Crazy Idea About Conference Shake-Ups

[Side Show Joe]

From what I've been reading, the conference expansions seem to be driven by generating more money through T.V. deals, increasing the gap between the auto bid conferences and the mid-majors, and possibly creating a framework for a playoff. The Big 10 and PAC 10 are expected to act first. After that the Big East and Big 12 will want to replace their lost teams, but I can't see the ACC or SEC sitting back and letting them reload.

I think a more likely sitiation will be the ACC trying pick the bones of what used to be the Big East. I don't think the SEC will want to expand into the north, so they would probably try to attract teams from a weaker Big 12, but I don't think they get any.

If increasing the T.V. money through adding top markets to keep up with the Big 10, is the greatest issue driving the SEC expansion, then could they end up inviting Houston and North Texas?

The conference could afford to take the hit in the competition area because it is the strongest, they would add the number 5 and 10 T.V. markets in the country, both are large state school, and they'd play more games in front of Texas recruits. I know it sounds crazy, but I think it could be a possibility. Any thoughts?

[untgeorge]

From what I've been reading, the conference expansions seem to be driven by generating more money through T.V. deals, increasing the gap between the auto bid conferences and the mid-majors, and possibly creating a framework for a playoff. The Big 10 and PAC 10 are expected to act first. After that the Big East and Big 12 will want to replace their lost teams, but I can't see the ACC or SEC sitting back and letting them reload.

I think a more likely sitiation will be the ACC trying pick the bones of what used to be the Big East. I don't think the SEC will want to expand into the north, so they would probably try to attract teams from a weaker Big 12, but I don't think they get any.

If increasing the T.V. money through adding top markets to keep up with the Big 10, is the greatest issue driving the SEC expansion, then could they end up inviting Houston and North Texas?

The conference could afford to take the hit in the competition area because it is the strongest, they would add the number 5 and 10 T.V. markets in the country, both are large state school, and they'd play more games in front of Texas recruits. I know it sounds crazy, but I think it could be a possibility. Any thoughts?

The Dallas and Houston TV markets are dominated by UT and TxA&M.

[Side Show Joe]

The Dallas and Houston TV markets are dominated by UT and TxA&M.

UT and A&M dominate the Houston and Dallas markets, because there is no other BCS conference in Texas, and they have old successful programs. Also, will ESPN, ABC, FOX Sports, or CBS really care if these cities are in Big 12 turf? The SEC, ACC, and Big East all have a team in Florida. Why should the Big 12 have sole control of Texas? A&M and Texas are not even located in the local Houston or DFW T.V. viewing areas.

Adding these 2 markets could really increase the SEC's T.V. money when they sign a new deal.

[untgeorge]

UT and A&M dominate the Houston and Dallas markets, because there is no other BCS conference in Texas, and they have old successful programs. Also, will ESPN, ABC, FOX Sports, or CBS really care if these cities are in Big 12 turf? The SEC, ACC, and Big East all have a team in Florida. Why should the Big 12 have sole control of Texas? A&M and Texas are not even located in the local Houston or DFW T.V. viewing areas.

Adding these 2 markets could really increase the SEC's T.V. money when they sign a new deal.

It is not a question of whether they should or should not have control, the question is do they. And they do.

[Side Show Joe]

It is not a question of whether they should or should not have control, the question is do they. And they do.

The focus of this topic is not what the Big 12 has, everyone knows what they have, the question is should the SEC move in? I think they should.

[untgeorge]

The focus of this topic is not what the Big 12 has, everyone knows what they have, the question is should the SEC move in? I think they should.

If the SEC does come to Texas, and they may well try to do that, it will be by inviting UT and/or A&M.

[houstonmeangreen]

From what I've been reading, the conference expansions seem to be driven by generating more money through T.V. deals, increasing the gap between the auto bid conferences and the mid-majors, and possibly creating a framework for a playoff. The Big 10 and PAC 10 are expected to act first. After that the Big East and Big 12 will want to replace their lost teams, but I can't see the ACC or SEC sitting back and letting them reload.

I think a more likely sitiation will be the ACC trying pick the bones of what used to be the Big East. I don't think the SEC will want to expand into the north, so they would probably try to attract teams from a weaker Big 12, but I don't think they get any.

If increasing the T.V. money through adding top markets to keep up with the Big 10, is the greatest issue driving the SEC expansion, then could they end up inviting Houston and North Texas?

The conference could afford to take the hit in the competition area because it is the strongest, they would add the number 5 and 10 T.V. markets in the country, both are large state school, and they'd play more games in front of Texas recruits. I know it sounds crazy, but I think it could be a possibility. Any thoughts?

Look...UNT has had one of the worse football programs in the history of college football...if you think the SEC is going to add UNT to the conf. then you are smoking crack....UNT will be lucky to even get a shot at conf USA in a shakeup....it is sad, but true...I wish it wasn't, but big changes (like the stadium) will have to take place and these things take time to mature...respect, tradition, etc....time.

The mismanagement of athletics at unt has be significant over the years and while things are changing...and fast, I might add, I still don't see a major conf in near future for UNT.

[axis]

Look...UNT has had one of the worse football programs in the history of college football...if you think the SEC is going to add UNT to the conf. then you are smoking crack....UNT will be lucky to even get a shot at conf USA in a shakeup....it is sad, but true...I wish it wasn't, but big changes (like the stadium) will have to take place and these things take time to mature...respect, tradition, etc....time.

The mismanagement of athletics at unt has be significant over the years and while things are changing...and fast, I might add, I still don't see a major conf in near future for UNT.

Also, UNT is a tier 4 university going through a regime change with a relatively small endowment compared to schools in the SEC.

I will say this, with sound leadership(which is hard to come by around here at times)and patience, North Texas has tremendous potential. It just may take a generation for this potential to be realized.

[KRAM1]

Also, UNT is a tier 4 university going through a regime change with a relatively small endowment compared to schools in the SEC.

I will say this, with sound leadership(which is hard to come by around here at times)and patience, North Texas has tremendous potential. It just may take a generation for this potential to be realized.

It will also take the Mean Green Nation rising up and supporting UNT with its donations and season ticket purchases. This, too, is improving, but still has a long way to go. Time it will take, but time and desire most members of the Mean Green Nation have in spades. With the new stadium and all the conference alignment talk, I am looking forward to the possibility of record numbers of attendees at this year's Mean Green games...both football and basketball where it seems to matter the most in this sort of thing.

[forevereagle]

Time it will take,

Thanks Yoda.

[untjim1995]

The focus of this topic is not what the Big 12 has, everyone knows what they have, the question is should the SEC move in? I think they should.

Here is the reality about conference expansion and the state of Texas. To TV and conference big-wigs, in Texas and out of Texas, these three schools matter--UT, A&M, and Tech. (I hate that last name, big-time, but I am jealous of how they used their location to get kids to go out there to school and actually become loyal students and alumni, thus, they get into the SWC and Big XII.) The first two schools are academically superior, which is appealing to big conferences, and Tech will probably be the recipient of the state's plan to move another school up to Tier One, since they have the enrollment, alumni support, and endowment to move up with the most ease. UH, UTEP, and especially UNT, as well as the private schools in the state cannot give the same thing that the other three do. If it wasn't the case, then CUSA and even the MWC would be huge in this state, since it has 5 other schools from Texas already in it. It takes TCU to be a top five team to even get notice in their own town and even then, the MWC is just so remote that the typical fan that only cares about BCS teams doesn't tune in to their games. CUSA is barely above the SBC as a football conference, if at all, yet that league is full of schools that want nothing to do with UNT being in their league, at least they have been that way for the last 50 years or so. Besides, we have proven many times that the Sun Belt is more than enough for us. Even when we won big in the SBC, we rarely stepped out in OOC and made a statement that the national--heck, even regional--media took notice of. It is what it is here at UNT. We made our own bed the same way for decades, athletically, and really, we still are making it pretty much the same way, although the tailgating has helped bring in more fans. We pay our coach about 10 times less than the other local schools, and we finally get a student increase in fees that will just catch up to the rates that UTSA and Lamar fund.

The poster who mentioned that we are probably a generation away from being in a conference that has colleges with name value to Texas residents seems dead-on to me.

[LoveMG]

Here is the reality about conference expansion and the state of Texas. To TV and conference big-wigs, in Texas and out of Texas, these three schools matter--UT, A&M, and Tech. (I hate that last name, big-time, but I am jealous of how they used their location to get kids to go out there to school and actually become loyal students and alumni, thus, they get into the SWC and Big XII.) The first two schools are academically superior, which is appealing to big conferences

tech is not so well known outside texas. just ask.

unt will not climb unless we make our desire to do so more known in the media. we have to put our name out there for consideration and sell ourselves more to other conferences. tell the general public about our sports programs and future goals. let people know the bandwagon's destination.

Edited April 30, 2010 by LoveMG

[Side Show Joe]

tech is not so well known outside texas. just ask.

unt will not climb unless we make our desire to do so more known in the media. we have to put our name out there for consideration and sell ourselves more to other conferences. tell the general public about our sports programs and future goals. let people know the bandwagon's destination.

I totally agree with your post. We have to do more.

I am almost 100% sure the SEC has no interst in us other then scheduling some bodybag games, but they see the $60,000,000 in profit the Big 10 network earned last year, and can speculate about how much more it will earn from expanding into new markets after the shake-up. I think the SEC wants a network too. With that kind of money out there, if they don't, they should. If they can't have Texas, then the won't get A&M. The state makes those two a package deal. Would the SEC hold its nose and take UNT and Houston, in order to maximize profits in an SEC network? Shouldn't we at least bring it to their attention? Are there two better markets in the south, that would bring more T.V.s to an SEC network?

We need to market our program better, and play to our strengths in this current environment, which is the additional revenue our media market would bring to the schools of the SEC, not what our university's performance brings.

[untjim1995]

I totally agree with your post. We have to do more.

I am almost 100% sure the SEC has no interst in us other then scheduling some bodybag games, but they see the $60,000,000 in profit the Big 10 network earned last year, and can speculate about how much more it will earn from expanding into new markets after the shake-up. I think the SEC wants a network too. With that kind of money out there, if they don't, they should. If they can't have Texas, then the won't get A&M. The state makes those two a package deal. Would the SEC hold its nose and take UNT and Houston, in order to maximize profits in an SEC network? Shouldn't we at least bring it to their attention? Are there two better markets in the south, that would bring more T.V.s to an SEC network?

We need to market our program better, and play to our strengths in this current environment, which is the additional revenue our media market would bring to the schools of the SEC, not what our university's performance brings.

Tech is much more well-known now than it ever was prior to Leach getting there. Its funny how athletic success out in West Texas has brought them so much in attendance, endowment support, and just more TV appearances by hiring Leach and Bob Knight. I realize both are now gone and that both of their sports could very well fall back to where they used to always be, but, again, the bigger point is that their students, alumni, and city care about their school--ours overwhelmingly don't.

As far as the SEC extending out this way, it will be real simple. The SEC will get two schools from 2 of these states: Texas, Oklahoma, or Florida. I think the SEC would like to expand into Florida by adding FSU and Miami and expand into Texas with UT and A&M. UT may look down their noses at the SEC, though, because of academics, which means A&M won't go either. Well, the SEC could just go to OU and OSU and expand there if neither Texas or A&M come over. Heck, they could even add one of those Oklahoma schools and add Kansas to get a basketball power and the KC market for more exposure.

ONe of the better scenarios of hope for UNT is that the Big XII loses the two Texas schools, but no one else, other than another Northern school, like Mizzou, Colorado, or Nebraska. That would make the remianing Big XII take a look at UH and TCU to get coverage in Texas again. Then CUSA decides to replace UH with UNT because UTEP would be the only large Texas school left in their conference. That scenario is very possible. Otherwise, I think that the SBC will be our home for many years to come, which if it adds UTSA and Texas State eventually, would not be a bad league at all, especially if we can finally get some other in-state schools that we could build a rivalry with and have easier travel for our fans to go and see.

[NT80]

Tech is much more well-known now than it ever was prior to Leach getting there. Its funny how athletic success out in West Texas has brought them so much in attendance, endowment support, and just more TV appearances by hiring Leach and Bob Knight. I realize both are now gone and that both of their sports could very well fall back to where they used to always be, but, again, the bigger point is that their students, alumni, and city care about their school--ours overwhelmingly don't.

As far as the SEC extending out this way, it will be real simple. The SEC will get two schools from 2 of these states: Texas, Oklahoma, or Florida. I think the SEC would like to expand into Florida by adding FSU and Miami and expand into Texas with UT and A&M. UT may look down their noses at the SEC, though, because of academics, which means A&M won't go either. Well, the SEC could just go to OU and OSU and expand there if neither Texas or A&M come over. Heck, they could even add one of those Oklahoma schools and add Kansas to get a basketball power and the KC market for more exposure.

ONe of the better scenarios of hope for UNT is that the Big XII loses the two Texas schools, but no one else, other than another Northern school, like Mizzou, Colorado, or Nebraska. That would make the remianing Big XII take a look at UH and TCU to get coverage in Texas again. Then CUSA decides to replace UH with UNT because UTEP would be the only large Texas school left in their conference. That scenario is very possible. Otherwise, I think that the SBC will be our home for many years to come, which if it adds UTSA and Texas State eventually, would not be a bad league at all, especially if we can finally get some other in-state schools that we could build a rivalry with and have easier travel for our fans to go and see.

It is easy for a town and students to get behind a school that wins and plays in the Big 12. It is not so easy for a school that plays in the SunBelt and has only 10 wins since 2004.

But our fans still come out for a big name opponent and would if the conference schedule included the likes of OU, Texas, et al. It doesn't take much marketing for a schedule like that.

Edited May 4, 2010 by NT80

[MeanGreen61]

It is easy for a town and students to get behind a school that wins and plays in the Big 12. It is not so easy for a school that plays in the SunBelt and has only 10 wins since 2004.

But our fans still come out for a big name opponent and would if the conference schedule included the likes of OU, Texas, et al. It doesn't take much marketing for a schedule like that.

Lubbock isn't exactly bustling with entertainment options. Tech is really the only game in town above the high school level.

[untjim1995]

It is easy for a town and students to get behind a school that wins and plays in the Big 12. It is not so easy for a school that plays in the SunBelt and has only 10 wins since 2004.

But our fans still come out for a big name opponent and would if the conference schedule included the likes of OU, Texas, et al. It doesn't take much marketing for a schedule like that.

I couldn't agree more with you on that point of scheduling and attendance. The difference is, though, that Tech has always gotten included--we haven't. Why? Their alumni and students all support their school, in both attendance and $$$. Plus, although they have no conference championships to show for it, they have competed very well with those big names you listed. It all goes back to why is it that a school in the middle-of-nowhere has been able to do so well over time and ours hasn't. Tech's best case scenario is being included in the Super BCS that is about to form, while their worst case is being in a reformed MWC/Big XII that doesn't include Texas, A&M, or OU. Our best case is that a reworked Big XII/MWC makes an opening available within CUSA, while the worst case is staying put in an SBC that loses MTSU, FAU, or someone else. The answers lie somewhere in the middle, and I dislike Tech more than most, but its mostly because they have been "taken care of" by the other Texas schools, while we have never been given the chance in the last 50+ years to even be associated in a league with any other Division-1 school in Texas. And based on Vito's blog about SMU, it doesn't appear that this has changed one bit.

[NT80]

I couldn't agree more with you on that point of scheduling and attendance. The difference is, though, that Tech has always gotten included--we haven't. Why? Their alumni and students all support their school, in both attendance and $$$. Plus, although they have no conference championships to show for it, they have competed very well with those big names you listed. It all goes back to why is it that a school in the middle-of-nowhere has been able to do so well over time and ours hasn't. Tech's best case scenario is being included in the Super BCS that is about to form, while their worst case is being in a reformed MWC/Big XII that doesn't include Texas, A&M, or OU. Our best case is that a reworked Big XII/MWC makes an opening available within CUSA, while the worst case is staying put in an SBC that loses MTSU, FAU, or someone else. The answers lie somewhere in the middle, and I dislike Tech more than most, but its mostly because they have been "taken care of" by the other Texas schools, while we have never been given the chance in the last 50+ years to even be associated in a league with any other Division-1 school in Texas. And based on Vito's blog about SMU, it doesn't appear that this has changed one bit.

I agree Tech has been taken care of by other Texas schools but also in the legislature. I believe they were admitted to the SWC because of politics and their reps in Austin. Fry tried to get NT into the SWC and had some support from member schools, but not enough.

Edited May 4, 2010 by NT80