Interesting Realignment Talk As It Relates To Unt

PlummMeanGreen · June 28, 2010

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

Just speculating (which is what I suppose we all do when we post on this forum about anything); but I think TCU would pick UH, SMU and a distant 3'rd UNT for their traveling partner. Blood is thicker than water whereas TCU, SMU and UH were part of the SWC family at one time. Wish I were 100% wrong on this, but I fear I would not be. I tell you, politics in the NCAA is a tough nut to crack when you are on the outside looking in (which has been our role forever).

Hawaii Update: If this UH were to vault the WAC and go Indy' as mentioned in another thread, I would think all bets would be off any further "speculation" concerning UNT going that direction, but I really did like that Eastern WAC division adding ArkSt, UL (Laf) with UNT joining present WAC member LaTech. That would be the only way I could see us singing "Do Wac-A-Do Wac-A-Do Wac-A-Do. (How I miss the great Roger Miller who died way too young with lung cancer many years ago).

Edited June 28, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

GrayEagle · June 28, 2010

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.

Well, if you use Phil Steele's forecast, it is as follows:

WAC

Nevada 45

Fresno 68

LaTech 74

Hawaii 83

Utah St 89

Idaho 101

SJ St 117

NM St 118

Average 87

SBC

Troy 72

MTSU 75

N Texas 98

FAU 106

Ark St 110

ULL 112

FIU 113

ULM 115

WKU 119

Average 102

If you moved North Texas to the WAC for this purpose the new average would be 88

It would barely change the Sun Belt to 103, a difference of 15

Whose more accurate? I don't know. Phil Steele says that he's been the most accurate preseason magazine the last 11 years.

I have some other issues with the WAC but I believe them to be a stronger conference than the Belt.

TheTastyGreek · June 28, 2010

Phil Steele says that he's been the most accurate preseason magazine the last 11 years.

Hey, who has better vacation ideas than AAA?

According to the publisher of this AAA guidebook, no one.

wardly · June 28, 2010

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.

the reason the difference is only 3, according to your data, is that our football program is so bad it drags the wac down, and our departure increases belt average by that number. no wonder conferences are beating a path to our door.

UNTLifer · June 28, 2010

Anybody listen to Benson's recent fresno radio interview?

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

First off, Benson is the commish of the WAC, so what do you expect him to say? Sorry, but the WAC without BSU is much weaker and less of a draw for television. The financial implications will be huge, not only due to a revised television contract, but the loss of the H-Bowl and Boise's money they earn each year for the conference.

Regarding the quote above, that's like saying Denton is not in the Metroplex's footprint.

UNTflyer · June 28, 2010

UNT fans are apparently the worst enemy of the program. All this talk about how the WAC isn't good enough for UNT is absurd, and we may just end up being stuck in the Sun Belt until the program folds.

We're not going to MWC, that much is certain. We're likely not going to CUSA because there is already a Dallas-area team sucking it up in CUSA.

The WAC would be an upgrade for UNT because of its recent BCS success, better name recognition, four bowl tie-ins, and tv contratcs. Everyone talks about how the tv contracts won't be as good now that Boise has left... HELLO, it's still better compared to the Sun Belt! We'd have better attendance playing teams like Fresno State, New Mexico State, and Louisiana Tech.

And what's with the comparisons to the Big West?? Apples and Volkswagens, my friends. I've also heard that moving to the WAC is "thinking small". Well, there is such a thing as thinking too big. We have zero reasons to expect an invitation from any conferences other than the WAC and CUSA, and CUSA has already left us at the altar once. We should NOT be waiting around for a CUSA invitation if we have an RSVP from the WAC.

Edited June 28, 2010 by UNTflyer

houstonmeangreen · June 28, 2010

going to the WAC in its current form would be a big mistake....UNT will go to Conf USA within the next 24 months, if not better conf....mark my word on this....also, I will believe this stadium stuff when I actually see the stadium...I think this current stuff you are seeing is fake and done in a studio in Montana using blue screens and such....mostly styrofoam and cardboard, etc. all funded by SMU.

VideoEagle · June 28, 2010

UNT fans are apparently the worst enemy of the program. All this talk about how the WAC isn't good enough for UNT is absurd, and we may just end up being stuck in the Sun Belt until the program folds.

We're not going to MWC, that much is certain. We're likely not going to CUSA because there is already a Dallas-area team sucking it up in CUSA.

The WAC would be an upgrade for UNT because of its recent BCS success, better name recognition, four bowl tie-ins, and tv contratcs. Everyone talks about how the tv contracts won't be as good now that Boise has left... HELLO, it's still better compared to the Sun Belt! We'd have better attendance playing teams like Fresno State, New Mexico State, and Louisiana Tech.

And what's with the comparisons to the Big West?? Apples and Volkswagens, my friends. I've also heard that moving to the WAC is "thinking small". Well, there is such a thing as thinking too big. We have zero reasons to expect an invitation from any conferences other than the WAC and CUSA, and CUSA has already left us at the altar once. We should NOT be waiting around for a CUSA invitation if we have an RSVP from the WAC.

sigh

This is going to be a bit long, but hopefully it will be clear.

The program will not fold if we don't join the Wac. We are not likely to be changing conferences anytime soon and that will not harm the program to any significant degree. It certainly won't cost of two years of loss SBC revenue then two years of lost Wac revenue before we start to see any of those imaginary Wac dollars coming in.

To go point by point, again.

1. The Wac's recent BCS bowl success was based on Boise and Hawai'i. Boise is gone and Hawai'i is on a downturn so their BCS chances for the next several years is highly unlikely.

2. The remaining Wac teams do not have better name recognition in the Dallas Fort Worth area where the people who could potential attend games in Denton live and work. The average Big 12 fan can't tell San Diego State from San Jose State. They can tell you Fresno is in California but they don't know where it is in the state. They don't know Utah State even exists. BSC reporters have written, other than Boise, there is little to no differences between the Wac, the Mac and the Sun Belt - one might be marginally better than another for one year, then it changes. Remember, Boise did not get ranked until they had four straight years of 8 plus wins.

3. Four bowl tie-ins to two primary and three secondary tie ins. First of all, the H-bowl is already looking to get out of their deal with the Wac. Secondly, the Hawai'i Bowl has said they will fold if Hawai'i is not in it two years in a row. Remember, two bowls in Hawai'i folded within the last decade. Third, Albuquerque - have you ever been there? - compared to New Orleans or Mobile. Forth, one of the "tie-ins" is a temporary floating arrangement gets a spot in the Poinsettia Bowl one year and another bowl the next with the Pac Whatever splitting the years. The Pac Whatever just added two teams that allows them to add another permanent bowl. Fifth, the idea that the secondary tie ins don't count isn't valid. The one time SBC teams were excluded the teams involved were just 6-6. They would have gone if they were 7-5 without question. Is the bowl situation covered yet?

4. You suggest it is impossible to compare the Big West, of which 7 of the 8 teams in the depleted Wac were members, to the Wac. Why not? Since it can't be name recognition, regional press coverage, attendance or bowls. I guess it is just the conference name on the uniform patches. All the other reasons have been disproven already.

From what I keep reading here, a lot of fans here don't want to really join the Wac. Rather, they want to play mostly Sun Belt teams with different name patches on their uniforms. ULL, MTSU, Arky State and Troy all become ok if their uniform patches read Wac. And without a group like that, no one realistically wants to go Wacy.

NT is not going to be changing conferences anytime soon. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. Hawai'i, Fresno, San Jose State and Nevada have repeatedly said they don't want a school in Texas. They might take one if desperate to save La Tech, but if La Tech bolts then they don't want to be stuck with a school in Texas just as they were with La Tech. The Big East is not going to be raiding CUSA which means there will not be any openings in CUSA and they have no reason to expand beyond 12. Their just isn't enough money available from any additions to make that practical. When USA eventually starts playing BCS ball the Belt will be at 10. I don't think a title game would bring in enough extra money to divide the pie from 10 to 12 so there is no reason for the Belt to expand.

Edited June 28, 2010 by VideoEagle

Mean Green 93-98 · June 28, 2010

Well, if you use Phil Steele's forecast, it is as follows:
WAC
Nevada 45
Fresno 68
LaTech 74
Hawaii 83
Utah St 89
Idaho 101
SJ St 117
NM St 118
Average 87

SBC
Troy 72
MTSU 75
N Texas 98
FAU 106
Ark St 110
ULL 112
FIU 113
ULM 115
WKU 119
Average 102

If you moved North Texas to the WAC for this purpose the new average would be 88

It would barely change the Sun Belt to 103, a difference of 15

Whose more accurate? I don't know. Phil Steele says that he's been the most accurate preseason magazine the last 11 years.

I have some other issues with the WAC but I believe them to be a stronger conference than the Belt.

I wasn't using a forecast, I went by last year's final actual rankings.

Eagle1855 · June 28, 2010

It's very simple to me. The WAC has shown it can produce top-25 programs somewhat consistently, and that teams that go undefeated will have a crack at the BCS. The Sunbelt has not.

Secondly, Boise State wasn't always the BCS-bustin' "powerhouse" they are now... so it stands to reason it isn't beyond the realm of expectation for another team to step up and become something similar.

Why not UNT?

UNT Mean Green · June 28, 2010

It's very simple to me. The WAC has shown it can produce top-25 programs somewhat consistently, and that teams that go undefeated will have a crack at the BCS. The Sunbelt has not.

Secondly, Boise State wasn't always the BCS-bustin' "powerhouse" they are now... so it stands to reason it isn't beyond the realm of expectation for another team to step up and become something similar.

Why not UNT?

Not UNT, because this is not all about football. Look at the entire scope of the athletics program. Does this benefit UNT?

UNTLifer · June 28, 2010

It's very simple to me. The WAC has shown it can produce top-25 programs somewhat consistently, and that teams that go undefeated will have a crack at the BCS. The Sunbelt has not.

Secondly, Boise State wasn't always the BCS-bustin' "powerhouse" they are now... so it stands to reason it isn't beyond the realm of expectation for another team to step up and become something similar.

Why not UNT?

And, was it the WAC that made Boise State what it is, or the focus the school and community put on improving their program? Baylor was in the Big XII for a long time before they started turning it around some last year. SMU was in the WAC and didn't win anything until they hired a good coach in June Jones, who led Hawaii to their turn around. Of course Hawaii wouldn't commit to improving facilities and Jones left for a program that had the money and the determination to improve...again the school made the decision the conference didn't.

So, my question would be did the WAC make Boise St. a success or was it Boise's focus on improving their program and the support of the school and community?

Harry · June 28, 2010

It was 100% Boise's leadership and the community IMO.

Good coaching didn't hurt either. The irony is we have way more natural resources than Boise does in my opinion.

UNT90 · June 28, 2010

We're not going to MWC, that much is certain. We're likely not going to CUSA because there is already a Dallas-area team sucking it up in CUSA.

Say we beat Clemson and K-Stateand go 10-2 in the regular season, followed up with a lopsided victory in the New Orleans Bowl.

Then, we open a new stadium next year, again post a records of 10-2 with a victory over a BCS opponent and another lopsided victory in the New Orleans bowl. Since we are winning, we sell out every game at the new stadium and people are already talking expansion of the stadium.

Then, in 2012, we have another great year, beat another BCS opponent, and finish with another great record, and again have another lopsided bowl victory. All of the sudden the MGC doubles or triples in size and Alums are coming back in droves.

Do you think we would stand a chance with the MWC then?

Not saying this will happen, but this should be the goal of this university, shouldn't it? I am sick and tired of just accepting that we can't ever get over the hump.

Arkstfan · June 28, 2010

Has it occurred to anyone that when a dreadful team loses to a good team they don't get hurt so bad in rankings?

SJSU beat an FCS and 10 loss NMSU for their only wins. They lost 4 games by five or more TD's. They lost to Sagarin #5 Boise # 20 USC #24 Utah and #29 Stanford.

Sagarin says they were 138 and UNT 160. UNT lost one game by 5 TDs and played one top 30 team #1 Alabama and had two FBS wins.

Personally I don't believe SJSU was better. Their 35 pt loss to a 4-8 WAC team rated 20 spots below MT and 26 below Troy doesn't impress me. Without games like #5 Boise to prop up their rating, they fall in the ratings.

gangrene · June 28, 2010

Sagarin says they were 138 and UNT 160. UNT lost one game by 5 TDs and played one top 30 team #1 Alabama and had two FBS wins.

You may have valid points but, I really don't think most people outside of Vegas and local bookies/bettors pay much attention to the ratings of teams 100-160. (I guess that means 40 FCS teams were ranked ahead of the Mean Green? Yikes!)

Arkstfan · June 28, 2010

Several years ago Harvard was in the top 40 without beating a scholarship team. I don't regard the ratings very highly.

GrayEagle · June 29, 2010

Say we beat Clemson and K-Stateand go 10-2 in the regular season, followed up with a lopsided victory in the New Orleans Bowl.

Then, we open a new stadium next year, again post a records of 10-2 with a victory over a BCS opponent and another lopsided victory in the New Orleans bowl. Since we are winning, we sell out every game at the new stadium and people are already talking expansion of the stadium.

Then, in 2012, we have another great year, beat another BCS opponent, and finish with another great record, and again have another lopsided bowl victory. All of the sudden the MGC doubles or triples in size and Alums are coming back in droves.

Do you think we would stand a chance with the MWC then?

Not saying this will happen, but this should be the goal of this university, shouldn't it? I am sick and tired of just accepting that we can't ever get over the hump.

Winning is the most important but attendance is too. If we are doing those things and selling out the new stadium I'd say we'd be high on the MWC list if they go to 12.

I think that attendance is a factor holding Houston back. Their best year was last year when they finally hit 25,000.

Then again, if UTEP could pull off a couple of 10-2 seasons they'd get an even stronger look.

Arkstfan · June 29, 2010

Louisville made the top 10 in CUSA just because they left doesn't mean it can't happen again. But it hasn't in the past 5 years. And no CUSA has cracked a final poll since.

Marshall cracked the top 10 in the MAC. No MAC has made the top 20 since they left.

Assuming someone steps into Boise's place flies in the face of history.