Does North Texas Possibly Have CUSA Allies ?

[GrayEagle]

UNT isn't likely to get in if UTEP stays in the eastern part of the Alliance because they aren't likely to add any teams this way if they do. There isn't room for UNT unless UTEP shifts west and if that happens UTEP isn't likely to support adding a Texas team to recruit against when they aren't playing any games in the eastern half of Texas.

Remember Tulsa, Tulane, and Rice are private schools and probably not favorable to adding a large public in the middle of an area they recruit. Memphis and USM probably would support UNT.

UAB, Marshall, and ECU probably prefer FIU.

None of the western schools really care. The point of the Alliance is that each division will exist independently and will not play cross-over games in football. UNT does nothing for the Texas recruiting of any western school other than to create an additional school in the region that can offer players a chance to play in the league and hurt their recruiting because they cannot offer the chance to play close to home by playing Rice or UNT.

Let's see if I get this right. In the western CUSA the big factor is who you recruit against. In the east it's where you're located. It sounds like lawyer-speak to me. I know what I want my answer to be and this is what I'll use to prove my point. C'mon ArkStFan, I've always respected your opinion, but this?

If I were choosing a replacement team for my conference, recruiting would likely be the last factor that I would consider. How about what you can contribute in the way of power-rating, market, attendance, size, facilities, time in grade, prestige and location among others? Finally, when it did come down to recruiting wouldn't the ability of one school to get better athletes into the conference be a plus. A conference of better athletes can usually recruit better athletes.

If this is to be considered one conference why would you want to spread out even farther when the majority can save untold travel costs by selecting from nearer the center? East Carolina has always harped about no teams near them. They have been trying to get into the Big East as long as they've been in Conference USA. They may still get their wish when West Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, et al leave so why pick someone in their end of the world when they'll be gone as soon as they can?

One other factor that you mentioned needs to be elaborated on. If there is to be no inter-league play, what is the purpose of the alliance? How do you see the structure? One conference or two? Eighteen, twenty, twenty-two or twenty-four teams? One TV contract or two?

[wardly]

UNT isn't likely to get in if UTEP stays in the eastern part of the Alliance because they aren't likely to add any teams this way if they do. There isn't room for UNT unless UTEP shifts west and if that happens UTEP isn't likely to support adding a Texas team to recruit against when they aren't playing any games in the eastern half of Texas.

Remember Tulsa, Tulane, and Rice are private schools and probably not favorable to adding a large public in the middle of an area they recruit. Memphis and USM probably would support UNT.

UAB, Marshall, and ECU probably prefer FIU.

None of the western schools really care. The point of the Alliance is that each division will exist independently and will not play cross-over games in football. UNT does nothing for the Texas recruiting of any western school other than to create an additional school in the region that can offer players a chance to play in the league and hurt their recruiting because they cannot offer the chance to play close to home by playing Rice or UNT.

i pulled up a november quote in El Paso time in which the UTEP AD bemones the loss of SMU and Houston, and hopes to be able to schedule them in non conference games. he goes on to say addition of FIU would keep a conference presence in Florida, and that La. Tech would be " a perfect fit". Tulsa AD said something simular regarding loss of SMU game. neither mentioned UNT as a substitute.

[UNTLifer]

With all due respect to La Tech, how in the world is Ruston, LA a perfect fit, but Denton (DFW) isn't?

[wardly]

With all due respect to La Tech, how in the world is Ruston, LA a perfect fit, but Denton (DFW) isn't?

i don't have a clue,but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Arkstfan]

There is no incentive for Alliance West to support ANY team in Texas for recruiting reasons because they will NEVER play any football games against the eastern schools in conference play. The Alliance is designed to have zero football interaction prior to conference title game.

That's not lawyer speak. That's just common sense. The idea that Air Force would support UNT or a western aligned UTEP would support UNT for the east for recruiting reasons is just flat ignorant of what the Alliance set-up is.

The western Alliance schools have only two interests in the eastern expansion. 1) Will it improve the overall rating of the conference. 2) Will the team generate enough dollars to make them worth adding?

As I've noted in other posts, I think it is likely that USM and Memphis would support adding UNT because they would actually get game exposure in the region. Based on what I know of Rice and Tulane, I don't believe either small private school will favor adding a large public institution in an area they need to recruit. Tulsa, I'm agnostic on their attitude. They have historically voted with Tulane and Rice but seem to often think more like a public when it comes to athletics. ECU and Marshall aren't going to support UNT over FIU because their interest is in shoring up Florida presence and east coast presence. UAB is liable to vote with them because they are likely to prefer shoring up Florida presence over Texas.

[MeanGreen61]

UNLV AD interview

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=549425

[VideoEagle]

Based on what I know of Rice and Tulane, I don't believe either small private school will favor adding a large public institution in an area they need to recruit. Tulsa, I'm agnostic on their attitude. They have historically voted with Tulane and Rice but seem to often think more like a public when it comes to athletics. ECU and Marshall aren't going to support UNT over FIU because their interest is in shoring up Florida presence and east coast presence. UAB is liable to vote with them because they are likely to prefer shoring up Florida presence over Texas.

Those of us who remember Hayden Fry's efforts to get NT into the old Southwest conference should point out it was not just SMU opposed, but RICE, TCU and Baylor were to varying degrees against the idea.

[GrayEagle]

There is no incentive for Alliance West to support ANY team in Texas for recruiting reasons because they will NEVER play any football games against the eastern schools in conference play. The Alliance is designed to have zero football interaction prior to conference title game.

That's not lawyer speak. That's just common sense. The idea that Air Force would support UNT or a western aligned UTEP would support UNT for the east for recruiting reasons is just flat ignorant of what the Alliance set-up is.

The western Alliance schools have only two interests in the eastern expansion. 1) Will it improve the overall rating of the conference. 2) Will the team generate enough dollars to make them worth adding?

As I've noted in other posts, I think it is likely that USM and Memphis would support adding UNT because they would actually get game exposure in the region. Based on what I know of Rice and Tulane, I don't believe either small private school will favor adding a large public institution in an area they need to recruit. Tulsa, I'm agnostic on their attitude. They have historically voted with Tulane and Rice but seem to often think more like a public when it comes to athletics. ECU and Marshall aren't going to support UNT over FIU because their interest is in shoring up Florida presence and east coast presence. UAB is liable to vote with them because they are likely to prefer shoring up Florida presence over Texas.

You still didn't speculate on how this alliance manifests itself but I did glean a couple of things from your response.

It is your opinion that the two divisions will never play one another. Then why are we doing this charade? Why should the west get to decide what the east does and vice-versa? If the only item to be gained in merging is a bigger TV contract then form some quasi-legal entity for the purpose of negotiating as one and forget this falderol. It doesn't take a merger for conference champions to play one another.

Admittedly, I don't know or understand the purpose of the alliance set-up is but it seems that it will lose a lot in terms of NCAA basketball revenue distribution if it is only one league. From what I read, it hasn't been determined whether the merger is football only or for all sports nor for how many teams will be involved.

I don't know who North Texas' friends or enemies are but my perception is definitely different than yours. Your argument that we would get no support from the west because there's no recruiting advantage since we don't play one another. Then wouldn't the opposite be also true? Why would they vote against us since we don't play? We were in a conference with Tulsa for a dozen or so years and got along just fine. I would expect their support. You might have a valid argument about Tulane (and maybe Rice) if the other school being considered were private but it appears to me that only public universities are being considered. Furthermore, I have doubts that Rice would pick a Florida college over one in Texas for a conference partner. It's a given that ECU would prefer FIU over us but I'm not that sure about the others. Denton, Texas is exactly 18 miles further from Huntington, WV than Miami. They also understand that there aren't other qualified candidates in their area. They might have to hold their nose but if enough are for us then I don't believe that they would remain against us. Denton is even closer to Birmingham than Miami and I don't believe that they would feel strongly about accepting or rejecting us.

Maybe it's just a sign of the times but I don't understand how you choose a school with seven years of FBS play over one with forty years, especially when the older school has a better winning percentage. The larger one is in a larger metro area, TV market and is better located for the universities involved. I guess politics is just dirty at any level.

[PlummMeanGreen]

You still didn't speculate on how this alliance manifests itself but I did glean a couple of things from your response.

It is your opinion that the two divisions will never play one another. Then why are we doing this charade? Why should the west get to decide what the east does and vice-versa? If the only item to be gained in merging is a bigger TV contract then form some quasi-legal entity for the purpose of negotiating as one and forget this falderol. It doesn't take a merger for conference champions to play one another.

Admittedly, I don't know or understand the purpose of the alliance set-up is but it seems that it will lose a lot in terms of NCAA basketball revenue distribution if it is only one league. From what I read, it hasn't been determined whether the merger is football only or for all sports nor for how many teams will be involved.

I don't know who North Texas' friends or enemies are but my perception is definitely different than yours. Your argument that we would get no support from the west because there's no recruiting advantage since we don't play one another. Then wouldn't the opposite be also true? Why would they vote against us since we don't play? We were in a conference with Tulsa for a dozen or so years and got along just fine. I would expect their support. You might have a valid argument about Tulane (and maybe Rice) if the other school being considered were private but it appears to me that only public universities are being considered. Furthermore, I have doubts that Rice would pick a Florida college over one in Texas for a conference partner. It's a given that ECU would prefer FIU over us but I'm not that sure about the others. Denton, Texas is exactly 18 miles further from Huntington, WV than Miami. They also understand that there aren't other qualified candidates in their area. They might have to hold their nose but if enough are for us then I don't believe that they would remain against us.

You still didn't speculate on how this alliance manifests itself but I did glean a couple of things from your response.

It is your opinion that the two divisions will never play one another. Then why are we doing this charade? Why should the west get to decide what the east does and vice-versa? If the only item to be gained in merging is a bigger TV contract then form some quasi-legal entity for the purpose of negotiating as one and forget this falderol. It doesn't take a merger for conference champions to play one another.

Admittedly, I don't know or understand the purpose of the alliance set-up is but it seems that it will lose a lot in terms of NCAA basketball revenue distribution if it is only one league. From what I read, it hasn't been determined whether the merger is football only or for all sports nor for how many teams will be involved.

I don't know who North Texas' friends or enemies are but my perception is definitely different than yours. Your argument that we would get no support from the west because there's no recruiting advantage since we don't play one another. Then wouldn't the opposite be also true? Why would they vote against us since we don't play? We were in a conference with Tulsa for a dozen or so years and got along just fine. I would expect their support. You might have a valid argument about Tulane (and maybe Rice) if the other school being considered were private but it appears to me that only public universities are being considered. Furthermore, I have doubts that Rice would pick a Florida college over one in Texas for a conference partner. It's a given that ECU would prefer FIU over us but I'm not that sure about the others. Denton, Texas is exactly 18 miles further from Huntington, WV than Miami. They also understand that there aren't other qualified candidates in their area. They might have to hold their nose but if enough are for us then I don't believe that they would remain against us. Denton is even closer to Birmingham than Miami and I don't believe that they would feel strongly about accepting or rejecting us.

Maybe it's just a sign of the times but I don't understand how you choose a school with seven years of FBS play over one with forty years, especially when the older school has a better winning percentage. The larger one is in a larger metro area, TV market and is better located for the universities involved. I guess politics is just dirty at any level.

Jack, I highlight in green the part that says it all for many of us. I am not sure what these conferences think will help them get higher TV revenues, but I don't think adding even more small or medium sized market schools is the ticket, either, especially when there seems to be an abundance of those in CUSA and MWC as it is.

Granted, like others I tend to not hold back on how I feel about most subjects on these sports message boards, but North Texas is being largely ignored by some posters of the CUSA and MWC conference smack boards crowd because we do have something many of them don't have, ie, 40 years of NCAA membership at its highest level of competition as GrayEagle mentions in his post. Some call it legacy which even that seems to be on non-importance on CUSA/MWC boards as I presume it would be by so many of that group who don't have it the last 50 years of last century.

How important is legacy? Well, it sure seems to have been the very thing that got SMU into the Big East since it wasn't their record and modest attendance figures of the last 25 years that was the deal maker.

OK, we are biased just like any one else in the NCAA, but (amazingly) the "large markets" are now being "poo-poo'ed by small to medium size market schools in CUSA/MWC because (to a degree) and IMHO they know if a school like North Texas regains what we had during most of those 40 years in the modern era of the NCAA, ie, all that happened during (1) our Abner Haynes Era, (2) the Mean Joe Green Era and then (3) the Hayden Fry Era at UNT; I think they know that a school like North Texas could become more of a real factor than they might want anticipating that we could regain all that had Darrell K. Royal , ie, the real Chairman of the Board of the old Southwest Conference if there ever was one ready to sponsor the University of North Texas for membership. As far as the UT & Darrell K. Royal thing is concerned, just not sure any of the other schools we are supposedly competing for CUSA or Alliance membership can say anything even remotely similar happened for their schools.

I CANNOT FORGET HEARING THIS AND EVEN IN PERSON: I can remember hearing our own AD Rick Villarreal say "USM back in the day wanted to be like North Texas" and IMO think that had as much to do with who Fry had the contacts to schedule for UNT when many present CUSA/MWC schools could not even get return phone calls from similar schools we had on our schedules back then. That was one of those deals where having someone at UNT who really knew other NCAA movers and shakers worked to our advantage.

I am at the point now that if North Texas gets over-looked for membership by some small market school with some based on one decent football season and from a conference or coalition of schools that say they want more TV revenues, then I am not sure about the long term longevity of a conference who think smaller markets are better than larger markets.

Fact is: I don't think any of the schools that CUSA or the Alliance are truly (supposedly) and "seriously" looking at for expansion can touch North Texas in the area of the major mega-bucks which our school has spent; that is, the big money spent and the results of that which now has our Mean Green Village of athletic venues setting out there between those 2 Texas interstates looking pretty damn good. Yes, we are biased, but I bet those tens of thousands who drive by all this daily would probably agree with us in a non-biased way.

Edited January 20, 2012 by PlummMeanGreen