Would you prefer Texas State, UTSA, Both or Neither?

Harry · February 23, 2012

Keeping in mind that with Benson in charge now, either Texas State or UT San Antonio could be added to the Sun Belt Conference which one would you prefer one, both or neither?

MeanGreenTexan · February 23, 2012

I think it depends on where we end up:

If we eventually move up to "the Alliance", then neither.

If we stay in the Sun Belt, then TX St. only, or neither.

Monkeypox · February 23, 2012

In order:

1) Neither

2) Texas State

3) Pudding

........................................................

632) UTSA

633) Both

Harry · February 23, 2012

I think it depends on where we end up:

If we eventually move up to "the Alliance", then neither.

If we stay in the Sun Belt, then TX St. only, or neither.

Since we are currently in the Sun Belt I would suggest/clarify that this poll would apply in that particular regard.

MeanGreenGlory · February 23, 2012

I really don't know enough about either school or football program to make an opinion. Will someone with more extensive knowledge of both schools and their athletic programs put together a Pro and Con list for each school? I'd be really interested to see that.

shaft · February 23, 2012

LA Tech & UTSA would make good additions to the Sun Belt.

SBC West: Ark St, UNT, ULM, ULL, LA Tech, UTSA

SBC East: FAU, FIU, MTSU, WKY, Troy, USA

Maybe even get rid of the non-football Belt members.

MDH · February 23, 2012

If no Alliance bid I want more regional opponents, so both - but LA Tech first and foremost if that's an option.

My Sun Belt expansion priority list:

1. LA Tech

2. Texas St

3. UTSA

4. GA State

5. NM State

6. App St

Got5onIt · February 23, 2012

None. Belt doesn't need to be the FBS gateway for FCS schools. I could care less how fun & easy the trips are. If NT stays they need to add current FBS members if expansion is a must. Even though the conference is still viewed as a national doormat, it's been very stable.

PlummMeanGreen · February 23, 2012

Again, this all should not be so easy for those 2. Let them have half the experience of paying the same dues North Texas has had to pay the last 40 years and then lets revisit the two after that.

Both are lucky that the Sun Belt will even be available to them; in fact, they are damn lucky

GMG!

PS: Some of us might tell some of the Bobcat elect that last time Dennis Francione was at SWT that he applied for the North Texas job and really wanted it bad when we pulled another boner and hired the former HFC of Marshall HS, ie, one Dennis Parker.

I hope that Coach McCarney in his first year and progress seen in that first year of following a disastrous hire 6 year prior that future hires for HFC at North Texas will have similar skins on the wall that both he and his hero and mentor Hayden Fry had when we hired both of them.

I don't think we ever need to go back to the multi-decade failed bid or practice of hiring assistant coaches because our record indicates that that kind of hire has never worked out at UNT in my lifetime. HINT: We've never had one to leave Denton with more wins than losses is at the top of that indicator list.

And personally, I hope we don't have to talk about hiring any new HFC for another 10 or 15 years.

GMG ! !

Edited February 23, 2012 by PlummMeanGreen

MDH · February 23, 2012

None. Belt doesn't need to be the FBS gateway for FCS schools. I could care less how fun & easy the trips are. If NT stays they need to add current FBS members if expansion is a must. Even though the conference is still viewed as a national doormat, it's been very stable.

I don't see how this argument is really valid anymore, they would be FBS by the time they would be joining the belt. Some Belt schools haven't been at this level very long.

Baby Arm! · February 23, 2012

I voted Both but for strictly selfish reasons. Living in New Braunfels this would give me at least one easy game to get to each year

Eastwood Eagle · February 23, 2012

If we are in the Belt for the long haul then I say both.

In the long run it is a good move.

GreenFlag · February 24, 2012

I voted for both. Both have demonstrated they will step up to the pump financially which is the most important factor. There are good candidates in the southeast that could make the move successfully but as we know this doesn't resonate with our fans. It's not like either blow my skirt up but it's better than taking institutions with the same warts - but from the southeast. I'm tired of being on an island.

UTSA positives - Market, football attendance, financial committment (student fees)

UTSA negatives - Can the support for the Roadrunners in San Antonio sustain when the fans realize they really don't matter in the big scheme of college football? Poor support and success for anything other than football, current facilities, academics (hey, if Texas can co-exist with Kansas State, we can co-exist with UTSA)

Since football is King and they are in Texas, they get my support.

Texas State positives - You know exactly what you are getting. They too passed student fees which will give them the financial foundation to be competitive. Facilities are already at Sun Belt level. Academics are a smidge behind UNT which would make them upper tier Sun Belt (take out the privates in CUSA and they would be upper tier there as well).

Texas State negatives - As a whole, their sports programs are pretty mediocre. I think the financial component should help in this regard.

Since they are basically a Sun Belt school in Texas, they get my support.

We aren't reinventing the wheel here folks. The Sun Belt is what it is. An individual institution can make it a great thing for themselves by improving themselves enough to get out.

rcade · February 24, 2012

I voted both. UTSA's a no brainer to me. Their attendance and the market make them look like another USF in the making.

Texas State is a harder sell, but they're an old UNT rival in state and they're making big strides in upgrading their program.

NT91 · February 24, 2012

Southwest Texas State..brother

MeanGreenTeeth · February 24, 2012

Neither. The last thing we need is to be in the same conference as one of these schools. We don't need two more Texas universities to recruit against. If we are lucky they will get stuck in the dying WAC and be forced to drop back to 1-AA. If we get to join the Alliance then I guess it would be okay for them to be in the Sunbelt (but I'd rather they be completely gone). I have nothing against either school, but I don't see how having them around helps us.

Edited February 24, 2012 by MeanGreenTeeth

Side Show Joe · February 24, 2012

Neither.

Texas has enough FBS programs. If I want to see the Southwest Texas play in Denton, I'll watch Necessary Roughness. As for UTSA, I don't need them either. I'd rather focus on thinking bigger. With Temple probably going to the Big East, our stock has to be going up with C-USA. I rather think about where we will be after this round of realignment is over. Things are looking better for for UNT, and if it goes our way, we shouldn't have to worry about playing in a conference with the twins.

SilverEagle · February 24, 2012

It's a no-brainer....both. They are infinitely better than the F-who's and WK-who. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that I could count the fans from those schools that came to Fouts/Apogee on both hands. WE NEED A REAL RIVALRY........FROM TEXAS.

Side Show Joe · February 24, 2012

It's a no-brainer....both. They are infinitely better than the F-who's and WK-who. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that I could count the fans from those schools that came to Fouts/Apogee on both hands. WE NEED A REAL RIVALRY........FROM TEXAS.

I think it's too early to focus on adding the twins. We could have a chance to build rivalries with Rice and UTEP, as well as Tulsa. That would be much better in my book. If the door to the alliance is closed to us, after this round of realignment, than we can look at whether or not the Sun Belt needs to expand and where. I think it's way too early to start adding teams.

wardly · February 24, 2012

It's a no-brainer....both. They are infinitely better than the F-who's and WK-who. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that I could count the fans from those schools that came to Fouts/Apogee on both hands. WE NEED A REAL RIVALRY........FROM TEXAS.

agreed! plus i would add UTA and their new $79 million dollar basketball arena to offset UALR, giving us 12 football programs and 14 basketball. we would gain 3 Texas rivals, and certainly don't need a 3rd Lousiana program. let La. Tech play as an independent.

SilverEagle · February 24, 2012

I think it's too early to focus on adding the twins. We could have a chance to build rivalries with Rice and UTEP, as well as Tulsa. That would be much better in my book. If the door to the alliance is closed to us, after this round of realignment, than we can look at whether or not the Sun Belt needs to expand and where. I think it's way too early to start adding teams.

Rice.....too few fans and alumni. Plus, they aren't as openly arrogant about us as SMU, but they basically feel the same way about us. Not a good candidate for a real rivalry.

UTEP. Better than Rice, but how many fans do they have living in the metroplex and how many would they travel to Denton? After all, it is 640 miles from Denton to El Paso.

Tulsa. A better choice than Rice and UTEP, but once again, how many fans would they regularly bring to Denton? Plus, since they are a lot like SMU, how many of their fans would embrace a rivalry with North Texas.

With Texas State, we have a school that we've played more than just about any other school in our history. And as I recall, the last time they played us at Fouts, they brought a large number of fans. UTSA has the same potential.

Edited February 24, 2012 by SilverEagle

MeanGreenTeeth · February 24, 2012

agreed! plus i would add UTA and their new $79 million dollar basketball arena to offset UALR, giving us 12 football programs and 14 basketball. we would gain 3 Texas rivals, and certainly don't need a 3rd Lousiana program. let La. Tech play as an independent.

Geez. We could just join the Southland and play a bunch of Texas teams. Hell, let's just join the Lone Star conference. :thumbsd:

Edited February 24, 2012 by MeanGreenTeeth

MeanGreenTexan · February 24, 2012

Rice.....too few fans and alumni. Plus, they aren't as openly arrogant about us as SMU, but they basically feel the same way about us. Not a good candidate for a real rivalry.

UTEP. Better than Rice, but how many fans do they have living in the metroplex and how many would they travel to Denton? After all, it is 640 miles from Denton to El Paso.

Tulsa. A better choice than Rice and UTEP, but once again, how many fans would they regularly bring to Denton? Plus, since they are a lot like SMU, how many of their fans would embrace a rivalry with North Texas.

With Texas State, we have a school that we've played more than just about any other school in our history. And as I recall, the last time they played us at Fouts, they brought a large number of fans. UTSA has the same potential.

Again;

If UNT focuses on building rivalries with local schools BECAUSE THE SCHOOLS WILL BRING MORE FANS TO APOGEE, then we are doing something very wrong.

We need UNT fans to fill Apogee, not opposing fans. Ideally, the only opposing fans at Apogee would be sitting in sections 124 & 125. The rest of the stadium would be sold out and wearing Green.

The correct thought process needs to be: "What schools will bring the most UNT fans out to watch the Mean Green play?"

Now, answering that question is tough. Will more UNT fans show up for TX St. over Rice? Who knows?

GrandGreen · February 24, 2012

Neither, and if you have to pick one I think it is UTSA by a mile.

Points to Ponder:

It is time for the Belt to become something other than the move up league

Neither of the Texas Twins have played one down of FB division football

Neither has any record of sustained support

Both are financed primarily by the max in student fees

Two in the same basic area is too much

San Antonio trumps San Marcos by a mile

Lets see how their support is when the newness wears off

Anyway you look at it, the Texas Twins are direct competition to NT

Both will be fb division schools but at what level

WKU, FIU, FAU and USA are all Belt start ups and it has taken or will take several years to be competitive

Why take fc division schools and give them the same advantages of current Belt members

I think ultimately both of the Texas Twins will take their place as fb division schools, I believe UTSA has the greatest potential and TSSM is going to find very rough going to move above the bottom tier. Both are massive schools and UTSA has a big market but any NT fan should know too well that those factors don't necessarily mean anything.

Edited February 24, 2012 by GrandGreen

untbowler · February 24, 2012

We complain about no regional opponents, then complain that we would have to compete with teams for recruits, then we whine about how SMU held us down, but want to do the same thing. That cake must be really good.