Interesting Realignment Talk As It Relates To Unt

[MeanGreen61]

http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/

[UNTflyer]

Anyone still wanna hang around and "build the Belt"?

[Mean Green 93-98]

Anyone still wanna hang around and "build the Belt"?

Umm, every negative point in that post that applies to the Belt also applies to the WAC.

[UNTflyer]

The WAC gives us a slight chance... the Sun Belt gives us zero chance.

Edited June 26, 2010 by UNTflyer

[NT80]

The four 16-team SuperConferences (64 schools) will effectively become the new 1A, and the leftovers the new 1-AA (56 schools).

It will be tough for us to move up into the top 64 when we sit now above 100, but it will be even tougher from a conference whose members average above 100.

It may be time for some wacky decisions to be made!

Edited June 26, 2010 by NT80

[Mean Green 93-98]

The four 16-team SuperConferences (64 schools) will effectively become the new 1A, and the leftovers the new 1-AA (56 schools).

It will be tough for us to move up into the top 64 when we sit now above 100, but it will be even tougher from a conference whose members average above 100.

It may be time for some wacky decisions to be made!

I assume you are referring to the Belt? I'll have to assume you're being hyperbolic, otherwise that is inaccurate.

WAC Rankings (per CBS Sports Top 120 Poll):

Idaho 50

Fresno State 51

Nevada 52

Hawaii 75

La Tech 98

Utah State 101

SJSU 111

NMSU 114

Average Ranking: 82

Belt Rankings:

MUTS 37

Troy 53

LaLa 92

ULM 94

FAU 95

ASU 103

FIU 108

UNT 116

WKY 120

Average Ranking: 91

So that's a difference of 9. Certainly not earth-shattering, but worth taking notice.

But the scenario we are talking about would remove UNT from the Belt, and place them in the WAC:

WAC Average Ranking with UNT: 85

Sun Belt Average Ranking without UNT: 88

So we are getting all excited to leave one conference for another conference with supposedly stronger football, and the difference is only an average ranking of 3? Not all that much to get excited about, if you ask me.

[NT80]

I assume you are referring to the Belt? I'll have to assume you're being hyperbolic, otherwise that is inaccurate.

I had to look up hyperbolic; nice. Actually I was including soon-added South Alabama in the estimate = ~120+

Your point is valid that the WAC is not much of an upgrade from the SBC, but it is an upgrade. So you're saying there's a chance!

Not a lot of love from WAC fans anyway in voting...currently UTSA/TxSt have us beat in a poll... http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=6071948

One comment from the thread: "We're too weak now to invite FCS schools. We'd be proclaiming ourselves the equals of the Sun Belt." ouch!

Edited June 26, 2010 by NT80

[UNTflyer]

The WAC would be expensive. It would be hard to travel. But that's what comes with moving up the ladder. We have to put every conference on notice that we are NOT content with sitting around in the Sun Belt playing the LaLa's and LaMo's. We want to be better than that, and we have the resources to do so by tapping into our new fee, large student population, and large alumni base.

Let's not waste our time any longer. It's the WAC, C-USA, or down the drain to FCS.

[GrayEagle]

If Vito is correct, then whatever conference we're in is irrevalent. Some that are unworthy will be in the mix because of the conference that they're in now. Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Cincinnati, Louisville, Duke, Wake Forest, Iowa State and who knows else would likely all be included and they are likely not in the Top 64, The way the conferences are structured you can't kick anyone out unless there is a serious breach of conduct or performance.

Two current BCS AQ conferences would be destroyed. The inmates would have succeeded in taking over the asylum. There might as well not be a NCAA if it's going to be run by the elitists. The only way that it could backfire as I see it is if Congress gets involved or Division I votes them out of the NCAA basketball tournament but either would seriously defame college athletics.

This group has to have 64 members so that they will have the majority to keep themselves in power. They will destroy the NCAA with their own greed.

Thankfully, I only have a few more years to put up with this crap. My fear is that the government will have taken over college athletics before I leave this earth and screw up the last bastion that I hold dear.

[UNT90]

The WAC gives us a slight chance... the Sun Belt gives us zero chance.

Dude, I love ya, but this is sooo far off the mark , it is borderline ridiculous. Neither the Sun Belt or the WAC gets us into the top 64 if this scenerio happens (BIG if). We need to win, win now, and win a lot. That, along with a big increase in attendance (which I think will come with winning) will hopefully get us noticed by the MWC. That is our only hope, under this scenerio, to have a chance. That would also require us to win, and win big, once we got into the MWC.

Again, under this scenerio, Coach Dodge having to spend 3 years learning on the job could end up costing us a whole hell of a lot. I don't agree with this scenerio, by the way, I think that things will settle down for at least 3 years, giving us a window to focus on improving the football program and adding baseball. Those are the things that will get us to the MWC (hopefully), and then into the top 64 (if it is going to happen).

[GrandGreen]

I had to look up hyperbolic; nice. Actually I was including soon-added South Alabama in the estimate = ~120+

Your point is valid that the WAC is not much of an upgrade from the SBC, but it is an upgrade. So you're saying there's a chance!

Not a lot of love from WAC fans anyway in voting...currently UTSA/TxSt have us beat in a poll... http://mbd.scout.com...=2368&t=6071948

One comment from the thread: "We're too weak now to invite FCS schools. We'd be proclaiming ourselves the equals of the Sun Belt." ouch!

I am sure that vote is just WAC fans, not a chance that some UTSA or TSUSMT fans could be voting. I guess I can register my opinion that the WAC would be an incredibly stupid move for NT as many times as the proponents can advocate joining. Do you realize that the travel and the extended days away from class or not just for the football team but soccer, softball, volleyball, etc? The WAC may be marginally better overall in athletics but the travel, additional costs, time zone difference, stability of the league, accessibility of conference tournaments & bowls, and even bigger lack of regional foes are all negative factors when compared to the Belt. I will state again 5 of the 8 WAC universities are further away from Denton than Miami. In addition, it is my belief that the home crowds will actually decrease with WAC opponents versus the Belt. With the exception of La Tech, there will be no boost from the visiting team attendance and I doubt if any of the others will be anymore a draw than MTSU, ULL, etc

As far as the WAC inviting FCS schools, they have little other choice if they want to expand. In that regard, they are at the same level as the Belt unless NT does something really foolish.

[Eagle1855]

The WAC gives us a slight chance... the Sun Belt gives us zero chance.

I tend to agree, but the MWC is ultimately our best bet. Not sure how TCU feels about us tagging along, however, or how the MWC membership vote goes.

[Greendylan]

I don't mean to be negative, but I just don't see any scenario that places this program amongst the 64 most prolific in the nation within the next "three to ten years." Remember, it's not simply about being one of the 64 best football programs. What separates the AQ programs from the rest is how much money they bring to the table. It just seems like we would have to almost immediately expand the new stadium, sell out nearly every game, quadruple the athletic budget, finish ranked several times, and start producing the occasional first round NFL draft pick just to be mentioned as a possibility.

Folks, a few years ago while watching us play in Austin, I learned that the casual Longhorn fan doesn't even know that we are Division I. Imagine what the casual out-of-state college football fan thinks of us?

Will the WAC help? I don't know. There could be a brief spike in perception and national attention, but I tend to think we would still be worlds away from even receiving a cursory consideration.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong!

[eulessismore]

I assume you are referring to the Belt? I'll have to assume you're being hyperbolic, otherwise that is inaccurate.

WAC Rankings (per CBS Sports Top 120 Poll):

Idaho 50

Fresno State 51

Nevada 52

Hawaii 75

La Tech 98

Utah State 101

SJSU 111

NMSU 114

Average Ranking: 82

Belt Rankings:

MUTS 37

Troy 53

LaLa 92

ULM 94

FAU 95

ASU 103

FIU 108

UNT 116

WKY 120

Average Ranking: 91

So that's a difference of 9. Certainly not earth-shattering, but worth taking notice.

But the scenario we are talking about would remove UNT from the Belt, and place them in the WAC:

WAC Average Ranking with UNT: 85

Sun Belt Average Ranking without UNT: 88

So we are getting all excited to leave one conference for another conference with supposedly stronger football, and the difference is only an average ranking of 3? Not all that much to get excited about, if you ask me.

Key thing next year: winning season.

[gangrene]

I don't mean to be negative, but I just don't see any scenario that places this program amongst the 64 most prolific in the nation within the next "three to ten years." Remember, it's not simply about being one of the 64 best football programs. What separates the AQ programs from the rest is how much money they bring to the table. It just seems like we would have to almost immediately expand the new stadium, sell out nearly every game, quadruple the athletic budget, finish ranked several times, and start producing the occasional first round NFL draft pick just to be mentioned as a possibility.

Folks, a few years ago while watching us play in Austin, I learned that the casual Longhorn fan doesn't even know that we are Division I. Imagine what the casual out-of-state college football fan thinks of us?

Will the WAC help? I don't know. There could be a brief spike in perception and national attention, but I tend to think we would still be worlds away from even receiving a cursory consideration.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong!

Unfortunately, I think you're right on the money. We have a less than 5% chance of being considered in the top 64 programs within the next 10 years, and that's even if everything you mentioned miraculously occurred. I'll add one big factor you left out and that's tradition. Several schools will likely be included in the four 16-team super conferences that are not commonly considered amongst the best football programs in the nation. They will be included simply because they have established traditions/connections with the schools that matter. Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Indiana, Northwestern and Minnesota are just a few that come to mind - all bring unquestioned attributes to any conference, but they don't have reputable football programs year in and year out.

[GrayEagle]

I assume that those of you that are against the WAC due to travel expenses are assuming the current alignment and that the income will be no more than we are receiving from the SBC. The idea that is being imposed would make New Mexico State our farthest rival within the Southwest Division. With the SBC we have a trip to the Miami area every year. That's opposed to going to Reno every other year. Not all sports would have to have games with each conference opponent if there is a conference tournament. Recruiting would be enhanced where there would be trips to Hawaii possible.

While I still would prefer to be in CUSA, the WAC would be a better alternative than where we are now. The current WAC members would no doubt prefer to be in the MWC but a 12 team conference is also better than what they are facing now.

[GrandGreen]

I assume that those of you that are against the WAC due to travel expenses are assuming the current alignment and that the income will be no more than we are receiving from the SBC. The idea that is being imposed would make New Mexico State our farthest rival within the Southwest Division. With the SBC we have a trip to the Miami area every year. That's opposed to going to Reno every other year. Not all sports would have to have games with each conference opponent if there is a conference tournament. Recruiting would be enhanced where there would be trips to Hawaii possible.

While I still would prefer to be in CUSA, the WAC would be a better alternative than where we are now. The current WAC members would no doubt prefer to be in the MWC but a 12 team conference is also better than what they are facing now.

Proposed by who? This dream division, everyone kepts writing about; could just as easily happen as part of the Belt. Why does anyone think that teams in Hawaii, California, Nevada, Utah and Idaho want a Texas centered division? Miami is much closer than 5 of the 8 WAC members. Going to Reno every year would have to be mixed with Moscow, Fresno, Logan, San Jose and Manoa.

[NT71]

As has previously been mentioned by several folks the key for UNT is to win football games and add baseball. The WAC will probably implode because of the high cost and loss of bowl as I think La Tech will have to withdraw because they can not afford the travel costs.

As has been mentioned our best alternative would be the MWC yes the travel costs would go up but our facilities will have been completed. The only question would be if TCU would be willing to back us going into the MWC. Do I think it will happen in the next year or two, no.

The big question when the next shuffle will begin will be can we get into a geographical regional conference. I know that some of the oldtimers at SMU does not think highly of UNT. However, they will need to wakeup and be realistic. College football and conferences will be changing over the next few years and my guess is that you will see a concerted effort due to the economy and other factors to move to more regional geographical conferences once you get past the AQ conferences.

My vote is to see us in a more regional conference structure where our conference mates come out of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Lousiana with true D1 conference mates.

That is my .02

[GrayEagle]

Proposed by who? This dream division, everyone kepts writing about; could just as easily happen as part of the Belt. Why does anyone think that teams in Hawaii, California, Nevada, Utah and Idaho want a Texas centered division? Miami is much closer than 5 of the 8 WAC members. Going to Reno every year would have to be mixed with Moscow, Fresno, Logan, San Jose and Manoa.

The proposal was by Tobi in the Bleacher Report.

No one says that the current WAC members want a Texas-centered division but we may be talking about survival here. There is no one to add in their footprint and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to add just one team given the amount of travel costs.

There are no existing Division 1-A teams near the current WAC members other than North Texas, Louisiana, ULM and Arkansas State who are not members of the Pac-10/12, MWC or CUSA. We know that ULM and La Tech in the same conference won't happen. I believe that La Tech would accept the other three because they have been in a conference with them. But, adding New Mexico State would still leave the conference one short of having six team divisions with a championship game; therefore Texas State is the best candidate west of the Mississippi.

We don't know for certain that anyone would agree to do this but it's certainly worth talking about.

[SUMG]

So the coach of Utah says this:

Whittingham said that he believes that within three to 10 years, there will be four 16-team super conferences.

And people on this board act as if it is an absolute certainty. (4 16-team divisions).

Maybe you're right. But I think they kind of went into this round of realignment talks...thinking that as well. And as far as I can tell....we don't even have one 16 team conference. Yet.

I'm not saying it won't happen...please. I know how greedy these bastards are.

But what the recent realignment talks have proven is: When it's every team for itself.....it's sometimes hard to get anyone to agree.

Edited June 26, 2010 by SUMG

[SilverEagle]

If Vito is correct, then whatever conference we're in is irrevalent. Some that are unworthy will be in the mix because of the conference that they're in now. Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Cincinnati, Louisville, Duke, Wake Forest, Iowa State and who knows else would likely all be included and they are likely not in the Top 64, The way the conferences are structured you can't kick anyone out unless there is a serious breach of conduct or performance.

Two current BCS AQ conferences would be destroyed. The inmates would have succeeded in taking over the asylum. There might as well not be a NCAA if it's going to be run by the elitists. The only way that it could backfire as I see it is if Congress gets involved or Division I votes them out of the NCAA basketball tournament but either would seriously defame college athletics.

This group has to have 64 members so that they will have the majority to keep themselves in power. They will destroy the NCAA with their own greed.

Thankfully, I only have a few more years to put up with this crap. My fear is that the government will have taken over college athletics before I leave this earth and screw up the last bastion that I hold dear.

First of all, I look forward to you watching a North Texas football game in the new stadium, and seeing a winning season (hopefully with some significant wins) at least one more time.

However, I wonder if you regard College Football as even remotely pure and/or unsullied in how it goes about it's business. I ask this because I was watching a movie the other day on Turner Classic Movies called "Saturday's Heroes". It was made in 1937!, and while some of the dialogue was pretty corney by our standards, I was suprised to hear issues being discussed in that movie that are still relevant today. It was kind of like watching the 1939 version of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"....a very good (and relevant even to this day) primer on politics.

The main character, who is a football star (Van Heflin) augments his "ship" and stipend by scalping tickets. He talks to his school administrators about how college football is a big business that's making a lot of money for the colleges, and so they should share the profits with the players. He also talks about the lack of time in which to go to class (traveling by train to big games), so his school's promise of a education to him and his team mates is just a sham. He also calls college football "semi-pro".

All this put me in mind of a discussion I had back in the 70's with a Harvard grad who went to the same HS as me. He told me that the Ivy League schools made the decision to get out of the semi-pro sports game sometime in the 50's. He said that they made this decision because they didn't think that college sports should be a business.

To me, the government getting involved in college sports is no different than financial regulation for wall street, or setting safety/health standards for legalized prostitution in Nevada.

[MeanGoingGreen]

Anybody listen to Benson's recent fresno radio interview?

- Mentions that, when talking expansion, they are mainly looking at schools who are going to make significant strides in FOOTBALL.

- When asked if there are any expansion candidates in Texas, he mentions TSU and speaks a little about UT-SA. And when the host asks about NT, Benson said technically any schools in the WAC footprint can be considered a potential member.

- Benson said a WAC w/ BSU placed the WAC and MWC on a equal footing. A WAC w/out BSU is slightly behind the MWC.

- He is confident that WAC schools will lose a small number of games on ESPN, but will remain on ESPN with majority of the games and minor financial adjustments.

- Says everyone is aware that LaTech is looking to jump to CUSA, though the next expansion candidate will be made with the expectation that LaTech stays. He again mentions that Texas is becoming even more attractive to the WAC.

- Downplays Montana as they aren't in the WAC's footprint.

[wardly]

I tend to agree, but the MWC is ultimately our best bet. Not sure how TCU feels about us tagging along, however, or how the MWC membership vote goes.

tcu refuses to play us in football, and both smu and horned frogs refuse to share dfw market with unt.i suggest we get real. its either wac or belt for us, which considering our most recent lack of success in football[ 5 years and counting] and our poor support of a successful basketball program[less than 3,000 average attendance] is probably where we belong AT THIS POINT IN TIME!

[Arkstfan]

Four leagues of 16 is a freakin pipe dream cooked up by people who spend too much time wanting to organize stuff.

In 1990 we were told 12 with a title game was the wave of the future. It has taken 20 years for the Pac-10 and Big 10 (who started all this by inviting Penn State) to add 12th teams.

Think about it for a minute. What four schools can the Pac-10 add to get to 16 and still be more profitable? No deal works unless it includes Texas. You can't graft in four MWC schools and the numbers work. It's an impossibility. So let's say Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Mizzou go to the Pac-10 (you've added three basically irrelevant teams but that's OK because Texas needs them for travel relief). OK. Big 10 gets Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, you've added three irrelevant teams for little reason, one to balance ND makes sense, so let's go with something that brings VALUE and Big 10 adds Notre Dame, Maryland, Duke, and North Carolina. SEC adds TAMU, OU, Florida State and say Virginia Tech.

Something leaps out at you.

The ACC and Big East that are left... suck. Yeah Clemson draws good crowds but outside of them not a single school left can put 70,000 people in the stands. Clemson and BYU are the only two schools left in the FBS universe that draw 60,000+ not sitting in one of those three leagues.The fourth league is no more important than the 5th Beatle.

[UNT90]

I assume that those of you that are against the WAC due to travel expenses are assuming the current alignment and that the income will be no more than we are receiving from the SBC.

No. I'm against the idea of always, ALWAYS, selling this school short and thinking that we are who everyone else wants us to be, the sorry little community college posing as a major university just north of town.

Being in a conference with UTSA and Texas St., in a conference that, AT BEST, is a lateral move from our current below average conference (without the inclusion of a school that plays 1AA football and a school that DOESNT HAVE A TEAM!) is completely unacceptable. Stay in the Belt, or go to CUSA. BUT, use CUSA only as a stepping stone to the MWC, and use the MWC only as a stepping stone to a big six conference. If you think small, you will be small.

Hopefully, the apathy of the past UNT administrations and it's alumni has not cost us a shot at major college athletics.

Edited June 28, 2010 by UNT90