Issues with Alliance

[KoldBeer]

This is an article that discusses some of the issues that the alliance is facing. Sounds like we won't get real answers for 30 to 60 days.

A couple of the issues:

1) NCAA tournament credits: Since both conferences are dissolving, the credits go to the teams. Memphis earned most of the CUSA credits so the new conference won't have any of those.

2) TV contract: Can the alliance really get that much more money than the existing deals (personally, I don't think CUSA schools do that much better).

3) Exit fees: Can CUSA collect exit fees if the conference dissolves.

http://www.dailymail.com/Sports/201203190141?page=1&build=cache

[VideoEagle]

OK I mis-read and first and thought you were linking to an article in the NT Daily.

Lots of questions and not many answers. Huge question is the idea of semi-finals in football which would mean either getting a majority of the other conferences to agree to changing the NCAA rules (not likely) or all the schools not in the semi-finals giving up a game.

I more removed from the broadcast rights for sports these days, but I'm not sure about taking the top audience draws out of the mix, then combining the also rans of MWC and CUSA and at a minimum DOUBLING the rights fees. It appears they have talked to the networks and they say it's going to happen but I'm just not so sure.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I don't like the Alliance idea. I don't know why. I just don't like it.

[NM Green]

I think the Alliance is great. You grab markets while they are available and secure a coast to coast tv deal. Only the Big East can claim a coast to coast conference. You regionalize the rivalries and make sure all players grow their commitment to all sports. I think it is a great fresh start.

TA all the way,

GMG

[NorthTexan95]

If the Alliance happens I believe we'll be in it. If the Alliance doesn't happen then I think we'll be in the CUSA or MWC. Either way, we're better off.

[VideoEagle]

I don't like the Alliance idea. I don't know why. I just don't like it.

I liked the old CUSA with SMU, Houston and UTEP (in our division) a lot more than just having Tulsa and Rice as close opponents.

I have asked friend who are Big 12 fans if the teams in the Alience would make them more likely to come to a game in Denton. Yes for both Tulsa and Rice. But I got a "who's that." for UAB. When I suggest UAB was better known than Troy I drew laughter. If you watch the Cowboys, you've heard of Troy.

The Alience is an upgrade to the Belt, but not as much as an upgrade grade as the old CUSA was.

Perception is NOT reality!

[NTXCoog]

I have asked friend who are Big 12 fans if the teams in the Alience would make them more likely to come to a game in Denton. Yes for both Tulsa and Rice. But I got a "who's that." for UAB. When I suggest UAB was better known than Troy I drew laughter. If you watch the Cowboys, you've heard of Troy.

Baylor fans know who UAB is since they're 0-2 against them, losing in 2003 and 2004 which shocked the heck out of Baylor's fan base.

Most recently the only national news on UAB football is how the Alabama board of trustees screwed them over by not letting them hire the coach they wanted and then not letting them try to build an on campus stadium.

[Texas Stranger]

Alliance vs. current condition in Sun Belt.

Not even a debate, IMO.

[GL2Greatness]

I think the Alliance is great. You grab markets while they are available and secure a coast to coast tv deal. Only the Big East can claim a coast to coast conference. You regionalize the rivalries and make sure all players grow their commitment to all sports. I think it is a great fresh start.

TA all the way,

GMG

a coast to coast conference is a terrible idea when during several conference games the fans of one team will have to watch their team play at horrible hours.....this was one of the issues that TAMU was actually correct about with not wanting to go to the PAC....having to stay up and watch games until midnight or later is not a way to sell a program or a conference

and with a coast to coast +Hawaii conference you could have fans of one team watching games (or in reality not watching) games that start at midnight or that start at 8am....no one especially casual fans will be tuning on for that

in addition the loss of guaranteed NCAA spots in other sports and the overall increase in competition for individual programs to get limited TV time slots in the conference TV deal will make it a bad combination for many teams especially those at the middle and lower end of the conference in terms of winning

[Harry]

a coast to coast conference is a terrible idea when during several conference games the fans of one team will have to watch their team play at horrible hours....

You do understand that they will have an eastern and western division right? Just checking.

[GL2Greatness]

You do understand that they will have an eastern and western division right? Just checking.

yes and they will have cross over games and if they do not have those games then there is really no reason to merge and the merger will be an even worse idea when it cost the conference teams automatic slots in the NCAAs

the important thing for non-AQ schools and conferences should be the flexibility to schedule to fit the needs of each program instead of being tied in with a large number of teams and conference members

strength for any conference does not come from beating up on each other it comes from beating teams outside the conference and in an alliance with rigid cross over scheduling rules that limits the chances for individual programs to schedule to best meet their needs

if anything they should agree to have a particular number of inter-conference games and then let the programs choose who they desire to play and or who will fill the content of those games instead of a set rotation and if you merge or form a rigid alliance then you pretty much have to have a set rotation of inter-division play and that removes the flexibility

the reason the WAC and MWC were the conferences able to place teams into the BCS was because the individual programs in those two conferences had the opportunity to schedule to meet their needs year in and year out instead of being locked into more conference games with teams they did not care to be playing

and the reason the 16 team WAC failed is because ADs saw that reality early on

[eulessismore]

You do understand that they will have an eastern and western division right? Just checking.

Fact checking?

[UNTflyer]

Huge question is the idea of semi-finals in football which would mean either getting a majority of the other conferences to agree to changing the NCAA rules (not likely) or all the schools not in the semi-finals giving up a game.

Oh, no need to do that. Just schedule the final regular season game as a "flexible" conference game. Designate 6 home teams and 6 visiting teams so they can sell tickets. Play 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, and 5 vs. 6.

Everyone can still play 12 games.

[NM Green]

THe reason the Big WAC failed was because of the egos of some of the programs. SMU and TCU thought the western foes needed to think more like them. Utah and BYU wanted to control the conference. I can honestly say that the egos in the Alliance are much tamer. I don't see a monster bevo type control battle with the new conference. I think everyone wants the conference to succeed. You grab Honolulu, San Jose, Salt Lake City, DFW, Houston Miami, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Tulsa, New Orleans and El Paso with a rotation of bball and football events between the destination cities of New Orleans and Las Vegas and you have some opportunity. You keep the headquarters in the center of the country in Dallas and you secure a big coast to coast TV package and you have a darn good league. You could have ESPN big Monday within the conference every Monday! With all due respect, SMU and TCU never fully committed to the old Big WAC. TCU was always an outliner program. Utah and BYU never wanted to mingle with Air Force, CSU, AF...I just don't see arrogance in the new Alliance program.

GMG

[GrandGreen]

The alliance as proposed has lots of issues and I doubt that they will get any special arrangements from the NCAA. It is also not the step up it would have been when UTEP was chosen over NT for CUSA. I would be much happier if NT was being considered for CUSA rather than the alliance. However, the best thing about being selected for membership in the alliance is that NT would not once again be left in the Belt. This is not a criticism of the Belt, because NT and all current member have benefited from the league and no one at this point has really elevated themselves from the pack.

It is just time for NT to have some positive movement and not be perceived as the lowest of the low. I doubt the WAC survives as a FB division football league and that leaves the Belt and MAC slugging it out as to who is next to last in the football hierarchy. Remaining in the Belt would be a big blow to NT athletics especially if other Belt teams or La Tech are chosen.

[Harry]

The alliance as proposed has lots of issues and I doubt that they will get any special arrangements from the NCAA. It is also not the step up it would have been when UTEP was chosen over NT for CUSA. I would be much happier if NT was being considered for CUSA rather than the alliance. However, the best thing about being selected for membership in the alliance is that NT would not once again be left in the Belt. This is not a criticism of the Belt, because NT and all current member have benefited from the league and no one at this point has really elevated themselves from the pack.

It is just time for NT to have some positive movement and not be perceived as the lowest of the low. I doubt the WAC survives as a FB division football league and that leaves the Belt and MAC slugging it out as to who is next to last in the football hierarchy. Remaining in the Belt would be a big blow to NT athletics especially if other Belt teams or La Tech are chosen.

Good comments Grand. I think Plumm made a very nice point earlier as well when he stated that this would have been the best conference we have been in through our history. I think he's without question right. Now I will also say this, the Belt is in a much better place than it has been in the past, ie having to take Idaho and NMSU just to keep afloat. So I while I think everyone would be disappointed in not making the alliance which would provide us with some Texas teams and good geographic rivals and most certainly a jump in perception -- the Sun Belt is a better conference in the aftermath of the Alliance moves.

You have to appreciate the fact that Karl Benson has been such a big fan of UNT through all this. After all of our refusals it would be easy for him to throw us under the bus. I think our perception has really benefited from his admiration along with the media reports of us being under consideration. And I think he "gets" North Texas and the potential is possesses - much like many of us do here.

I would also expect that he will make his move before the Alliance does; and the teams he takes will indicate who the Alliance will be going after in their first round of expansion.

In one sense I am more than ready to be done with all this...in another I very much enjoy the chessboard moves and endless leaks, twists and turns and overall drama of this series. There are some schools that will benefit greatly from the expansion decisions that are made and others who will suffer. I do think that it will likely require the NCAA to step in and make some adjustments (perhaps scheduling allowances) because they will not let a lot of D-I scholarship athletes fall by the wayside.

[MeanGreen61]

Belt/WAC scheduling alliance possible ? Mercury News

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/03/20/fbs-realignment-m-day-approaches-for-mountain-west-cusa-and-what-that-means-for-the-wac-sun-belt-and-others/

[GL2Greatness]

THe reason the Big WAC failed was because of the egos of some of the programs. SMU and TCU thought the western foes needed to think more like them. Utah and BYU wanted to control the conference. I can honestly say that the egos in the Alliance are much tamer. I don't see a monster bevo type control battle with the new conference. I think everyone wants the conference to succeed. You grab Honolulu, San Jose, Salt Lake City, DFW, Houston Miami, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Tulsa, New Orleans and El Paso with a rotation of bball and football events between the destination cities of New Orleans and Las Vegas and you have some opportunity. You keep the headquarters in the center of the country in Dallas and you secure a big coast to coast TV package and you have a darn good league. You could have ESPN big Monday within the conference every Monday! With all due respect, SMU and TCU never fully committed to the old Big WAC. TCU was always an outliner program. Utah and BYU never wanted to mingle with Air Force, CSU, AF...I just don't see arrogance in the new Alliance program.

GMG

this post would have been much more credible if you had just said "I don't like SMU, TCU, and UT because they have more than UNT and do more than UNT"

at least then you would have some type of fact

how could TCU and SMU have been responsible for the WAC breaking up when it was the teams that left the WAC that were the ones that up and left....it was not the WAC pushing them out it was those teams getting tired of carrying dead weight including TCU and SMU.....they saw teams that were doing nothing but riding on the fact that they had found some type of home and making no investments for the future

after the MWC teams LEFT TCU saw the light and realized that clinging to old history that no one including their own fans cared about was a poor plan for the future and they realized the MWC teams had a correct plan and TCU left to set their own path in the CUSA.....and then when the others from the WAC came to the CUSA TCU was again set to make their own future and went to the MWC......which proves your concept that TCU helped break up the WAC is just a sad joke.....why would TCU go back in with a bunch of teams that you claim they did not see eye to eye with and more importantly why would the MWC let TCU in if they were so tired of them and SMU that they had previously up and left the WAC because of them.....laughable

and there is no "bevo conflict" again this is a sad joke clung to by fans of conferences that are being left behind....NU had complained about UT from day one in the Big 12 and it takes more than just UT to set policy in a 12 team conference.....why would the other 7 members of the Big 8 suddenly just turn on NU and back everything that UT wanted.....why would OU one of the most storied programs in college football history let UT do what ever they wanted.....maybe because it is what OU and TAMU and many others wanted and maybe they were sick of NU and their demands to let academic morons participate and they liked the idea that UT (and many others had) of moving away from partial qualifiers

CU was not run out of the Big 12 by UT they had always wanted to be in the PAC and CU treats their sports as an after thought anyway.....TAMU and NU had voted with UT on unequal revenue every single time and NU and TAMU had voted with UT on the third tier rights as well and with no network for the conference....it was only when NU realized they could not compete that they ran off and started to cover their inability to compete with blaming UT and then TAMU did the same...Missouri was just so scared they would be left out of anything and never get in the Big 10 that they made a panic move and they will pay for that worse than TAMU will

you don't see KU, KSU, OkState, OU, Baylor, and ISU all crying about UT and that is because KU makes 8 million a year for their third tier rights, KSU competes with and wins against UT in football, OU is one of the most successful programs in the NCAA and does not need to cry about UT and OkState realizes they can do anything they set out to do in the Big 12 and Baylor and ISU understand the concept of what conference is best for them....Tech FANS cry about UT only because Tech has not been able to do anything other than have a long streak of spare bowls in the Big 12 and Tech FANS want to do the blame evil Ut thing so they feel better about having to be UTs side kick in any realignment....but the Tech administration is much more intelligent than many of their fans and realized the Big 12 is the best option for them period even over the PAC with UT and OU and OkState because the PAC would just crowd up the scheduling for Tech and prevent them from scheduling for their needs

many fans don't seem to understand what a conference is really for in the modern times and that is why they make silly comments about arrogance and not "being full in" because programs that are having success for THEIR PROGRAM are "full in" on doing what is best for their program they are not full in on gaining the acceptance of SMU or making their conference mates happy with every decision they make FOR THEIR PROGRAM and that is why they are having success and moving to better conferences while others are sitting around butt hurt trying to blame SMU, UT, and TCU for something and calling them arrogant and hoping they can get into a conference where everyone can be all chummy and suck together for years and years and sit around and talk about the "arrogance" of teams that are doing nationally relevant things, making more TV money, attracting more fans, and moving to better conferences eve if they are "arrogant" about doing it

your history and reality are totally in conflict with actual history and reality and your ideas about what a conference is and what purpose it serves is for teams that are hanger on-ers and mouths with begging bowls instead of teams that actually do something for their program

getting into the alliance or any other conference and then thinking "we have arrived" and "we are in" is how you wake up and find out that the top teams in your bloated conference have left you and your begging bowls behind

[TIgreen01]

this post would have been much more credible if you had just said "I don't like SMU, TCU, and UT because they have more than UNT and do more than UNT"

at least then you would have some type of fact

how could TCU and SMU have been responsible for the WAC breaking up when it was the teams that left the WAC that were the ones that up and left....it was not the WAC pushing them out it was those teams getting tired of carrying dead weight including TCU and SMU.....they saw teams that were doing nothing but riding on the fact that they had found some type of home and making no investments for the future

after the MWC teams LEFT TCU saw the light and realized that clinging to old history that no one including their own fans cared about was a poor plan for the future and they realized the MWC teams had a correct plan and TCU left to set their own path in the CUSA.....and then when the others from the WAC came to the CUSA TCU was again set to make their own future and went to the MWC......which proves your concept that TCU helped break up the WAC is just a sad joke.....why would TCU go back in with a bunch of teams that you claim they did not see eye to eye with and more importantly why would the MWC let TCU in if they were so tired of them and SMU that they had previously up and left the WAC because of them.....laughable

and there is no "bevo conflict" again this is a sad joke clung to by fans of conferences that are being left behind....NU had complained about UT from day one in the Big 12 and it takes more than just UT to set policy in a 12 team conference.....why would the other 7 members of the Big 8 suddenly just turn on NU and back everything that UT wanted.....why would OU one of the most storied programs in college football history let UT do what ever they wanted.....maybe because it is what OU and TAMU and many others wanted and maybe they were sick of NU and their demands to let academic morons participate and they liked the idea that UT (and many others had) of moving away from partial qualifiers

CU was not run out of the Big 12 by UT they had always wanted to be in the PAC and CU treats their sports as an after thought anyway.....TAMU and NU had voted with UT on unequal revenue every single time and NU and TAMU had voted with UT on the third tier rights as well and with no network for the conference....it was only when NU realized they could not compete that they ran off and started to cover their inability to compete with blaming UT and then TAMU did the same...Missouri was just so scared they would be left out of anything and never get in the Big 10 that they made a panic move and they will pay for that worse than TAMU will

you don't see KU, KSU, OkState, OU, Baylor, and ISU all crying about UT and that is because KU makes 8 million a year for their third tier rights, KSU competes with and wins against UT in football, OU is one of the most successful programs in the NCAA and does not need to cry about UT and OkState realizes they can do anything they set out to do in the Big 12 and Baylor and ISU understand the concept of what conference is best for them....Tech FANS cry about UT only because Tech has not been able to do anything other than have a long streak of spare bowls in the Big 12 and Tech FANS want to do the blame evil Ut thing so they feel better about having to be UTs side kick in any realignment....but the Tech administration is much more intelligent than many of their fans and realized the Big 12 is the best option for them period even over the PAC with UT and OU and OkState because the PAC would just crowd up the scheduling for Tech and prevent them from scheduling for their needs

many fans don't seem to understand what a conference is really for in the modern times and that is why they make silly comments about arrogance and not "being full in" because programs that are having success for THEIR PROGRAM are "full in" on doing what is best for their program they are not full in on gaining the acceptance of SMU or making their conference mates happy with every decision they make FOR THEIR PROGRAM and that is why they are having success and moving to better conferences while others are sitting around butt hurt trying to blame SMU, UT, and TCU for something and calling them arrogant and hoping they can get into a conference where everyone can be all chummy and suck together for years and years and sit around and talk about the "arrogance" of teams that are doing nationally relevant things, making more TV money, attracting more fans, and moving to better conferences eve if they are "arrogant" about doing it

your history and reality are totally in conflict with actual history and reality and your ideas about what a conference is and what purpose it serves is for teams that are hanger on-ers and mouths with begging bowls instead of teams that actually do something for their program

getting into the alliance or any other conference and then thinking "we have arrived" and "we are in" is how you wake up and find out that the top teams in your bloated conference have left you and your begging bowls behind

I can't say that I agree with everything in here, but I do appreciate the extreme level of angst represented in that post. You're like the anti-Plumm.

It really is all about setting goals and objectives, at the administrative level, and then commitment to reach those goals. The funny part of all of this is that no school administration is going to come out say "We're just looking to be middle of the pack in the Sun Belt" or "We're invested in athletics just enough to be able to claim that we're D1/FBS in our marketing/recruitment pamphlets". But really, isn't that exactly the message our administration sent by funding the program at bottom of the FBS levels prior to the past few years (where we've seen a significant up-tick)?

I, also, agree with GrandGreen. This new Alliance is certainly not the step up that it once was, but getting left out would be a public setback on the heels of the administration using "new conference opportunities" as a selling point to get the students to pass the stadium/athletics fee. I do think that we get in this go around, simply b/c our budget is going to be in the top 25-50% of schools that will make up that new conference and Pres. Rawlins is simply too well connected within that group of schools for us to be left out.

Edited March 21, 2012 by TIgreen01

[GL2Greatness]

I can't say that I agree with everything in here, but I do appreciate the extreme level of angst represented in that post. You're like the anti-Plumm.

I am not sure where you get the idea there is any angst in my post

people can be wrong about history all they wish that does not cause me any anxiety or concern it makes me laugh as I realize how far some will go to avoid reality or to try and change history to suit their needs or to cure their own angst

no one from SMU, TCU, UT or really anyone else is sitting around getting concerned that UNT fans think they are arrogant or bullies and really I don't think anyone from anywhere is getting concerned about what UNT fans think....they are busy concerning themselves with their own program and moving it forward instead of seeking the approval of UNT fans

if any program in the history of evAR has let the likes of the mid 90s era TCU and SMU programs bully them or push them out of a conference or to come off as arrogant to them then my advice to them would be fire 100% of your administration from the chancellor on down to the ADs and the hotel booking athletics staff and the trainers or drop athletics and I don't mean drop down to D1-AA I mean drop athletics entirely because you will never be competitive letting programs that were in the toilet as bad as those push you around or make decisions for you or force you to act when you don't want to

and if any team in the Big 12 now is worried about a "bevo conflict" (whatever that is) then my advice to them is call the BE as fast as you can or get a hold of the alliance and see if you can reserve a spot because that is your only hope of being competitive...and since I don't see anyone in the Big 12 doing that I will take it that they are all perfectly happy in the Big 12 along with UT

UT is not going to stop doing the things needed to keep their program at the highest level and conference money and TV money is only a very small portion of their overall budget and even without any TV money they would still be one of the top 5 programs in athletics budgets and if a school can't deal with that then they will not deal well with D1-A athletics unless they like losing and being left behind in conference changes and TCU especially is also not going to stop doing what is best for their program and SMU seems to have caught on as well.....so if others want to sit around and concern themselves with not coming off as arrogant or not stepping on toes as they do what is best for their program then they can sit and watch Boise and USF and the rest move right on by

that is not angst that is just reality

[Green Lantern]

this post would have been much more credible if you had just said "I don't like SMU, TCU, and UT because they have more than UNT and do more than UNT"

at least then you would have some type of fact

how could TCU and SMU have been responsible for the WAC breaking up when it was the teams that left the WAC that were the ones that up and left....it was not the WAC pushing them out it was those teams getting tired of carrying dead weight including TCU and SMU.....they saw teams that were doing nothing but riding on the fact that they had found some type of home and making no investments for the future

after the MWC teams LEFT TCU saw the light and realized that clinging to old history that no one including their own fans cared about was a poor plan for the future and they realized the MWC teams had a correct plan and TCU left to set their own path in the CUSA.....and then when the others from the WAC came to the CUSA TCU was again set to make their own future and went to the MWC......which proves your concept that TCU helped break up the WAC is just a sad joke.....why would TCU go back in with a bunch of teams that you claim they did not see eye to eye with and more importantly why would the MWC let TCU in if they were so tired of them and SMU that they had previously up and left the WAC because of them.....laughable

and there is no "bevo conflict" again this is a sad joke clung to by fans of conferences that are being left behind....NU had complained about UT from day one in the Big 12 and it takes more than just UT to set policy in a 12 team conference.....why would the other 7 members of the Big 8 suddenly just turn on NU and back everything that UT wanted.....why would OU one of the most storied programs in college football history let UT do what ever they wanted.....maybe because it is what OU and TAMU and many others wanted and maybe they were sick of NU and their demands to let academic morons participate and they liked the idea that UT (and many others had) of moving away from partial qualifiers

CU was not run out of the Big 12 by UT they had always wanted to be in the PAC and CU treats their sports as an after thought anyway.....TAMU and NU had voted with UT on unequal revenue every single time and NU and TAMU had voted with UT on the third tier rights as well and with no network for the conference....it was only when NU realized they could not compete that they ran off and started to cover their inability to compete with blaming UT and then TAMU did the same...Missouri was just so scared they would be left out of anything and never get in the Big 10 that they made a panic move and they will pay for that worse than TAMU will

you don't see KU, KSU, OkState, OU, Baylor, and ISU all crying about UT and that is because KU makes 8 million a year for their third tier rights, KSU competes with and wins against UT in football, OU is one of the most successful programs in the NCAA and does not need to cry about UT and OkState realizes they can do anything they set out to do in the Big 12 and Baylor and ISU understand the concept of what conference is best for them....Tech FANS cry about UT only because Tech has not been able to do anything other than have a long streak of spare bowls in the Big 12 and Tech FANS want to do the blame evil Ut thing so they feel better about having to be UTs side kick in any realignment....but the Tech administration is much more intelligent than many of their fans and realized the Big 12 is the best option for them period even over the PAC with UT and OU and OkState because the PAC would just crowd up the scheduling for Tech and prevent them from scheduling for their needs

many fans don't seem to understand what a conference is really for in the modern times and that is why they make silly comments about arrogance and not "being full in" because programs that are having success for THEIR PROGRAM are "full in" on doing what is best for their program they are not full in on gaining the acceptance of SMU or making their conference mates happy with every decision they make FOR THEIR PROGRAM and that is why they are having success and moving to better conferences while others are sitting around butt hurt trying to blame SMU, UT, and TCU for something and calling them arrogant and hoping they can get into a conference where everyone can be all chummy and suck together for years and years and sit around and talk about the "arrogance" of teams that are doing nationally relevant things, making more TV money, attracting more fans, and moving to better conferences eve if they are "arrogant" about doing it

your history and reality are totally in conflict with actual history and reality and your ideas about what a conference is and what purpose it serves is for teams that are hanger on-ers and mouths with begging bowls instead of teams that actually do something for their program

getting into the alliance or any other conference and then thinking "we have arrived" and "we are in" is how you wake up and find out that the top teams in your bloated conference have left you and your begging bowls behind

TL;DR = The new GMG.com mantra for your useless diatribes.

[MeanGreenTexan]

I am not sure where you get the idea there is any angst in my post

people can be wrong about history all they wish that does not cause me any anxiety or concern it makes me laugh as I realize how far some will go to avoid reality or to try and change history to suit their needs or to cure their own angst

no one from SMU, TCU, UT or really anyone else is sitting around getting concerned that UNT fans think they are arrogant or bullies and really I don't think anyone from anywhere is getting concerned about what UNT fans think....they are busy concerning themselves with their own program and moving it forward instead of seeking the approval of UNT fans

if any program in the history of evAR has let the likes of the mid 90s era TCU and SMU programs bully them or push them out of a conference or to come off as arrogant to them then my advice to them would be fire 100% of your administration from the chancellor on down to the ADs and the hotel booking athletics staff and the trainers or drop athletics and I don't mean drop down to D1-AA I mean drop athletics entirely because you will never be competitive letting programs that were in the toilet as bad as those push you around or make decisions for you or force you to act when you don't want to

and if any team in the Big 12 now is worried about a "bevo conflict" (whatever that is) then my advice to them is call the BE as fast as you can or get a hold of the alliance and see if you can reserve a spot because that is your only hope of being competitive...and since I don't see anyone in the Big 12 doing that I will take it that they are all perfectly happy in the Big 12 along with UT

UT is not going to stop doing the things needed to keep their program at the highest level and conference money and TV money is only a very small portion of their overall budget and even without any TV money they would still be one of the top 5 programs in athletics budgets and if a school can't deal with that then they will not deal well with D1-A athletics unless they like losing and being left behind in conference changes and TCU especially is also not going to stop doing what is best for their program and SMU seems to have caught on as well.....so if others want to sit around and concern themselves with not coming off as arrogant or not stepping on toes as they do what is best for their program then they can sit and watch Boise and USF and the rest move right on by

that is not angst that is just reality

Honestly,

I don't mind hearing what you have to say... But I stop reading after about 5 sentences. Brevity is your friend sir. Let's keep it short!

[TIgreen01]

I am not sure where you get the idea there is any angst in my post

people can be wrong about history all they wish that does not cause me any anxiety or concern it makes me laugh as I realize how far some will go to avoid reality or to try and change history to suit their needs or to cure their own angst

no one from SMU, TCU, UT or really anyone else is sitting around getting concerned that UNT fans think they are arrogant or bullies and really I don't think anyone from anywhere is getting concerned about what UNT fans think....they are busy concerning themselves with their own program and moving it forward instead of seeking the approval of UNT fans

if any program in the history of evAR has let the likes of the mid 90s era TCU and SMU programs bully them or push them out of a conference or to come off as arrogant to them then my advice to them would be fire 100% of your administration from the chancellor on down to the ADs and the hotel booking athletics staff and the trainers or drop athletics and I don't mean drop down to D1-AA I mean drop athletics entirely because you will never be competitive letting programs that were in the toilet as bad as those push you around or make decisions for you or force you to act when you don't want to

and if any team in the Big 12 now is worried about a "bevo conflict" (whatever that is) then my advice to them is call the BE as fast as you can or get a hold of the alliance and see if you can reserve a spot because that is your only hope of being competitive...and since I don't see anyone in the Big 12 doing that I will take it that they are all perfectly happy in the Big 12 along with UT

UT is not going to stop doing the things needed to keep their program at the highest level and conference money and TV money is only a very small portion of their overall budget and even without any TV money they would still be one of the top 5 programs in athletics budgets and if a school can't deal with that then they will not deal well with D1-A athletics unless they like losing and being left behind in conference changes and TCU especially is also not going to stop doing what is best for their program and SMU seems to have caught on as well.....so if others want to sit around and concern themselves with not coming off as arrogant or not stepping on toes as they do what is best for their program then they can sit and watch Boise and USF and the rest move right on by

that is not angst that is just reality

Take a breath, Hoss. Angst is implied when someone drops a 480+ word response without a single 'period' anywhere in the text!

And again, no problem here. Carry on...

[GL2Greatness]

Honestly,

I don't mind hearing what you have to say... But I stop reading after about 5 sentences. Brevity is your friend sir. Let's keep it short!

brevity is how people wake up to the reality that once again they are not where they wish they will be or where they want to be

because brevity is things like "we will be in the top 25 to 50% of budgets if we get in the Alliance"

when the reality is that is probably far from true

I had a long discussion in the past about how much new money the athletics fee would bring in...."brevity" was predicting things like 12 million+

I said it would be about 6.5 to 7 million tops and supported that with length....I also stated that most of it would be spent on paying for the stadium and I was again called out by "brevity"

and of course now we all know that with the new student fee and stadium UNTs athletics budget went from 16.6 million to 22.4 million......about 6 million more

and we also know from the expensive Neinas report that the vast majority of that was going to be spent on paying for the stadium.....because that was clearly stated right in the first couple of pages of the Neinas report.....it was more lengthy than my post....but it also cost a lot more as well...

some topics take more than tweets to discuss in a factual way

[forevereagle]

Take a breath, Hoss. Angst is implied when someone drops a 480+ word response without a single 'period' anywhere in the text!

And again, no problem here. Carry on...

Not true, he has 12 periods used in ellipsis.