Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Welcome to GoMeanGreen.com Forum

Welcome to GoMeanGreen.com Forum, home of University of North Texas students, alumni and fans.  Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of the GoMeanGreen.com family by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Get access to the chat room, member map, arcade, photo gallery and much, much more!
  • Customize your experience here
  • Access premium content and features only available to registered members
  • Registration is simple and easy as we allow use of valid Google, Facebook and Twitter accounts:  Click here to register
Thanks for visiting and as always -- GO MEAN GREEN!
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Coker laments Tulsa's departure from C-USA

Larry Coker UTSA

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Harry

Harry

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 20,110 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:14 PM

UTSA football coach Larry Coker and athletic director Lynn Hickey both share optimism about the promise of a strong Conference USA in coming seasons.

 

But Coker on Wednesday lamented the announced departure of defending C-USA football champion Tulsa in the latest wave of realignment.

 

“Well, I guess it's not surprising,” the coach told reporters after practice at Farris Stadium. “You guys have probably followed it more closely than I have. But I am disappointed in losing Tulsa.”

 

A day after C-USA accepted Western Kentucky into the fold, Tulsa on Tuesday announced that it would be leaving for the conference formally known as the Big East. The changes will take place on July 1, 2014.

 

UTSA moves into C-USA in all sports on July 1.

 

The Roadrunners will play in the C-USA West Division in football this fall along with Tulsa, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, Rice, North Texas and UTEP.

 

In Coker's perfect world, he wouldn't mind if Houston and SMU could be added to that mix.

 

Of course, that's nothing more than wishful thinking, as both will open play this fall in a group that includes a mix of FBS programs from the old Big East and recent C-USA defectors.

 

“I like the regional makeup of our league,” Coker said. “I'd love to see Houston and SMU come back this way. Who knows what's going to happen?”


"In that first game we played like we did against. A lot of huff and puff but little to show for it." jessyj


#2 DeepGreen

DeepGreen

    "Has an Offer You Can't Refuse" Eagle

  • Members
  • 7,464 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:21 PM

And Lynn Hickey probably has the MWC Commissioner on speed dial. UNT is still on rotary phone.
  • 1

For those who have fought for it, FREEDOM has a taste the protected will never know.

 

"Nothing wrong with me that a little Grey Goose won't cure." - Coach Dan McCarney

helmet-70eagle3.png


#3 UNT90

UNT90

    Mean Green Icon

  • Members
  • 14,836 posts

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:35 PM

And Lynn Hickey probably has the MWC Commissioner on speed dial. UNT is still on rotary phone.

 

SMU in a conference with UNT?

 

hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

 

wait...

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


  • 1

"We Run.......to set up the Run"  - UNT90


#4 untjim1995

untjim1995

    Green Eggs and Sedition Eagle

  • Members
  • 2,254 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 10:45 AM

SMU in a conference with UNT?

 

hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

 

wait...

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Well, to be fair, Coker is probably just greasing the skids for UTSA to get included in the AAC as soon as possible. I don't think he believes that SMU would ever be associated with UNT in a conference. I see them following the South Florida recipe VERY CLOSELY. Now, it will depend on if they win or not. If we win, we aren't moving to the AAC, even though its chock full of schools that we wanted to be aligned with in a conference. MWC, maybe, but not the AAC as long as SMU is there (like when they were in CUSA). UTSA is whole differnet animal if they start winning--their options will be much more open.


  • 1
It is better to be pissed off than to be pissed on...

#5 Harry

Harry

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 20,110 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 11:27 AM

Well, to be fair, Coker is probably just greasing the skids for UTSA to get included in the AAC as soon as possible. I don't think he believes that SMU would ever be associated with UNT in a conference. I see them following the South Florida recipe VERY CLOSELY. Now, it will depend on if they win or not. If we win, we aren't moving to the AAC, even though its chock full of schools that we wanted to be aligned with in a conference. MWC, maybe, but not the AAC as long as SMU is there (like when they were in CUSA). UTSA is whole differnet animal if they start winning--their options will be much more open.

 

Keep in mind - SMU has one vote and the key wildcard in all this is University of Houston.  Their marriage with SMU has been one of convenience and they have MUCH more in common with North Texas.  My understanding is we have strong ties with their administration. 

 

The weaknesses that SMU could exploit in 2005 have changed - North Texas now has top notch facilities which was a big hindrance along with attendance.  SMU's missing piece right now is attendance and I think they are starting to understand that we could be great rivals which is why they have us on the schedule for 4-5 years and beyond starting in 2014.  Tulsa and the other schools wouldn't feel too bad about having a game in the fertile DFW recruiting area every year.

 

I read a tweet from Brett McMurphy essentially saying that if the Big 10 and Big 12 expand the American Conference could be looking to add as many as six new teams due to defections.  Personally I am very happy with the situation in C-USA for us right now and feel it is a good conference for us to build in.  The constant conference changing has gotten old and is wrecking havoc on established rivalries.  The fact remains though that we may not be done so you have to keep your fliers out there.

 

This is why it is SO imperative for us to win.  We've raised our facility profile tremendously.  Now we have  to go to bowls and NCAA bids - that is how you feed and grow your fanbase.


"In that first game we played like we did against. A lot of huff and puff but little to show for it." jessyj


#6 untjim1995

untjim1995

    Green Eggs and Sedition Eagle

  • Members
  • 2,254 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:45 PM

Keep in mind - SMU has one vote and the key wildcard in all this is University of Houston.  Their marriage with SMU has been one of convenience and they have MUCH more in common with North Texas.  My understanding is we have strong ties with their administration. 

 

The weaknesses that SMU could exploit in 2005 have changed - North Texas now has top notch facilities which was a big hindrance along with attendance.  SMU's missing piece right now is attendance and I think they are starting to understand that we could be great rivals which is why they have us on the schedule for 4-5 years and beyond starting in 2014.  Tulsa and the other schools wouldn't feel too bad about having a game in the fertile DFW recruiting area every year.

 

I read a tweet from Brett McMurphy essentially saying that if the Big 10 and Big 12 expand the American Conference could be looking to add as many as six new teams due to defections.  Personally I am very happy with the situation in C-USA for us right now and feel it is a good conference for us to build in.  The constant conference changing has gotten old and is wrecking havoc on established rivalries.  The fact remains though that we may not be done so you have to keep your fliers out there.

 

This is why it is SO imperative for us to win.  We've raised our facility profile tremendously.  Now we have  to go to bowls and NCAA bids - that is how you feed and grow your fanbase.

I just cannot see any conference in today's world adding two teams from the same immediate TV market. That's always going to be our problem when it comes to being associated in a larger conference that contains SMU. Ironically, if SMU hadn't jumped to the BIg East and stayed in CUSA, Tulane and Tulsa would be in CUSA still, too. Along with Rice, they had a nice private consortium. We would still be in the SBC, which would suck. But, In that scenario, if we were to become a winner again in the SBC, it might have gotten the attention of UH and others in the AAC, meaning we could have possibly jumped SMU, since the AAC would have no DFW presence. But TV matters too much today. No legitimate conference is going to have SMU and UNT or UH and Rice together anymore. It just doesn't add any value to their TV contracts, which is where all the money is for these conferences.


  • 1
It is better to be pissed off than to be pissed on...

#7 Legend500

Legend500

    Platinum Eagle

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:21 PM

Houston went to the 'Merica and needed a travel partner. The conference didn't take SMU for its market share (somehow worse than ours), fan base (laughable), academics (hey, they're close to being a research university, and a Master's in Teambuilding is a strong indication of the quality of their programs) or facilities (in a few years, they'll have the oldest non-renovated stadium in the state). 'Merica took SMU because it was the only option (the Big East still thought it could stay a major conference, so nobody from the Sun Belt was getting invited, no matter how good the case) for Houston. Don't confuse the last girl at the dance with the prom queen.

Eventually, money, legislatures and ESPN will force the leftovers from this shakeup into something which can be compelling in a local market even if it won't fly nationally. At that point, everybody will end up with teams they don't want to be with.


  • 0

#8 Harry

Harry

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 20,110 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:27 PM

I just cannot see any conference in today's world adding two teams from the same immediate TV market. That's always going to be our problem when it comes to being associated in a larger conference that contains SMU. Ironically, if SMU hadn't jumped to the BIg East and stayed in CUSA, Tulane and Tulsa would be in CUSA still, too. Along with Rice, they had a nice private consortium. We would still be in the SBC, which would suck. But, In that scenario, if we were to become a winner again in the SBC, it might have gotten the attention of UH and others in the AAC, meaning we could have possibly jumped SMU, since the AAC would have no DFW presence. But TV matters too much today. No legitimate conference is going to have SMU and UNT or UH and Rice together anymore. It just doesn't add any value to their TV contracts, which is where all the money is for these conferences.

 

Then how do you explain the Western Kentucky addition to C-USA?  It seems that having two schools near Nashville will help land some business in Nashville despite it being Vanderbilt country.  I can see them doing a conference basketball tournament in Nashville knowing that they will get good travel from both the Muts and the Topper fans.    I hear your argument though.


"In that first game we played like we did against. A lot of huff and puff but little to show for it." jessyj


#9 untjim1995

untjim1995

    Green Eggs and Sedition Eagle

  • Members
  • 2,254 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:49 PM

Then how do you explain the Western Kentucky addition to C-USA?  It seems that having two schools near Nashville will help land some business in Nashville despite it being Vanderbilt country.  I can see them doing a conference basketball tournament in Nashville knowing that they will get good travel from both the Muts and the Topper fans.    I hear your argument though.

Well, I don't think CUSA had a ton of choices--WKU was the best of the choices. I think of MUTS as being close to Nashville, but I guess WKU is, too. But I also think that the AAC isn't ever going to take us unless SMU is gone.


  • 1
It is better to be pissed off than to be pissed on...

#10 VideoEagle

VideoEagle

    Mean Green Eagle

  • Members
  • 3,251 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:03 PM

Well, I don't think CUSA had a ton of choices--WKU was the best of the choices. I think of MUTS as being close to Nashville, but I guess WKU is, too. But I also think that the AAC isn't ever going to take us unless SMU is gone.

 

They are in two different tv markets. MTSU is in the Nashville market while WKY is in the Bowling Green, KY, market. It's the 182 market according to the God Nielson. Here's a link to the market list. 


  • 1
"She's an Xbox and I'm more Atari" Cee Lo Green

#11 GL2Greatness

GL2Greatness

    Platinum Eagle

  • Multi-Vitamins
  • 449 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 03:47 PM

Houston went to the 'Merica and needed a travel partner. The conference didn't take SMU for its market share (somehow worse than ours), fan base (laughable), academics (hey, they're close to being a research university, and a Master's in Teambuilding is a strong indication of the quality of their programs) or facilities (in a few years, they'll have the oldest non-renovated stadium in the state). 'Merica took SMU because it was the only option (the Big East still thought it could stay a major conference, so nobody from the Sun Belt was getting invited, no matter how good the case) for Houston. Don't confuse the last girl at the dance with the prom queen.

Eventually, money, legislatures and ESPN will force the leftovers from this shakeup into something which can be compelling in a local market even if it won't fly nationally. At that point, everybody will end up with teams they don't want to be with.

 

 

you do realize that north Texas and SMU are both classified the same by the Carnegie Foundation as RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity)....or well you probably don't because you don't have a clue what you are talking about

 

and in 2011 SMU did 24.5 million in total research while north Texas did 25.4

 

north Texas "accomplished" that with 598 tenured faculty (including 10 instructors and lecturers) and 221 tenure track faculty (with 0 instructors or lecturers) and 255 non-tenure track faculty (with 0 instructors or lecturers) <<< all from the north Texas website.....according to the THECB it is 825 tenured or tenure track faculty, 798 non-tenure track (other), 2 lecturers, and 968 teaching assistants

 

SMU with 495 tenure track faculty, 41 non-tenure track and 169 lecturers

 

so on a per faculty member basis SMU faculty are much more productive than north Texas faculty even just limiting it to tenure track faculty and dramatically more productive if non-tenure track and the like are included

 

so before you go accusing anyone of not being a "research university" you should make sure the metrics for north Texas and the classifications for north Texas are not pretty much the exact same as the university you are saying is not a research university......because the Carnegie Foundation has them in the exact same classification as north Texas and the total research figures are pretty much identical with one university having a much smaller total faculty count and a smaller enrollment

 

way to mock north Texas in an attempt to mock SMU because if SMU is "almost a research university" then north Texas is exactly the same


  • 1

#12 NM Green

NM Green

    Mean Green Eagle

  • Members
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 05:40 PM

My hair hurts trying to follow that:)


  • 0

#13 GreenEggs&Ham™

GreenEggs&Ham™

    Platinum Eagle

  • Members
  • 332 posts

Posted 04 April 2013 - 06:47 PM

you do realize that north Texas and SMU are both classified the same by the Carnegie Foundation as RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity)....or well you probably don't because you don't have a clue what you are talking about

 

and in 2011 SMU did 24.5 million in total research while north Texas did 25.4

 

north Texas "accomplished" that with 598 tenured faculty (including 10 instructors and lecturers) and 221 tenure track faculty (with 0 instructors or lecturers) and 255 non-tenure track faculty (with 0 instructors or lecturers) <<< all from the north Texas website.....according to the THECB it is 825 tenured or tenure track faculty, 798 non-tenure track (other), 2 lecturers, and 968 teaching assistants

 

SMU with 495 tenure track faculty, 41 non-tenure track and 169 lecturers

 

so on a per faculty member basis SMU faculty are much more productive than north Texas faculty even just limiting it to tenure track faculty and dramatically more productive if non-tenure track and the like are included

 

so before you go accusing anyone of not being a "research university" you should make sure the metrics for north Texas and the classifications for north Texas are not pretty much the exact same as the university you are saying is not a research university......because the Carnegie Foundation has them in the exact same classification as north Texas and the total research figures are pretty much identical with one university having a much smaller total faculty count and a smaller enrollment

 

way to mock north Texas in an attempt to mock SMU because if SMU is "almost a research university" then north Texas is exactly the same

 

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
 


  • 4
GreenEggs&Ham™; a die-hard North Texas fan since 1987.

Posted From: Bowling Green, KY

#14 Legend500

Legend500

    Platinum Eagle

  • Members
  • 354 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:45 AM

Looks like I gave GL2Greatness the vapors and made him forget everything he learned getting his MA in Teambuilding. Good. 

 

SMU's Carnegie classification was (finally) obtained in 2011 - which is why I did the "almost.".Further, I enjoy making anyone type:

 

 

north[sic] Texas is exactly the same

 

...as SMU. Additionally, UNT is bouncing painfully along the path to RU/VH status along with UTA and UTD. Regardless of the order we make it in, it's nice to know that SMU is, at best, #4 in the metro area. 

As far as your other numbers, it's nice to have the opportunity to pick one's own data set. For example, you considered research spending, but somehow forgot to mention publications, citations and awards. Considering that some of the most important disciplines don't require billions of dollars in research grants (say, law, humanities, music, etc.), your analysis is, at best, fatally flawed. Perhaps we should go to another measure - UNT produces more research and offers more programs that SMU while charging its students around $35,000 less a year. The fact that UNT is state-funded is minimally important, as state funding only makes up for about a third of the difference.

Regardless, I checked your numbers. Final numbers aren't released yet, but the National Science Foundation reports research spending for 2010 was $18.742 million for SMU and $70.398 for UNT. Of course I combined all UNT campuses in that number - SMU's "campuses" in Plano and Taos are in their numbers, too.  


Back to the topic, I don't want schools like SMU in our conference, mainly because of their poor academic value. Since research spending is the ultimate arbiter of such things, SMU should be in a conference with comparable institutions such as Prairie View A&M, TAMU-Corpus and TAMU-Kingsville.


  • 1

#15 GTWT

GTWT

    Platinum Eagle

  • Members
  • 466 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:54 AM

Back to the topic, I don't want schools like SMU in our conference, mainly because of their poor academic value. Since research spending is the ultimate arbiter of such things, SMU should be in a conference with comparable institutions such as Prairie View A&M, TAMU-Corpus and TAMU-Kingsville.

Wait just one second, TAMU-CC ain't a bad academic program.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Larry Coker, UTSA

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users