Sorry SMU

[emmitt01]

Just saw on ESPN that they are hearing that the Big XII will look to BYU, Notre Dame or potentially Pitt or Louisville to fill their vacancy(s). Apparently they are NOT looking for more Texas teams because they already own that portion of their footprint.

Admittedly what's bad for SMU may be equally bad for us...but at least it's bad for SMU.

[SHOSS]

I read this as adjective noun...

[UNTflyer]

At the end of the day, it's all about TV revenues. SMU won't pull them in, and neither will we.

Notre Dame is the brass ring, but I don't see them giving up their independence until they absolutely have to.

BYU, IMHO, is the most likely candidate.

Of course, if the B12 is looking to get back to 12 then that opens things up a bit. Can they pick off some teams that are already in AQ conferences? Definitely 1. Probably 2. I don't know about 3.

[eppy4life]

At the end of the day, it's all about TV revenues. SMU won't pull them in, and neither will we.

Yet some on here blame the 4th year of Dodgeball for our inability to get a look from the Big 12. Funny.

[emmitt01]

Yet some on here blame the 4th year of Dodgeball for our inability to get a look from the Big 12. Funny.

Can I blame years 1-4?

[oldguystudent]

All the pieces are in place save two things -- winning and sold out home games six times a year. With the money on the line with TV contracts, it's pretty tough to sell potential when up against proven performance. Patience North Texas. Patience.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Can I blame years 1-4?

No.

Surely you're not serious?

[oldguystudent]

No.

Surely you're not serious?

That's when my drinking problem began. And stop calling me Shirley!

[LongJim]

Just saw on ESPN that they are hearing that the Big XII will look to BYU, Notre Dame or potentially Pitt or Louisville to fill their vacancy(s). Apparently they are NOT looking for more Texas teams because they already own that portion of their footprint.

Imagine that. ESPN is really on their game.

[MeanGreenTexan]

That's when my drinking problem began. And stop calling me Shirley!

Shirley, I can interest you in some UTSA season tickets? They're really the hot item right now.

[emmitt01]

No.

Surely you're not serious?

Tell me then, which part of that four year debacle was the "good part"? Was it the very first game where the OU offensive coaches were literally beside themselves at our lack of adjustments? Was it when Malcolm Kelly literally pointed at our undersized DB (who was in single coverage and ten yards off of a consensus all-american) and nodded at Sam Bradford? Was it when we ran the option out of the endzone? Was it when we had a quarterback set a school record for yards in a game at SMU...and then benched him? Maybe it was when we asked one of the ONLY defensive tackles left on scholarship to travel with the team...effectively guaranteeing that there wouldn't be another year of eligibility? Which of the many stellar wins (leading to a .143 winning percentage) made us look good to potential conference homes? Am I saying the Dodge era alone kept us out of the realignment discussion? No, but I am saying that at a crucial time when utter and complete failure for four years was essentially the recipe for putting the exclamation point on the "they're not worthy" argument...he did just that.

[greenminer]

I don't know if we have 10 years to build this thing.

[UNTflyer]

I've been thinking about the TV revenue argument.

Can the Big 12 really claim to have the DFW market in terms of contract revenues? A&M is leaving, and Texas games that aren't nationally televised are going to the Longhorn network.

[eppy4life]

Tell me then, which part of that four year debacle was the "good part"? Was it the very first game where the OU offensive coaches were literally beside themselves at our lack of adjustments? Was it when Malcolm Kelly literally pointed at our undersized DB (who was in single coverage and ten yards off of a consensus all-american) and nodded at Sam Bradford? Was it when we ran the option out of the endzone? Was it when we had a quarterback set a school record for yards in a game at SMU...and then benched him? Maybe it was when we asked one of the ONLY defensive tackles left on scholarship to travel with the team...effectively guaranteeing that there wouldn't be another year of eligibility? Which of the many stellar wins (leading to a .143 winning percentage) made us look good to potential conference homes? Am I saying the Dodge era alone kept us out of the realignment discussion? No, but I am saying that at a crucial time when utter and complete failure for four years was essentially the recipe for putting the exclamation point on the "they're not worthy" argument...he did just that.

Thanks for the reminder. What's done is done. Lets move on.

[Side Show Joe]

I never thought a Texas team had a shot at getting an invite to the Big 12. Lets just focus on building North Texas into the best athletic program, with the best attendance, in DFW. If we do that, are expansion threads will concern our stadium capacity, and the rest will take care of itself.

[Green to the Bone]

Of course, the addition of Pitt would herald the occasional return to Texas of a noted quarterbacks coach whose name may not be spoken.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Tell me then, which part of that four year debacle was the "good part"? Was it the very first game where the OU offensive coaches were literally beside themselves at our lack of adjustments? Was it when Malcolm Kelly literally pointed at our undersized DB (who was in single coverage and ten yards off of a consensus all-american) and nodded at Sam Bradford? Was it when we ran the option out of the endzone? Was it when we had a quarterback set a school record for yards in a game at SMU...and then benched him? Maybe it was when we asked one of the ONLY defensive tackles left on scholarship to travel with the team...effectively guaranteeing that there wouldn't be another year of eligibility? Which of the many stellar wins (leading to a .143 winning percentage) made us look good to potential conference homes? Am I saying the Dodge era alone kept us out of the realignment discussion? No, but I am saying that at a crucial time when utter and complete failure for four years was essentially the recipe for putting the exclamation point on the "they're not worthy" argument...he did just that.

OK. Now we agree.

I don't think anyone can argue that the Dodge era was a success or made any inroads in conference realignment. Thanks for the painful memories though.

Also, your clarification at the bottom of this post is what I was looking for. The Dodge years are not the reason why UNT is not in the Big 12 discussion. Part of it? Sure. The sole reason? Not even close.

[Mean Green 93-98]

The Dodge years are not the reason why UNT is not in the Big 12 discussion. Part of it? Sure. The sole reason? Not even close.

The Dodge years have nothing to do with why we are not in the Big 12 discussion.

1. Dodge or no Dodge, there would still be teams above us on the totem pole.

2. The Big 12 has already said that they are not looking to add Texas teams, for obvious reasons.

3. If we couldn't get a C-USA invite at the peak of Dickey's success, why would we think we would get a Big 12 invite with perpetuated late Dickey mediocrity?

[Quoner]

Can we just build a series of responses to the title of this thread?

...white shoes are almost out of season

...the tape recorder clearly captures her saying "no."

...it's hard to get stains out of seersucker fabric

...Dad's going to be late with tuition and you'll have to buy books with your monthly spending allowance until we can deposit more in your account

...the bartender at Stan's peed in the Shocktop keg

[GrayEagle]

I've been thinking about the TV revenue argument.

Can the Big 12 really claim to have the DFW market in terms of contract revenues? A&M is leaving, and Texas games that aren't nationally televised are going to the Longhorn network.

Right you are. It's all about viewers. If North Texas can raise the ratings more than another team in a smaller market then you go with increased number of viewers who are potential buyers; allowing the provider to raise their rates because of a larger audience.