Recapping the old/new Big East in terms of North Texas

[Harry]

I think what ultimately happened to the Big East both helped and hurt North Texas and the new C-USA teams...

The bottom falling out of the Big East with the c7 breaking away and the football defections truly devalued what was going to be a big jump up for Houston, SMU and the other teams either still in the old Big East or joining recently. Let's not kid ourselves, had the Big East retained an auto bid or kept the basketball school and the names, it would have been very hard for C-USA to compete. The Mountain West would not have been able to retain Boise and SDSU and solidify either. So in that particular regard, the devaluation of the old Big East kept the playing field in the Gang of 5 much closer than it could have been otherwise. All of these conferences has the same BCS bowl path and that in itself is a major equalizer.

The downside is, as the old Big East devalued, it opened up more opportunity for C-USA cannibalization and teams like Tulane, Tulsa, East Carolina became attractive for stability purposes... so the exact same devaluation process most likely led to more C-USA teams that would have stayed leaving.

I don't fault Banowsky for moving quickly on replacing the defections -- if schools think the grass is greener and want to move on what can you really do to keep them? He went with programs that have shown a commitment to facilities in good locations...most of them do not yet have the panache of say a Tulsa who has frankly dominated C-USA but could have a bigger upside than a small private school once their programs start winning.

I am a big fan of Tulsa and what they have accomplished on the field. I also watched their C-USA championship game last year against UCF and I was shocked to see the stadium not even half full. It was a great game - it deserved much better.

For schools like North Texas, instead of bemoaning the changes in C-USA, I hope that we are trying to figure out the puzzle of success. We are not a private school -- we don't offer a $50K annual tuition scholarship. We have a large alumni base that is crying for success. How can we deliver that success. I think La. Tech of all of the C-USA schools may have come the closest to solving the puzzle. They do more with less. They just win and it helps them build loyalty with their fan base. I think the MUTS have come close as well.

I still see new C-USA as a huge opportunity. There is no reason that the new C-USA can't be tremendously successful for their member schools and at some point eclipse the new Big East. It is going to require more than business as usual. Just being in a new conference is not enough. We have to figure out the formula to reach our unique potential. We have to continue to fund the arms race and hire and retain quality coaches. Most of all we have to win.

And we can't rest on the fact we've made it to C-USA -- I can promise you the other C-USA schools aren't and if the old Big East loses teams they will come calling to C-USA again.

[Harry]

Despite the losses CUSA is still good for UNT.

I disagree that alumni are crying out for UNT to succeed. I think 1000 or so are and the rest don't give a rat's ass about UNT or its athletics.

A long strech of bowl games and top 25 wins just might change that. More losing or insignificant winning (see 2001-04) won't change the apathy. My only concerns is that CUSA is now not as interesting to the 'casual fan/alumni' as it would have been. Let's just hope we keep Rice and UTEP.

When I say "crying out" I mean that many would love to be able to become more interested but we have given them very few reasons to. I see opportunity in terms of our numbers in both students and alumni but we have to win to capitalize on it.

My other point is schools like Tulane, SMU, Tulsa --- they have limits as to what their ceiling is for support. The C-USA championship game last year told me that, Tulsa has very few fans to market to -- of course they probably can pull more winning than we can losing..

But the bigger point - and this is my latest drum beater message -- is we have to figure out what is allowing programs that have lesser resources to be more successful than we are in all sports. The easy answer is winning but let's go deeper -- how did they get the athletes recruited to allow them to win? What systems are they using to evaluate talent, coaching etc.. what type of funding models are they using to ensure the best coaches stay in the program because I believe coaching stability is critical...

Take La. Tech --- they lost a good coach to Cal, brought in another guy Holtz and his staff.. there was a reason for that. La. Tech said hey this is what we are doing and what works...Holtz said I agree or I would tweak these things and they move forward.. but in the end they have shown a consistency of producing good teams. There is a formula for success that continues to elude us in the major sports and I don't have a clue as to what that is --- as a fan I just want to know that we are trying to figure that formula out, heck even copy successful formulas I really don't care if it gets you the result. If we didn't land the recruits we wanted to land then what went wrong and how can we fix it?

I realize the Dodge hire set us back but I just want to make sure we don't put ourselves in that position again and learn from our mistakes. You can have all the best facilities and resources in the world but if you aren't working on refining the process you may be doomed to repeating the same mistakes again.

[glick1980]

I agree that the BE defections have helped CUSA even though in turn, CUSA has had defectors. MTSU and WKU are a heck of alot closer in terms of athletic strength to ECU and Tulsa, than ECU and Tulsa are to Louisville and Rutgers. I didn't really like adding the Florida schools, but I do see the reason to add them for schools that rely on Florida to recruit.

[Arkstfan]

Harry you've hit this theme before, East vs. West.

The issue that poses the greatest threat to long-term stability for CUSA is geography.

With Tulsa gone the obviously southeastern schools are:
ODU, Marshall, Charlotte, FIU, FAU, UAB, MTSU, as well as potential addition WKU. That's 7 southeastern schools without WKU.

The obvious southwestern schools are:
UTEP, North Texas, Rice, UTSA, La.Tech that's five.

Then you have Southern Miss. On the map they arguably fit with the southwestern schools but if you look at their roster kids from Florida and Georgia easily outnumber the ones from Louisiana and Texas. Throw Alabama in the mix and they are heavily weighted southeastern in their roster. They had one Texan on the roster I looked at. If it weren't for the Louisiana kids and a sprinkling of California kids everyone is from Mississippi or points east.

The travel in the southwest might be better for USM but I suspect their coaching staff is looking down the roster saying "We need to be in the southeast."

So you arguably have 8 of the current 13 (subtracting Tulsa) wanting to be in the east along with the most likely #14.

When the more mundane things that come with a conference like picking where to hold the basketball tournament or softball tournament or volleyball tournament, 8 of 13 schools have a southeastern bent to their thinking. For the routine votes that a league takes, a simple majority is all that is required. If the league is considering Birmingham or Nashville or Charlotte vs. Dallas or San Antonio or Houston for the basketball tournament, the Texas cities can't match or probably even barely beat the eastern schools on the bid and win.

Expansion matters it will take 10 votes to expand at 13 or 11 at 14 and 8 of the voters are southeastern oriented, 9 if WKU comes in. That means the majority in the league is now schools who see Georgia State, James Madison, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, South Alabama as more desirable than any school west of the Mississippi.

That dynamic alone makes the next CUSA vote interesting to see if power gets balanced out or shifts more to the east.

[Harry]

I agree that the BE defections have helped CUSA even though in turn, CUSA has had defectors. MTSU and WKU are a heck of alot closer in terms of athletic strength to ECU and Tulsa, than ECU and Tulsa are to Louisville and Rutgers. I didn't really like adding the Florida schools, but I do see the reason to add them for schools that rely on Florida to recruit.

Very well put. In the old world, the Big East had a HUGE advantage over C-USA in terms of the history, teams, funding and BCS bowl access. Fast forward - now you have an old Big East that is a shadow of its former self. The implosion of the Big East leveled out the playing field in the gang of 5. So while we cringe at the defections because they are programs we would like to be identified with - the fact is the old Big East is not that much different than the Mountain West or C-USA.

I saw a good post from a Marshall fan, basically imploring the new C-USA schools like UNT, FAU, FIU, UTSA etc to succeed...

if the new programs who Tulsa etc are trying to distance from improve their programs the bet is that they have a higher ceiling and could ultimately surpass the schools who left.

[letsgiveacheer]

The bowls are going to be another question. I would be really surprised if CUSA retains all its tie-ins once the current contracts expire. I would guess most of them would go to the new conference.

[Arkstfan]

Very well put. In the old world, the Big East had a HUGE advantage over C-USA in terms of the history, teams, funding and BCS bowl access. Fast forward - now you have an old Big East that is a shadow of its former self. The implosion of the Big East leveled out the playing field in the gang of 5. So while we cringe at the defections because they are programs we would like to be identified with - the fact is the old Big East is not that much different than the Mountain West or C-USA.

I saw a good post from a Marshall fan, basically imploring the new C-USA schools like UNT, FAU, FIU, UTSA etc to succeed...

if the new programs who Tulsa etc are trying to distance from improve their programs the bet is that they have a higher ceiling and could ultimately surpass the schools who left.

I once saw a juggler who held up a hatchet and said this the hatchet George Washington used to cut down the cherry tree. The handle has been replaced... and the head... but it occupies the same space.

Temple is the only school in the Big East that was a member when TV told the BCS plotters that the Big East had to be in the mix. Temple is the only school that EVER played a conference game against Miami or Virginia Tech. UConn played one conference football game against Boston College.

Of the first 12 football playing members only UConn, Cincy, USF and Temple are there and Temple did 8 years in the wilderness before being allowed back.

Changing the name is the best thing that could happen because the handle has been replaced and the head.

[SilverEagle]

When I say "crying out" I mean that many would love to be able to become more interested but we have given them very few reasons to. I see opportunity in terms of our numbers in both students and alumni but we have to win to capitalize on it.

My other point is schools like Tulane, SMU, Tulsa --- they have limits as to what their ceiling is for support. The C-USA championship game last year told me that, Tulsa has very few fans to market to -- of course they probably can pull more winning than we can losing..

But the bigger point - and this is my latest drum beater message -- is we have to figure out what is allowing programs that have lesser resources to be more successful than we are in all sports. The easy answer is winning but let's go deeper -- how did they get the athletes recruited to allow them to win? What systems are they using to evaluate talent, coaching etc.. what type of funding models are they using to ensure the best coaches stay in the program because I believe coaching stability is critical...

Take La. Tech --- they lost a good coach to Cal, brought in another guy Holtz and his staff.. there was a reason for that. La. Tech said hey this is what we are doing and what works...Holtz said I agree or I would tweak these things and they move forward.. but in the end they have shown a consistency of producing good teams. There is a formula for success that continues to elude us in the major sports and I don't have a clue as to what that is --- as a fan I just want to know that we are trying to figure that formula out, heck even copy successful formulas I really don't care if it gets you the result. If we didn't land the recruits we wanted to land then what went wrong and how can we fix it?

I realize the Dodge hire set us back but I just want to make sure we don't put ourselves in that position again and learn from our mistakes. You can have all the best facilities and resources in the world but if you aren't working on refining the process you may be doomed to repeating the same mistakes again.

Harry, I've been saying that for years. Many on this board thought that a high profile coaching hire and a new stadium would totally turn things around as far as our attendance and giving goes, but that hasn't really materialized Many thought the same thing about our four straight bowl trips, but that didn't materialize either.

You use La Tech as an example, but I would add Monroe as well. How in hell do they identify and recruit the type of players that have beaten SEC schools and taken others to the wire? One of their most important guys is a QB from Mabank forgodsakes! How did we miss that one? Or assuming we did identify him, why in hell did he choose Monroe over North Texas? I'd like to go back and debrief a lot of the players that went to our opponents that we were in a hot recruiting situation with, and ask them "what was it about North Texas that turned you off?" Why Monroe/Ark St./LaLa or Texas State instead of us?

For those who say "well no one has a crystal ball and you can't always know what player is going to develop into the next Kolton Browning or whoever....". Well, it's worth a look at how those coaches at Monroe, LaTech etc etc do their evaluations/assessments and look at doing the same thing here.

Corky Nelson was one of our best coaches who did more with less. He operated under an administration that was not football friendly, and he managed to find the kind of player that got us nationally ranked in 1-AA. We also had the fist sell-out in Fouts history while he was coach/AD...and our opponent was SFA. In 1988 our average attendance was 15,319, 1989 it was 14,289 and 1990 it was 14,783. If anyone knows what the athletic budgets were during those years, I'd love to see how it translates into today's money and how much per fan we spent back then vs now.

Edited March 27, 2013 by SilverEagle

[RETSO]

Our ship sailed in the 70's when the Southwest Conference didn't take us.

At this point it is like the famous quote from the late great Clayton Williams "we need to just sit back and enjoy it"

As long as we have geographic rivals (UTSA, Rice, La Tech and hopefully Texas St), I can and will accept CUSA for what it is....(Belt 2.0)

However, if the established Rice, UTEP, Southern Miss and La Tech leave......we should move the team to Los Angeles and get an expansion team and start over!

[untjim1995]

Harry, I've been saying that for years. Many on this board thought that a high profile coaching hire and a new stadium would totally turn things around as far as our attendance and giving goes, but that hasn't really materialized Many thought the same thing about our four straight bowl trips, but that didn't materialize either.

You use La Tech as an example, but I would add Monroe as well. How in hell do they identify and recruit the type of players that have beaten SEC schools and taken others to the wire? One of their most important guys is a QB from Mabank forgodsakes! How did we miss that one? Or assuming we did identify him, why in hell did he choose Monroe over North Texas? I'd like to go back and debrief a lot of the players that went to our opponents that we were in a hot recruiting situation with, and ask them "what was it about North Texas that turned you off?" Why Monroe/Ark St./LaLa or Texas State instead of us?

For those who say "well no one has a crystal ball and you can't always know what player is going to develop into the next Kolton Browning or whoever....". Well, it's worth a look at how those coaches at Monroe, LaTech etc etc do their evaluations/assessments and look at doing the same thing here.

Corky Nelson was one of our best coaches who did more with less. He operated under an administration that was not football friendly, and he managed to find the kind of player that got us nationally ranked in 1-AA. We also had the fist sell-out in Fouts history while he was coach/AD...and our opponent was SFA. In 1988 our average attendance was 15,319, 1989 it was 14,289 and 1990 it was 14,783. If anyone knows what the athletic budgets were during those years, I'd love to see how it translates into today's money and how much per fan we spent back then vs now.

I've spoken to parents of kids in the Metroplex who chose Arkansas State, La Tech, and Tulsa over UNT in the last decade. What was interesting was that each one was a different story. The Arky State parents said they like that the school was the recent winning and that they liked the small town in a beautiful state for their son. The La Tech parents--about 5 years ago--like their winning, but also liked that La Tech wasn't here. Their son was from the DFW area and he wanted to go away from home for a more traditional college experience than going 30 minutes up the road. The Tulsa family, from about 8 years ago, just liked that the school was private, small, and not too far from here. When I asked about UNT, they usually said, we didn't hear from their staff much (dickey days), the university was too close to home and they weren't interested in having their son play at Fouts, and the other explicitly pointed to the losing that we had endured and the fact that they thought we were just a commuter school that played the big boys for cash. All were interesting takes, but in the end, it probably gives some insight as to why some like Monroe, LA or Jonesboro, AK or some other college town over Denton.

What was really interesting was the fact that none of those parents knew about Denton's reputation for being ecletic and not exactly loving UNT Football. They all thought it was a nice town, but they didn't know anything about the town's lack of support for UNT. As a matter of fact, two of them knew all about Denton's support of their high school teams and figured we didn't draw well because we were a losing program, but would draw well if we ever started winning. I explained to them that Fry dealt with this problem, even as a winner, as did Dickey in the few years we did well in the SBC. None of them knew about that stuff, even though we all slap our heads over how to make Dentonites care about their hometown college team. Its interesteing that Denton's reputation from our fans seems different from the citizens of other cities in the area and, presumably, the state.

[SilverEagle]

I.

What was really interesting was the fact that none of those parents knew about Denton's reputation for being ecletic and not exactly loving UNT Football. They all thought it was a nice town, but they didn't know anything about the town's lack of support for UNT. As a matter of fact, two of them knew all about Denton's support of their high school teams and figured we didn't draw well because we were a losing program, but would draw well if we ever started winning. I explained to them that Fry dealt with this problem, even as a winner, as did Dickey in the few years we did well in the SBC. None of them knew about that stuff, even though we all slap our heads over how to make Dentonites care about their hometown college team. Its interesteing that Denton's reputation from our fans seems different from the citizens of other cities in the area and, presumably, the state.

untjim, thanks for sharing your mini-survey. We need a lot more of this kind of feedback.

You are absolutely right about Fry, he did try to deal with it. But he saw the problem for what it really was....CULTURAL. He went about trying the change the ATTITUDE of everyone at the University, as well as anyone associated with the University and the football program. He started by having a public meeting on campus to talk to everyone about his vision for the program. He then went out into the Denton community and did the same thing. Next he went out into the towns surrounding Denton to let them know that this was not your old North Texas and that he wanted them very much involved in the program.

But you are mistaken about Dickey. He didn't try to deal with anything past the win/loss record. And even then, he only cared about winning in the Sunbelt. For the most part, he was somewhat confused about the North Texas community. He had no earthly idea about it being a cultural issue, and even if he did, he saw that as someone else's problem. And, for the most part, it wasn't really all his problem. IT'S THE ADMINISTRATIONS PROBLEM.....AND PROMOTIONS PROBLEM.

Besides, even if he had agreed to go out into the community to spread the word about North Texas football. As a fan of North Texas football, you wouldn't have wanted that to happen. That last signing day presentation he made to the fans had to be one of the more bizarre events I ever attended there.

[Arkstfan]

Silver, back when Dickey was rolling, Harry was expressing concern to me that recruiting wasn't where it needed to be.

As an outsider, though friend of the program, any doubts I had about UNT's decision regarding Dickey were cleared completely away on black jersey day.

While coaching salaries are ridiculous there is a reason for them. Being a good head coach requires a very diverse group of skills. You have to supervise the assistants, make sure there is a shared vision, have to have a bit of psychologist in you to know what motivates this coach vs that coach or this player vs that player, you have to get the fans AND the media AND high school coaches AND parents to believe in you.

Guys who can do those things command great salaries, those who can't get that money because that's the "market value".

We had the Roberts mess. He truly believed 6 wins was a very good season for a Sun Belt team and that 7 or 8 was all you could ever really hope for. His pessimism was infectious. After Freeze kept about half the staff, a friend asked how he made his mind up about who to keep. Freeze said, I had to get rid of the guys who thought we were already doing good.

[SilverEagle]

Silver, back when Dickey was rolling, Harry was expressing concern to me that recruiting wasn't where it needed to be.

As an outsider, though friend of the program, any doubts I had about UNT's decision regarding Dickey were cleared completely away on black jersey day.

While coaching salaries are ridiculous there is a reason for them. Being a good head coach requires a very diverse group of skills. You have to supervise the assistants, make sure there is a shared vision, have to have a bit of psychologist in you to know what motivates this coach vs that coach or this player vs that player, you have to get the fans AND the media AND high school coaches AND parents to believe in you.

Guys who can do those things command great salaries, those who can't get that money because that's the "market value".

We had the Roberts mess. He truly believed 6 wins was a very good season for a Sun Belt team and that 7 or 8 was all you could ever really hope for. His pessimism was infectious. After Freeze kept about half the staff, a friend asked how he made his mind up about who to keep. Freeze said, I had to get rid of the guys who thought we were already doing good.

We paid Hayden Fry two salaries (one for HC and one for AD) and that is how we were able to get him to come to NT. After he did all the things that you listed in your ideal coaches profile above, he got hired away from us by a program with more money and more potential for change. He didn't have to do as much "culture change" at Iowa as he faced at North Texas (and was still facing) and when he achieved success at Iowa, they got an automatic bid to the Rose bowl.

I agree with you that when you have other Hayden Frys out there, they command a big salary. What I have always contended is that there are other "up-and-coming" Hayden Frys, and that is who we have always needed to identify and hire. And when they are hired away, you find the next "up-and-coming" Hayden Fry. Hell, I would be happy if we could find the next up and coming Corky Nelson.

[GrayEagle]

Not sure where to enter this discussion but let's look at the makeup of the current squad, including recruits and walkons.

There are 113 athletes on the Spring roster. There are 128 total commitments, 15 of which will report in the fall. Of those, 64 (50%) are from the Metroplex. By county...Dallas 26 (15 scholarship), Tarrant 17 (7), Denton 11 (6), Collin 9 (3), Kaufman (1). That breaks down to 32 on scholarship and 32 who walked on.

I doubt that you'll find another FBS program with a larger local commitment. Yes, I know that we aren't getting the 4 and 5 star area athletes or even the 3 star Denton athletes (except those who transferred from other programs) but to say that we can't get local athletes is a bit of a stretch.

In order to meet restrictions, eight walkons on the spring roster won't be eligible for the fall roster and 15 will be dismissed before the season starts in the fall, so the percentage may not be quite as strong for the 105 squad members of this year's team but it will still be considerable.

By the way, eleven of the 128 are from out of state and Harris and Smith (Tyler) of the non-Metroplex counties furnish the most with five and Fort Bend will have four. Most of the rest have one per county.

[Mo Green]

You'll be gone shortly too. At a point in time you get tired & just leave NT & follow another team. All this is due to lack of direction from the ad's office. Some of us have seen donar's come & go without any hope of growing because of this problem in that office. If you think they are doing a good job you haven't been reading this blog lately!

Despite the losses CUSA is still good for UNT.

I disagree that alumni are crying out for UNT to succeed. I think 1000 or so are and the rest don't give a rat's ass about UNT or its athletics.

A long strech of bowl games and top 25 wins just might change that. More losing or insignificant winning (see 2001-04) won't change the apathy. My only concerns is that CUSA is now not as interesting to the 'casual fan/alumni' as it would have been. Let's just hope we keep Rice and UTEP.

[untjim1995]

Not sure where to enter this discussion but let's look at the makeup of the current squad, including recruits and walkons.

There are 113 athletes on the Spring roster. There are 128 total commitments, 15 of which will report in the fall. Of those, 64 (50%) are from the Metroplex. By county...Dallas 26 (15 scholarship), Tarrant 17 (7), Denton 11 (6), Collin 9 (3), Kaufman (1). That breaks down to 32 on scholarship and 32 who walked on.

I doubt that you'll find another FBS program with a larger local commitment. Yes, I know that we aren't getting the 4 and 5 star area athletes or even the 3 star Denton athletes (except those who transferred from other programs) but to say that we can't get local athletes is a bit of a stretch.

In order to meet restrictions, eight walkons on the spring roster won't be eligible for the fall roster and 15 will be dismissed before the season starts in the fall, so the percentage may not be quite as strong for the 105 squad members of this year's team but it will still be considerable.

By the way, eleven of the 128 are from out of state and Harris and Smith (Tyler) of the non-Metroplex counties furnish the most with five and Fort Bend will have four. Most of the rest have one per county.

I think his question deals more with why Metroplex kids leave this area to go play at some of the other schools in the SBCUSA. There is no doubt that we have alot of kids from the area, but that goes for SMU and TCU, as well. The difference seems to be that TCU and now SMU aren't losing kids to ULM or Arkansas State on a regular basis, nor are they recruiting against UTSA, Texas State, or other SLC schools. Since we have been such a loser for the last few years, not only are we not in on kids who want to go to the schools higher than us on the foodchain, we have let other SBCUSA schools come in and get kids that would have never considered outposts such as Jonesboro, AK or Murfreesboro, TN. But Arky State and MUTS have fielded some damn good teams in the last 5 years and these kids in this area like the idea of being on a winner and getting playing time. We have lots of playing time available, but the winning part has been gone for some time now.

[shaft]

The esay way to look at realaignment is; every team that is moving conferences is moving up.

The new CUSA is still better than the SBC or even the new SBC.

And yes the new Big East is better than the new CUSA, but not by much.

However the new BIg East is not better than the old Big East.

And before anyone ask is the new CUSA is better than the old CUSA, I'll say it doesn't matter. UNT didn't get invited to the old CUSA, it got invited to the new CUSA.

[Arkstfan]

The esay way to look at realaignment is; every team that is moving conferences is moving up.

The new CUSA is still better than the SBC or even the new SBC.

And yes the new Big East is better than the new CUSA, but not by much.

However the new BIg East is not better than the old Big East.

And before anyone ask is the new CUSA is better than the old CUSA, I'll say it doesn't matter. UNT didn't get invited to the old CUSA, it got invited to the new CUSA.

It's better in TV, it took adding six teams to equal losing the four lost but in terms of competition.

2014 Sunbelt = 60.02

#50 Arkansas State = 75.25

#62 Louisiana-Lafayette = 71.07

#72 Georgia Southern = 68.44

#77 Louisiana-Monroe = 66.89

#91 Western Kentucky = 64.16

#103 Troy = 63.01

#115 Appalachian State = 60.31

#124 Texas State = 58.36

#164 South Alabama = 50.19

#165 Idaho = 49.82

#174 New Mexico State = 47.25

#224 Georgia State = 33.50

2014 CUSA = 60.4

#51 Louisiana Tech = 75.15

#83 Rice = 65.49

#85 Middle Tennessee = 65.03

#107 Marshall = 61.25

#110 UTSA = 60.89

#117 Old Dominion = 59.46

#118 North Texas = 59.15

#127 Fla. International = 58.09

#137 Florida Atlantic = 56.65

#138 UTEP = 56.55

#142 UAB = 55.73

#167 Southern Miss = 49.70

[rws69]

As large as UNT is, there are a lot of area alumni who are not supporting UNT athletics. That speaks to the "unlocked potential" or the "sleeping giant" labels that have been mentioned in other posts. Obviously, the lack of success has not helped; but alumni response was weak even in winning eras. Whether it is justified or not, the lack of media coverage is probably a major reason more alumni are not involved. The reach of the DRC is limited. The Dallas Morning News is all about SMU, UT and the Big XII, TAMU and the SEC, and TCU. I don't think the Star-Telegram is much different. Even our alumni base in Denton County (outside DRC coverage area) sees little UNT coverage.

The move to C-USA and adding several Texas opponents to the schedule gives UNT a huge opportunity to get the attention of more area alumni. Establishing a winning habit against those teams is essential. Even bigger opportunities, perhaps, are the upcoming home and away games with SMU. Those games will get significant media coverage. While we certainly want to beat SMU, and I really want UNT to beat SMU badly, even being competitive in that series should increase our exposure.

So, while I wish the Florida schools had stayed put, I really like the move to C-USA. I like what I hear about the football team, and am really looking forward to the upcoming season. The opportunity is there for UNT to get alumni attention and grow the fan base.

GMG!

[UNT90]

The esay way to look at realaignment is; every team that is moving conferences is moving up.

The new CUSA is still better than the SBC or even the new SBC.

And yes the new Big East is better than the new CUSA, but not by much.

However the new BIg East is not better than the old Big East.

And before anyone ask is the new CUSA is better than the old CUSA, I'll say it doesn't matter. UNT didn't get invited to the old CUSA, it got invited to the new CUSA.

Not really true. When UNT was invoted and accepted, the following teams were members of CUSA:

Tulane, ECU, Memphis, Tulsa (just off the top of my head, there may be one forgot).

More importantly, the following were NOT members of USA:

ODU, UNCC, MTSU, FAU, and now maybe WKU.

So, no, we didn't enter the old CUSA, but we also didn't enter the new CUSA. We were 1st choices, along with UTSA and FIU as replacements for SMU, Houst and UCF (?). But the stench of the Belt and a start up caused the others to get the hell out as fast as they could.

So now we are left with 9 former members of CUSA in the new Big Whatever and at least 6 former Belt teams in CUSA.

The new Big East is much better than the new CUSA, and both are shells of their former selves.

The only good news is that we were one of the 1st three programs to get out of hell. Let's just hope the pecking order stays that way when the time comes to get out of purgatory.

[DeepGreen]

Let's be honest, we are moving to a severely watered down CUSA. I would have been O.K. with it had Tulane, ECU, and Tulsa stayed. At this point, UNT needs to concentrate on winning football games, and winning CUSA championships. Winning is what opens doors to better conferences and recognition.

[Arkstfan]

Memphis was gone when UNT was invited but the expansion was designed to help the isolated eastern schools (Marshall, ECU, UAB). If the announcement of WKU and only WKU comes down as expected the balance will changed from the east hanging on CUSA by fingernails to assuming control of the league.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Our ship sailed in the 70's when the Southwest Conference didn't take us.

At this point it is like the famous quote from the late great Clayton Williams "we need to just sit back and enjoy it"

As long as we have geographic rivals (UTSA, Rice, La Tech and hopefully Texas St), I can and will accept CUSA for what it is....(Belt 2.0)

However, if the established Rice, UTEP, Southern Miss and La Tech leave......we should move the team to Los Angeles and get an expansion team and start over!

..

Clayton Williams is alive.... and owns a Midland oil company on the NY stock exchange "CWEI" ... I see him regularly.

..

[TheColonyEagle]

As large as UNT is, there are a lot of area alumni who are not supporting UNT athletics. That speaks to the "unlocked potential" or the "sleeping giant" labels that have been mentioned in other posts. Obviously, the lack of success has not helped; but alumni response was weak even in winning eras.

GMG!

We are 59-119 since 1998.

That's 14 years of 33% football.

That's also 14 years of new student classes coming through. The freshman class of 1998 have been alumni for about 10 years now. They came on campus while the AD started trying to change the culture on campus. Talk to any student today versus a student that was here pre-2000 (such as myself) and the spirit and "culture" is night and day. More green on campus, fewer t-shirts of other schools, etc.

Our AD has done a good job in trying to turn the culture around on campus and committing to facility upgrades. (you can argue whether he had anything to do with the upgrades or not, but no other AD got it done)

At the same time, he made the worst coaching hire in the history of the program which has led to losing on the field at the worst possible time. The college football world shifted at a time we were, let's face it, a joke on the field.

What's amazing to me is despite all this losing, 9 of the top 10 crowds in program history have come during this time. The student turnout for the first game is huge every year. We just keep losing. And those 28-32 year old alumni who should be at their jobs talking up their alma mater and renewing their season tickets have been beat to submission by bad, bad football while their SMU, TCU, La Tech, LSU, Tulsa, OU, OK St, Baylor, TTech on and on coworkers have had success in the past 10 years. It's an absolute miracle we have the support we have now.

We go 9-3,10-2, knock off a big boy......the city of Denton and alumni will come around. The foundation for a great experience is in place now. It wasnt with Fouts and the poor facilities We just need to win. Why was LaMonroe's stadium packed for their ESPN game last year? Because their marketing dept is so great or they have a great culture? No it's because they were on Sports Center every day for 2 weeks after beating Ark. How many recruits saw that?

We have to fix our play on the field. Then this "culture" will all the sudden miraculously appear. "what about the 4 year run? We didn't gain traction then." I think there is more media access to smaller conferences today (tv and Internet) than back then. We were 29-21 in that period in a start up conference and got beat soundly in 3 of the 4 bowl games, and no one outside of Denton really knew. Troy, MTSU, FIU, Ark St have had more national attention the past few years then we had during our run. (beating major programs has helped too, we NEVER beat a major conference program outside of Baylor) Making a run like that today (while getting a big OOC win) would garner more attention than back then.

Win now win now win now

Period.

All that other stuff will take care of itself.

Edited March 31, 2013 by TheColonyEagle

[ragpicker]

Our ship sailed in the 70's when the Southwest Conference didn't take us.

At this point it is like the famous quote from the late great Clayton Williams "we need to just sit back and enjoy it"

As long as we have geographic rivals (UTSA, Rice, La Tech and hopefully Texas St), I can and will accept CUSA for what it is....(Belt 2.0)

However, if the established Rice, UTEP, Southern Miss and La Tech leave......we should move the team to Los Angeles and get an expansion team and start over!

I agree, Retso. If Rice, UTEP etc. speak sayonara (sp?) we are in a heap of trouble. Incidentally, Clayty Williams stole that quote from Dorothy Parker, although he probably didn't know it. If he had quoted her he would have saved himself some grief.