupid not to. If for no other reason the bowl tie-ins.

I'll sit back and wait for ArkStFan to come dissect my post and explain how C-USA is going to lose bowl tie-ins, etc... but until then I'll look at things as they are, with hope for what could be, and the understanding that despite of our relative success these past 2 years, our little conference still has a ways to go.

AnotherEagleFan · December 26, 2007

oh yeah , like Southern Miss has ever had any legendary sure-fire hall of fame NFL players...
ha, but seriously, you do make some good points.
A lot of people on this board don't want to see the reality that is the Sun Belt. It's still the bottom of the D1 conferences. We all know this (or at least, we all SHOULD know this). It has improved, but top to bottom it isn't all that great. C-USA has had a couple down years, which is to be expected for a conference that sent 3 teams to the Big East (which are doing pretty well, I might add), but top to bottom it is clearly a better conference. As is the WAC. That doesn't mean it's a better conference for UNT, but they ARE better conferences, both in perception and in results. This is not to say that the Belt can't improve, but it's a much longer road for the SBC than it is for the WAC of C-USA.
I think the thing our fans see is that despite our (USM, UNT) current respective situations, UNT has more "upside" potential than USM. This is not to say it will ever amount to anything- it's just potential- but it is there and it shouldn't be ignored.
To beat a dead and bloated horse, it's a large (and ever-growing) state school in a state full of talented players, including the DFW area, which is among the best in the nation. In THEORY, we should ultimately develop of a respectable top 50 team that occasionally breaks the top 25 and be able to maintain that. In THEORY. Of course, U of H is in a similar position with many of the same problems and has hard a difficult time getting back to a level of respectability, but they have done so to some degree.
The problem for USM is they are right in the middle of SEC country (which is not unlike UNT and the Big 12), in a state where 2 out of the 3 programs are BCS schools. Plus, State and Ole Miss are both poised to have decent 2008 seasons. I do think Fedora will prove to be a good hire, but it will take some time (much like our situation).
UNT just needs to take care of their own situation and hope by doing so they open themselves up for an invite to a better conference. I assure you RV and the rest of the UNT admin would accept any invite from C-USA or better. They'd be stupid not to. If for no other reason the bowl tie-ins.
I'll sit back and wait for ArkStFan to come dissect my post and explain how C-USA is going to lose bowl tie-ins, etc... but until then I'll look at things as they are, with hope for what could be, and the understanding that despite of our relative success these past 2 years, our little conference still has a ways to go.

Not going to get into a UNT Southern Miss debate. I agree that UNT has great upside. Big school, great metroplex for recruiting, a great town (Denton) for living in.. My original point is that you should set your sights higher then comparing the Sunbelt to CUSA. That evolved to me defending CUSA. If you want to debate potential then yes UNT has more potential.... More students more money... But potential does not make you better either in conference or school

Green Mean · December 26, 2007

If the Sunbelt is better than CUSA, then why the heck do we want to relocate to CUSA???????? CUSA is by far the better overall conference than the belt. So what if we are tied or lead the head to head matchups....when push comes to shove CUSA is just the better conference OVERALL. Yes I know its tired head to keep bringing this up but I would rather be in the WAC or MWC over CUSA any day. Those 2 conferences are definitely above CUSA and SBC combined in my opinion. I say lets just have NT worry about its own business and lets keep on improving whats in our OWN backyard. Right now NT has no room to talk with a horrible past 3 seasons in football and with a stadium worse than MANY OLD HIGH SCHOOL stadiums in the state.

Eagle1855 · December 26, 2007

Not going to get into a UNT Southern Miss debate. I agree that UNT has great upside. Big school, great metroplex for recruiting, a great town (Denton) for living in.. My original point is that you should set your sights higher then comparing the Sunbelt to CUSA. That evolved to me defending CUSA. If you want to debate potential then yes UNT has more potential.... More students more money... But potential does not make you better either in conference or school

No doubt. And we're obviously going to have differing (biased) opinions as to why each school is better...

But the fact remains, the Sun Belt is still the worst. Not to say others aren't close.

And I completely agree with your original point, which is that programs should set sights higher than the SBC and C-USA, but those are factors of that success. As I stated before, I couldn't care less about the Sun Belt or C-USA.

My only interest is seeing UNT win every game it plays, in every sport.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Eagle1855

LoveMG · December 26, 2007

i would take cusa or wac bid today. bower was a winner. usm will be sorry at starting all over again with a non proven coach.

MCMLXXX · December 26, 2007

CUSA yes.

WAC no (please review the link to the map below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WAC-USA-states.PNG

PlummMeanGreen · December 26, 2007

If the Sunbelt is better than CUSA, then why the heck do we want to relocate to CUSA???????? CUSA is by far the better overall conference than the belt. So what if we are tied or lead the head to head matchups....when push comes to shove CUSA is just the better conference OVERALL. Yes I know its tired head to keep bringing this up but I would rather be in the WAC or MWC over CUSA any day. Those 2 conferences are definitely above CUSA and SBC combined in my opinion. I say lets just have NT worry about its own business and lets keep on improving whats in our OWN backyard. Right now NT has no room to talk with a horrible past 3 seasons in football and with a stadium worse than MANY OLD HIGH SCHOOL stadiums in the state.

I rarely get into all these "UNT in the CUSA" discussions because it just conjurs up bad memories of my own NT student days when we had all the "UNT in the SWC" discussions. We are still (basically) talking about the same schools in CUSA today who didnt' want UNT in the SWC back in the day and while on that subject, other than getting a few scheduled games with some of those ex SWC schools the last few years and some in the future, do any of you really detect a dramatic change in their overall attitudes toward UNT? If you do, then you might want to think again because many of us who have been over all this time and time again do not.

Perception and politics in the state of Texas may be the hardest things of all things to change in the Lone Star State.

Do we give up trying with diplomacy toward all the ex SWC schools? Of course we don't...but how many other dreams could we be missing out on by merely dreaming of being in bed with all the ex SWC schools now in CUSA?

If the WAC has continual BCS Championship Series Bowl participants and the MWC does not, why should we ever dismiss the WAC as even a remote possibility since the miles are about the same? Yet.............I think the WAC only works for UNT if there is an eastern division of which UNT would be a part because if that were the case that would cut down on travel tremendously. OK now, someone/anyone put that WAC Eastern Division together right now! :lol: