Jump to content

Why The Wac Should Consider A Meaner Greener Future

MeanGreen61

By MeanGreen61
in Mean Green Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

DeepGreen Grand Master

DeepGreen

Posted
Posted

I have a problem with a conference that includes UTSA (no football team), and Texas State - San Marcus. And before you blast my being above those schools, let me remind everyone we have been 1A for a long, long time. And that includes pre and post 1AA purgatory. We may not be good in football, but like my La Tech friends say, we need to "separate ouselves" from UTSA TSU-San Marcus.

Like the writer says, we have a huge student body, large alumni base, a new stadium coming on stream in 2011, all new athletic facilities in most other sports, and an athletic fee kicking in soon that will give us a larger budget to work with. RV should be taking these positives and sell other conferences on UNT. Gentlemen, all UNT needs is a crack at a better conference.

TheTastyGreek Collaborator

TheTastyGreek

Posted
Posted

The WAC already wanted a meaner greener past. WE didn't want THEM. And it was the right decision.

Now, Boise is hypothetically gone, and this idea lumps us in with UTSA, Texas State, I think I saw Lamar mentioned when I very briefly skimmed the article...

Pass. Pass, pass, pass.

The WAC with Boise was a bad idea. The wreckage of a post-Boise WAC plus half the Southland Conference is even worse.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3
UNTGuy5 Newbie

UNTGuy5

Posted
Posted

I'm down with any move that saves us from the Sun Belt. The plan he lays out sounds pretty fair to me. It would certainly give us some consistent, regional matchups that we've been missing. Hopefully driving up attendance, and media coverage. (Do we currently get any at all?)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Daddy Dumpsalot Contributor

Daddy Dumpsalot

Posted
Posted

The WAC already wanted a meaner greener past. WE didn't want THEM. And it was the right decision.

Now, Boise is hypothetically gone, and this idea lumps us in with UTSA, Texas State, I think I saw Lamar mentioned when I very briefly skimmed the article...

Pass. Pass, pass, pass.

The WAC with Boise was a bad idea. The wreckage of a post-Boise WAC plus half the Southland Conference is even worse.

Yes. We are in a much better, stronger, conference with stronger traditions, higher budgets, and better attendance.

I say (assuming the WAC even still wants us) we use their invite as leverage to get into the CUSA. If the CUSA is not interested then we accept.

I also will say that I would like to think that we are light years ahead of UTSA and TXST but that may not be the case. But I don't like the idea of playing in a conference with them either.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
DeepGreen Grand Master

DeepGreen

Posted
Posted

The WAC already wanted a meaner greener past. WE didn't want THEM. And it was the right decision.

Now, Boise is hypothetically gone, and this idea lumps us in with UTSA, Texas State, I think I saw Lamar mentioned when I very briefly skimmed the article...

Pass. Pass, pass, pass.

The WAC with Boise was a bad idea. The wreckage of a post-Boise WAC plus half the Southland Conference is even worse.

Tasty, this thread could go down in Mean Green history. We actually agree on something.

Peace!

MeanGoingGreen Newbie

MeanGoingGreen

Posted
Posted

The WAC already wanted a meaner greener past. WE didn't want THEM. And it was the right decision.

Now, Boise is hypothetically gone, and this idea lumps us in with UTSA, Texas State, I think I saw Lamar mentioned when I very briefly skimmed the article...

Pass. Pass, pass, pass.

The WAC with Boise was a bad idea. The wreckage of a post-Boise WAC plus half the Southland Conference is even worse.

You can keep your head in the sand all you want.

enviromental-head-in-the-sand.jpg

If we stay in the SunBelt, and either of those schools jumps to FBS, we are in trouble.

Take SWT for example. How far behind are they from us? They too are updating their football stadium, built new softball and baseball complexes, updating facilities, $20 million dollar budget, etc etc etc

Bobcatstadiumfront.png

All they need is a conference invite come 2011.

Like I said, either embrace them or run faster (wac).

howtorunfastersecretstosprintingfaster.jpg

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
UNTflyer Apprentice

UNTflyer

Posted
Posted

The WAC already wanted a meaner greener past. WE didn't want THEM. And it was the right decision.

Now, Boise is hypothetically gone, and this idea lumps us in with UTSA, Texas State, I think I saw Lamar mentioned when I very briefly skimmed the article...

Pass. Pass, pass, pass.

The WAC with Boise was a bad idea. The wreckage of a post-Boise WAC plus half the Southland Conference is even worse.

I agree. I want nothing to do with the WAC if it means we drag a bunch of I-AA teams with us.

However, I DO like the idea of joining the WAC if they can grab UTEP, Tulsa, and Arkansas State.

  • Upvote 2
MeanMag Rising Star

MeanMag

Posted
Posted

I agree. I want nothing to do with the WAC if it means we drag a bunch of I-AA teams with us.

However, I DO like the idea of joining the WAC if they can grab UTEP, Tulsa, and Arkansas State.

Yes, it's a completely different conference if that happens. The only way a WAC move makes sense is if current 1-A regional teams come with.

If we make decisions based on our own fans seemingly growing sense of penis envy of Southwest Texas State San Marcos University and University of Texas San Antonio Road Runners we're going to be in a world of regret. How about we do what makes the most sense for us at the time of offer?

Mean Green 93-98 Grand Master

Mean Green 93-98

Posted
Posted

They might not have a choice if CUSA gets raided.

If things got to the point that the WAC could cherry-pick the teams they wanted out of a defunct C-USA, I doubt the WAC would be very interested in North Texas. Especially if SMU said, "We'll come back to the WAC, but not if it includes that teacher's college up I-35."

MeanMag Rising Star

MeanMag

Posted
Posted

If things got to the point that the WAC could cherry-pick the teams they wanted out of a defunct C-USA, I doubt the WAC would be very interested in North Texas. Especially if SMU said, "We'll come back to the WAC, but not if it includes that teacher's college up I-35."

It just depends on who jumps first. It could be that SMU would be off the table by the time that happened.

UNTflyer Apprentice

UNTflyer

Posted
Posted

Well, sure, but why would UTEP and Tulsa leave C-USA to be demoted to the WAC?

Let's say the Big 12 saves itself from extinction by raiding CUSA/MWC... It takes SMU, Houston, Rice, Tulane, TCU, and Southern Miss.

The WAC gets UTEP, UNT, Arkansas State, and Tulsa to make a 12-team conference with a Pacific and Southwest division.

ForneyGreen Community Regular

ForneyGreen

Posted
Posted

I agree. I want nothing to do with the WAC if it means we drag a bunch of I-AA teams with us.

However, I DO like the idea of joining the WAC if they can grab UTEP, Tulsa, and Arkansas State.

The upcoming conference shake-ups are a chance for us to move up in the college sports world. The article about a meaner greener WAC is an interesting view, but from a UNT point of view, it is based on the flawed view that WAC membership brings more prestige than Sun Belt membership. I really don't think that folks in DFW (or Texas for that matter) really care any more about the WAC than the Sun Belt.

We need to think bigger... what if the newest PAC-10 rumors are true and between 4-6 Big 12 teams end up moving? What does the Big 12 do at that point to survive (or does it survive at all)? I'm not suggesting that we would end up in a weakened Big 12, but the potential domino effect is incredible.

I really think we are very close to CUSA membership if the domino effect takes any CUSA members. If that member was SMU, then I think we're in.

At this point, I would view the WAC as a survival-only move - we can and should do better.

  • Upvote 2
Mean Green 93-98 Grand Master

Mean Green 93-98

Posted
Posted

Let's say the Big 12 saves itself from extinction by raiding CUSA/MWC... It takes SMU, Houston, Rice, Tulane, TCU, and Southern Miss.

The WAC gets UTEP, UNT, Arkansas State, and Tulsa to make a 12-team conference with a Pacific and Southwest division.

Again, I would jump at it if it happened, but I just don't see it happening. Kansas and Nebraska certainly don't see SMU, Rice, or Tulane as remotely in their class. I could see Houston and TCU, to keep a foot in the major Texas markets; but I think they would rather go back to being a "Big 8" than watering down their conference that significantly as to add the others.

But yes, I would love to be playing UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, etc. on a yearly basis.

  • Upvote 1
GrayEagle Veteran

GrayEagle

Posted
Posted

Again, I would jump at it if it happened, but I just don't see it happening. Kansas and Nebraska certainly don't see SMU, Rice, or Tulane as remotely in their class. I could see Houston and TCU, to keep a foot in the major Texas markets; but I think they would rather go back to being a "Big 8" than watering down their conference that significantly as to add the others.

But yes, I would love to be playing UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, etc. on a yearly basis.

Where does Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and maybe Nebraska go? Do they see themselves as the equal of UNLV, San Diego State, Wyoming and New Mexico? They're going to wind up with some conference mates that they wouldn't want under normal circumstances. They'll just have to make the best of a bad situation.

GrayEagle Veteran

GrayEagle

Posted
Posted

The WAC is an improvement over where we are now. I don't embrace Tobi's proposed alignment but neither do I condemn it.

Until we know what the Big 10, Big East, SEC, and the ACC do we won't know how it will affect CUSA. Maybe it'll be something that we want and maybe not.

I just hope that we will be proactive and at least try to aim for the best situation for us. Pick six or eight colleges close to us and try to align with as many of those as we can.

Division 1-AA schools may not be affected by any realignment done this year and if they are it will be because they have great potential. While we don't want a glut of FCS universities in one conference one or two might work. If current members can stand it so can we. If not, it won't happen anyway.

Just keep those scenarios coming. This is a fun time.

UNTflyer Apprentice

UNTflyer

Posted
Posted

Pick six or eight colleges close to us and try to align with as many of those as we can.

You mean schools like UALR, Arkansas State, Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana-Lafayette, Texas State, Lamar, and UTSA? unsure.gif

This Big 12 shakeup does not bode well for us at all. I had always looked at realignment as an opportunity for us to get into a mid-level conference like MWC or CUSA because mid-major teams would be the only available options for them to choose from. But with the Big 12 shattering into pieces, those mid-level conferences suddenly have prettier prom dates to choose from.

I think MWC will now aggressively pursue Kansas and Kansas State to make a 12-team conference with an invite to Boise State as well. A fight over TCU may break out between the SEC and MWC, especially if A&M goes to the SEC.

Meanwhile, if CUSA breaks up with the East Coast teams running away, the WAC may suddenly look to SMU, Houston, UTEP, Tulsa and Rice instead of North Texas.

Side Show Joe Newbie

Side Show Joe

Posted
Posted (edited)

Circumstances surrounding this round of realignment are changing daily. Three days ago I would not have believed the Pac10 would attempt to absorb half of the Big 12. The arguments for and against a conference move are based on the information available at the time. I too think a dismantled Big 12 creates a whole new set of opportunities for North Texas. With it looking like Missouri and Nebraska will probably leave for the Big 10, and now the Pac 10's move, I think there are a few question we need to find the answers to before we make a choice that will effect our potential for success in the long term.

1. What are Baylor, Kansas State, Kansas, and Iowa State planning to do in response? They may go to the MWC or try to reform the Big 12.

2. Would the Mega Pac 16, effect the SEC's expansion plan? I don't think they want a West Coast BSC conference claiming Texas all for themselves.

3. Would the demise of the Big 12 be the straw that broke the C-USA in half? I could see every Texas school defecting for a chance to join the remaining Big 12 schools.

I think we have a fair understanding of where the Big 10 and Pac 10 are heading. When the SEC shows its cards, then we can really start to debate where our best opportunities are. I still think the WAC is an option we should not dismiss, but given the new circumstances regarding the Pac 10 and Big 12, it would be a mistake not to step back and re-evaluate our options.;

Edited by Side Show Joe
  • Upvote 1

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. 14

      Auburn warns of potential ticket price hike ahead of revenue-sharing model

      There are probably 10 levels of donors and fans for a college athletic program. Anyone from a 70-year-alum always a supporter, to businessman only for advertising, to mom & dad only while son is going there, to corporate CEO wanting a name on a building, to t-shirt fans who just like the Flying Worm, etc. At P4 schools when the AD says they need cash, usually someone Big or a lot of smaller someones steps up. At our level I think it's more difficult to predict the donors and level of donations. I think it's also more difficult to find donors willing to give blindly to a non-specific NIL fund than to a specific building fund.
      NT80 in Mean Green Football
    2. 32

      Houston Christian (12/22/24)

      Disappointed the game didn't allow us to see Mason, Cotton, and Vice.
      • 2
      • Upvote
      • RV
      Matt from A700 in Mean Green Basketball
    3. 29

      24/25 MBB Attendance Tracker

      Two more home games before students are back, then hopefully the athletic department is going all out to try to compete with last year's record-breaking numbers.
      • 1
      • Upvote
      Matt from A700 in Mean Green Basketball
    4. 14

      Auburn warns of potential ticket price hike ahead of revenue-sharing model

      In traditional professional football, when teams pay players and have a losing season, the teams still make $$$ and turn a profit. Thus they can afford to continue to pay players. In today’s college football, when boosters pay players NIL and the team has a losing season, the boosters lose money AND they don’t get to experience the joy of being associated with a winner. Will those boosters keep donating NIL? Do you have to find new boosters? Don’t you eventually run out of boosters? Just don’t see how this NIL model is sustainable. Rich people didn’t get rich by losing money and I don’t see how you can keep asking them to do that via NIL. The revenue sharing model WILL work and it will be interesting to see what percentage of revenue is ultimately allocated to labor. The NBA gives 51% of gross revenue to players. The other major professional leagues give less. But why would colleges give players anything close to that? College players are infinitely replaceable. People root for their school and as a consequence of that, root for the players competing for that school. But if the Top 100 players in college football disappeared overnight, would the popularity of the sport suffer at all? I don’t think it would. Offer the players minimum wage, make them sign binding contracts with buyouts and non-competes (assuming you can still enforce those: that is another rabbit hole). NIL will still exist but won’t be as big of a deal because of the contracts and buyouts. If a players thinks he is too good for this system, they can start their own football league or wait until they are eligible for the NFL. Why wouldn’t this work?
      • 2
      • Upvote
      MeanGreenZen in Mean Green Football
    5. 14

      Auburn warns of potential ticket price hike ahead of revenue-sharing model

      I don’t know how much they care. It’s like monopoly money. Many of them are just borrowing from Uncle Sam and hoping they don’t have to pay it back.
      • 1
      • Pissed
      Aquila_Viridis in Mean Green Football

  • Popular Contributors

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      15,505
    • Most Online
      1,865
    Jepper
    Newest Member
    Jepper
    Joined

  • Most Points

    1. 1
      El Paso Eagle
      El Paso Eagle
      170,029
    2. 2
      NT80
      NT80
      136,863
    3. 3
      KingDL1
      KingDL1
      130,955
    4. 4
      greenminer
      greenminer
      123,780
    5. 5
      TheReal_jayD
      TheReal_jayD
      108,904

  • Biggest Gamblers

    1. 1
      EdtheEagle
      EdtheEagle
      26,591,107
    2. 2
      UNTLifer
      UNTLifer
      4,480,984
    3. 3
      untphd
      untphd
      841,161
    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
      UNT_FH_FR_YR
      UNT_FH_FR_YR
      389,039
    9. 9
      meangreenfaninno
    10. 10
      South Texas Green

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.