Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Coker laments Tulsa's departure from C-USA


24 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

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?”

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

My hair hurts trying to follow that:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I love all the schools that "keep us out". If we won at anything ever it wouldn't even matter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I love all the schools that "keep us out". If we won at anything ever it wouldn't even matter.

This. Nobody is keeping UNT out of anything, If UNT stops drawing nothing more than flies to their football games (You guys actually get excited for 22k :thumbsd: ), hires a competant staff (I honestly don't see too much of a difference between McCarney and Dodge. Borth of them have had dogfights with teams like FAU, have terrible recruiting classes and get demolished by anybody who's at least halfway decent), have an administration who is willing to support athletics, continue cleansing student apathy and stop acting like somebody owes you something, then and only then will UNT get somewhere.

Until that day comes, I see UTSA as the next Texas school to join the ranks of TCU/UT/A&M/Baylor/Tech/UH/SMU aka the ex-SWC schools.

-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sad but true. I'm sure SMU is looking forward to that series beginning in 2014. June Jones figures he can permanently make North Texas a non factor in the metroplex for the foreseeable future with butt lickings that will come out of this series. We will be the laughing stock of the area.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This. Nobody is keeping UNT out of anything, If UNT stops drawing nothing more than flies to their football games (You guys actually get excited for 22k :thumbsd: ), hires a competant staff (I honestly don't see too much of a difference between McCarney and Dodge. Borth of them have had dogfights with teams like FAU, have terrible recruiting classes and get demolished by anybody who's at least halfway decent), have an administration who is willing to support athletics, continue cleansing student apathy and stop acting like somebody owes you something, then and only then will UNT get somewhere.

Until that day comes, I see UTSA as the next Texas school to join the ranks of TCU/UT/A&M/Baylor/Tech/UH/SMU aka the ex-SWC schools.

OK , froggy found out about rv being here, dog gone it. We are doomed!

Good guess though froggy. The k guy needs to de-program froggy maybe.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

And the frogs push forward, opening the season with Southeast Louisiana.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think Froggystyle likes UNT. Why else would he always be on this site? Either way UNT blows the doors off of TCU in the coed department. Not even debatable either. Just thought I would mention that because this time of year sucks for sports. I miss college ball & the NFL.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Good grief. I disregarded Frogs comments the second I read his Dodge Mac remark.

And the SMU series is an opp for us to step up. I'm sorry....but I won't join that negative attitude. I'm sure glad I'm not fighting along side some of you in a war.

GO MEAN GREEN!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

This. Nobody is keeping UNT out of anything, If UNT stops drawing nothing more than flies to their football games (You guys actually get excited for 22k :thumbsd: ), hires a competant staff (I honestly don't see too much of a difference between McCarney and Dodge. Borth of them have had dogfights with teams like FAU, have terrible recruiting classes and get demolished by anybody who's at least halfway decent), have an administration who is willing to support athletics, continue cleansing student apathy and stop acting like somebody owes you something, then and only then will UNT get somewhere.

Until that day comes, I see UTSA as the next Texas school to join the ranks of TCU/UT/A&M/Baylor/Tech/UH/SMU aka the ex-SWC schools.

While I agree with some of this, maybe you should review common 2012 opponents before saying we get demolished every time we play "someone decent." We lost to K St. by 14 at K. St. You guys lost to K St. by 13 AT HOME.

And that's with a HUGE recruiting advantage of being in a much better conference and with recently winning a freaking Rose Bowl.

And be careful about mouthing off about 22k crowds. If you guys end up a bottom feeder in the Big 12 (your normal position in the old SWC), then you will also be thrilled to get 22k in for OOC games. Oh, you will always draw 40k plus for most conference games, but if you return to your accustomed position, well over 3/4 of those will be wearing UT gear, or OU gear. I grew up in FW. I know what TCU attendance used to be like. Maybe you should appreciate history just a little better.

What is funny is having a fan of what is basically the Johnny come lately of college football continually come to little ole UNT's site to flex his newly found football muscle. It's kind of like the 250 lb newly muscled up former nerd coming back and kicking sand in the face of the 6 year old nerd who doesn't even know the meaning of dumbbell.

Is that really where you want to be when Jesus comes back, picking on little ole UNT?

Plus, it's just such a D-bag move. But then again, the TCU fandom is starting to rival SMU in this regard.

Edited by UNT90
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Until that day comes, I see UTSA as the next Texas school to join the ranks of TCU/UT/A&M/Baylor/Tech/UH/SMU aka the ex-SWC schools.

tumblr_min00hLjsv1s0u5kco1_500.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0