Please Mr. Peanut Not Again !

PlummMeanGreen · January 31, 2011

I have seen you say this so many times but there is a huge difference in the records of the top MAC teams and top Sun Belt teams. There is a reason that MAC teams occasionally get ranked and the top Sun Belt teams do not. SBC teams usually do not fare as well OOC as the top MAC teams has. The Sun Belt champions were 8-5 and 7-6 this season. There is a good chance that no matter what conference you are in, you are not going to be ranked with those records. The MAC runner up was 11-3 and beat a Big Ten team (even if it was a crappy one in Minnesota). The MAC champion went 10-4 with a wins over Colorado State and MUTS. Oh and Troy wasn't in the SBC when they beat Missouri.

Sun Belt Champions
2009 Troy 9-4 (1 OOC win over UAB)
2008 Troy 8-5 (1 OOC win over Alcorn St.)
2007 Troy 8-4 (1 OOC win over OK state but cannot rank troy after they got crushed the previous two weeks by Florida and Arkansas)
FAU 8-5 (1 OOC win over Minnesota but cannot rank them after getting destroyed the previous week by OK State)
2006 Troy 8-5 (2 OOC wins over Alabama St. and Rice)
MUTS 7-6 (1 OOC win over Tennessee Tech)
2005 Ark St 6-6 (1 OOC win over Tennessee Martin)
ULL 6-5 (1 OOC win over Northwestern St.)
ULM 5-6 (0 OOC wins)
2004 UNT 7-5 (0 OOC wins)
2003 UNT 9-4 (2 OOC wins Troy and Baylor) BEST Team in history of Sun Belt
2002 UNT 8-5 (2 OOC wins Nichols St and Cincinnati)
2001 UNT 5-6 (0 OOC wins)

MAC Champions
2009 CMU 12-2 ( 3 OOC wins Alcorn St., Michigan St and Troy St.)
2008 Buffalo 8-6 ( 2 OOC wins Army and UTEP)
2007 CMU 8-6 (1 OOC win Army)
2006 CMU 10-4 (2 OOC wins MUTS and Temple)
2005 Akron 7-6 (1 OOC win MUTS)
2004 Toledo 9-4 (1 OOC win Temple)
2003 Miami (OH) 13-1 (4 OOC wins Northwestern, Colorado State, Cincinnati, and Louisville)
2002 Marshall 11-2 (3 OOC wins Appalachian State, Louisville, and Troy St)
2001 Toledo 10-2 (4 OOC wins Minnesota, Temple, Cinncinnati, and Navy)

The MAC have just fared much better OOC then the SBC over the years. Their best teams have put up double digit wins most years while the SBC best teams have never done this. To get ranked as a non-AQ you have to dominate your conference and win OOC games. The MAC's best teams have been much better at this than SBC teams. The SBC really needs one team to run away with the league and beat 3 OOC opponents to get ranked and this has yet to happen. This should be UNT. The SBC is however at somewhat at a disadvantage because they are stuck playing the SEC every year OOC while the MAC plays the Big Ten OOC for the most part.

This is not some great Midwest sportswriter conspiracy, The SBC just needs to take care of business

6 words: I was wrong--you are right.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. If you've ever made a mistake or mis-judgement in your life you'd know how I feel right now. :rolleyes:

GMG!

Cerebus · January 31, 2011

There is a reason that MAC teams occasionally get ranked and the top Sun Belt teams do not.

And that reason is because the MAC champions get to 10 wins, something the SBC champion has been unable to do. 8 and 9 win MAC champs do not get ranked.

Coog2Knight518 · January 31, 2011

Karl?

No.. I'm just an observer with a keen eye for contradiction. When the privates bolted the WAC for CUSA, UNT resisted jumping to the WAC because it wasn't geographically sensible. There was a lot of hoo hahing on this board about how the belt was better for the Mean Green.. blah, blah, blah..

I thought then that UNT should have taken the deal. It ended up costing UNT millions, as the WAC sent their champ to the BCS three times in that period. WAC = 3, Belt = 0

Now, the WAC is shifting its membership to Texas and the discourse on this site is still slanted toward not making the move. What I find really funny is that the MWC has suddenly become disireable when it's almost the exact same league that you turned down in '04! UTAH, BYU, and TCU are gone and now the upper end of that league are all WAC teams.

I guess all of a sudden travel is no longer an issue with those same teams, and you scoff at a more regional conference that doesn't include all the directionals.

Perhaps, since UNT is a directional itself, that makes the Belt most appropriate. To each their own.. but it certainly seems like you keep chasing your own tails about it.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Coog2Knight518

PlummMeanGreen · January 31, 2011

No.. I'm just an observer with a keen eye for contradiction. When the privates bolted the WAC for CUSA, UNT resisted jumping to the WAC because it wasn't geographically sensible. There was a lot of hoo hahing on this board about how the belt was better for the Mean Green.. blah, blah, blah..
I thought then that UNT should have taken the deal. It ended up costing UNT millions, as the WAC sent their champ to the BCS three times in that period. WAC = 3, Belt = 0
Now, the WAC is shifting its membership to Texas and the discourse on this site is still slanted toward not making the move. What I find really funny is that the MWC has suddenly become disireable when it's almost the exact same league that you turned down in '04! UTAH, BYU, and TCU are gone and now the upper end of that league are all WAC teams.
I guess all of a sudden travel is no longer an issue with those same teams, and you scoff at a more regional conference that doesn't include all the directionals.
Perhaps, since UNT is a directional itself, that makes the Belt most appropriate. To each their own.. but it certainly seems like you keep chasing your own tails about it.

Thanks for the concern...

but...what is the WAC going to cost La Tech the next few years? Just askin...

We have one of the premier sports consultants in the NCAA (Chuck Neinas) giving North Texas some pretty wise words on our future. Of course, he is being well compensated but I think in due time UNT will appreciate the association we've had with this man. Also, our new UNT Prez' Rawlins had the same role at a PAC 12 school as well as one in CUSA (Memphis) and between both Rawlins and Neinas most of us just feel they are making all the right decisions for us now.

Yes, it's been a roller coaster ride for us in the past (mostly our own doing and procrastinating of building a new football stadium), but we did not have the kind of pedigree these 2 men I just mentioned had to lead our university in key/strategic directions for our school.

Daddy Dumpsalot · January 31, 2011

I think UNT would be better off in the WAC. With the addition of Lamar (who has been at the FBS level before), that'd finally put UNT in a FBS Conference that has strong Texas flavor. UNT, UTSA, Tx State, and Lamar, would form a solid foundation to a Eastern WAC division, along with Louisiana Tech and New Mexico State. IMO, those peer institutions are a cut above the alphabet soup group you're in now with ULL, ArkSt, ULM, etc.
The coaching hires at UTSA and Tx State should tell you about their commitment to do this thing right.
Personally, I think you gentlemen should take a step back and consider the potential. Texas kids don't want to go to ULM or ULL. The new alternative of having a FBS alma mater in San Antonio and San Marcos trumps that. There is legit water cooler debate that can grow out of a WAC with that flavor.
Louisiana Tech also provides a nearby opponent that is just a cut above your current neighbors.
The only question beyond Lamar is how the composition of the Western WAC will shape up. I'm liking the addition of basketball-only schools like Denver and Seattle. Benson is going after major markets and he's leaving some good slack for future positive growth of a sound league.
If I were you, I'd be keeping a close eye on these developments. The WAC as a brand trumps the Belt. Their future locales can only help your cause if you have your sights set on the MWC.

No thanks. We have higher hopes than that.

TheColonyEagle · February 1, 2011

No.. I'm just an observer with a keen eye for contradiction. When the privates bolted the WAC for CUSA, UNT resisted jumping to the WAC because it wasn't geographically sensible. There was a lot of hoo hahing on this board about how the belt was better for the Mean Green.. blah, blah, blah..
I thought then that UNT should have taken the deal. It ended up costing UNT millions, as the WAC sent their champ to the BCS three times in that period. WAC = 3, Belt = 0
Now, the WAC is shifting its membership to Texas and the discourse on this site is still slanted toward not making the move. What I find really funny is that the MWC has suddenly become disireable when it's almost the exact same league that you turned down in '04! UTAH, BYU, and TCU are gone and now the upper end of that league are all WAC teams.
I guess all of a sudden travel is no longer an issue with those same teams, and you scoff at a more regional conference that doesn't include all the directionals.
Perhaps, since UNT is a directional itself, that makes the Belt most appropriate. To each their own.. but it certainly seems like you keep chasing your own tails about it.

So then you expect this new WAC to be in 3 BCS bowls? Then yes, sign us up.

Your hindsight is fantastic.

Rudy · February 1, 2011

So then you expect this new WAC to be in 3 BCS bowls? Then yes, sign us up.

Your hindsight is fantastic.

Aquila_Viridis · February 1, 2011

...
Perhaps, since UNT is a directional itself, that makes the Belt most appropriate. ...

North Carolina and Southern California are directionals too. This is an issue? North Texas is different in that the term mainly means a metro area. I'd like to see us play against other metros like Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pitt, Miami, BC, San Diego St., Boise etc. We could have a Cities League. It will help to develop more national recognition of D/FW as 'North Texas'. It is actually very modern, a metro well defined but not by the name of just one of its member municipalities.

PlummMeanGreen · February 1, 2011

North Carolina and Southern California are directionals too. This is an issue? North Texas is different in that the term mainly means a metro area. I'd like to see us play against other metros like Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pitt, Miami, BC, San Diego St., Boise etc. We could have a Cities League. It will help to develop more national recognition of D/FW as 'North Texas'. It is actually very modern, a metro well defined but not by the name of just one of its member municipalities.

I guess I'll be 90 years old when a directional designation on any school will not be considered another supposed obstacle. Boise has one of those city names with hardly a long history at the upper level of NCAA success.

I will forever hope UNT will emulate Boise and use them for our model, but what do we as North Texas Exes know many of whom have tried to offer up or suggest ideas that just might have caused the UNT Athletic Dept. revolving doors to dramatically slow down in decades past? I think all would admit that attrition has been one of our problems (and at times for darn sure has way too many times been an ally, too). :rolleyes:

The SBC is fine for North Texas and once we start getting ranked teams maybe it will finally lose its national reputation among the media, but we (like everyone else) also need to prepare for other options if they were to materialize. The stadium (as many NT alums forecasted long ago) will give us the right vehicle to now make a run at some of these conference possibilities.

GMG!

Edited February 1, 2011 by PlummMeanGreen

ColoradoEagle · February 1, 2011

No.. I'm just an observer with a keen eye for contradiction. When the privates bolted the WAC for CUSA, UNT resisted jumping to the WAC because it wasn't geographically sensible. There was a lot of hoo hahing on this board about how the belt was better for the Mean Green.. blah, blah, blah..
I thought then that UNT should have taken the deal. It ended up costing UNT millions, as the WAC sent their champ to the BCS three times in that period. WAC = 3, Belt = 0
Now, the WAC is shifting its membership to Texas and the discourse on this site is still slanted toward not making the move. What I find really funny is that the MWC has suddenly become disireable when it's almost the exact same league that you turned down in '04! UTAH, BYU, and TCU are gone and now the upper end of that league are all WAC teams.
I guess all of a sudden travel is no longer an issue with those same teams, and you scoff at a more regional conference that doesn't include all the directionals.
Perhaps, since UNT is a directional itself, that makes the Belt most appropriate. To each their own.. but it certainly seems like you keep chasing your own tails about it.

A six school division that extends from Denton to Laramie, WY in one direction and Denton to Albuquerque in the other is somewhat compact, versus joining the WAC that extended all the way to Honolulu. If you're going to come on a forum to disparage a school, at least exercise some common sense first.