untjim1995
-
Posts
9,494 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
29 -
Points
26,705 [ Donate ]
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
GoMeanGreen.com
Posts posted by untjim1995
-
-
4 hours ago, dodgefan said:
I just went to ya'lls website, FSU game is sold out and BYU and TCU are close, pretty impressive in July.
Y'all's?
You're as big an SMU fan as anyone else has ever been on this site. You fool no one.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
Its super simple here. Either the ACC GOR is the strongest contract ever written and it binds the ACC together until 2035 or its not and a settlement or breakaway occurs, most likely within 2-3 years max.
If its the first scenario, SMU hit a grand slam. Because they get 10 years of football against big time opponents in a power conference, as well as super high levels of college basketball.
Even if it falls apart, they still got away from us in a conference setup, which is what they believe single-handedly defines sparedom to their alumni. Why? I have no idea. But its very true. Very similar to how TCU and Baylor look down on them and will never be in a conference with them again if they can help it.
-
3 hours ago, NT80 said:
Nebraska is no longer an AAU institution, but otherwise your delegation makes sense.
The question will certainly come up from $mut...like with the PAC breakup, if there are 2-3 ACC schools left behind will the ACC try to keep the brand name and reload?
True on Nebraska. They got kicked out of the AAU after they joined the B1G, so it obviously matters big time to that league to have strong academics and strong athletics.
The ACC would probably stay around as a conference but it wouldn’t be a power league anymore. Probably stay with the leftovers in the East and SMU, while adding in Memphis, Tulane, USF, ECU, UAB, and probably FAU. We would just back full with CUSA schools.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:
The first three, you're almost certainly right. The last four, I doubt.
The Big XII already rejected Louisville. Unless WV and Cincy insist on them for geographical proximity, I don't see them changing on that.
And if--big if--the BXII is able to land FSU and Clemson, they'd probably be very selective about who else they would select.
The B1G and SEC have indicated that they are not even interested in FSU and Clemson, although I think the SEC will probably cave. But other than UNC and maybe a couple of others, I don't see the B1G or SEC digging very deep into the ACC pool. They're watering down their conference and their revenues at that point.
I'm not sure which of the other P4 conferences would be interested in NC State, Pitt, and Georgia Tech. I think they, along with Duke, would still be happy in an ACC even without FSU, Clemson, or UNC.
The B1G and SEC are saying that now, but its because the networks aren't looking to start a new contract with any of these contracts. The B1G is sticking to its AAU status thing, but the SEC will add them eventually to keep the B1G away from good brands in the Southeast. It just may take a few more years and it may be a situation where the SEC gets them both for cheap, the way the B1G got Oregon and Washington for half payouts.
I still think we are gonna see the ACC get absorbed like the Pac-12 did. If I had to guess, it'll be like this:
B1G: Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington (24 schools, all AAU institutions)
SEC: Va Tech, NC State, Clemson, South Carolina FSU, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Bama, and Auburn (20 schools)
Big 12: WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincy, UCF, Iowa State, Kansas, KSU, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Colorado, BYU, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, and Stanford (20 schools)
-
1
-
-
Either that GOR is the strongest contract in sports history, or it will get busted. So far, that GOR strength has held up and it's what SMU is banking on to last. But the moment that it gets busted or settled, then the reality is that FSU, Clemson, UNC, Uva, Va Tech, Miami, Duke, NC State, Louisville, Pitt, and Georgia Tech are gone to the other three leagues.
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, UNTLifer said:
Then make it happen. Just another excuse.
Oh. Never thought about that.
Maybe something like this:
Hey, Denton!! Start caring about our university by coming to DATCU Stadium!! Take out 4-5 hours of your Saturday to come over to the stadium and watch our marching band perform!! They will play live (during a football game that features UNT) and even march on the field!! It only costs $25 to attend!!
DATCU sellouts are right around the corner!!
-
3
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, UNTLifer said:
Want fans. Make the games an event that can’t be misssd. Market them over and over and when you don’t think you have marketed them enough, market them some more. Students must realize these are the 6 or 7 weekends out of the year they can’t go home. Incentivize them to attend and then win the damn games. You have to make it the place to be.
Partner with Denton. We are Denton’s team. Make the locals want to come. Again, a family event. Market the games like there is no tomorrow.
I am sorry, but our AD has never put forth effort.Maybe I've missed something over the last 34 years of being around UNT Football, but this has never once been shown to be true, to occur, or to work when tried. Denton residents either don't care about our teams or they actively loathe their existence. This isn't Lubbock or College Station where there is no other game in town and the cities' residents actually like football. This is the biggest artistic/musician town in the state that thrives on being anti-establishment.
-
1
-
1
-
-
NIL just means Now It’s Legal to the SMUs of the world
-
1
-
1
-
-
I seriously doubt UTD students care at all about college football. Come to think of it, neither do most of the UNT students, apparently.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Big Z said:
He had a drinking problem?
Dan McCarney, when he first got here, was the closest thing we have had to being a salesman as Hayden Fry was. HE believed that this place was going to be huge, as we were opening a new stadium, preparing to go to CUSA in a few years from the first edition of the SBC, and sitting in the middle of the Texas recruiting hotbed. He went on media outlets to tell everyone how exciting the future was here. He was great with TX HS coaches. He would talk to any UNT gathering he could to see the program.
And that's when the Apathy Monster defeated him. DMac thought recruiting would be easy here. But he ran an antiquated offense that nobody in the state ran or wanted to run. The TX HS Coaches liked him, but they didn't like that offense and they knew the UNT Apathy better than he did. He had no idea of the decades of apathy he was fighting. He couldn't understand why people didn't show up for games in Denton. He even wondered why the HOD Bowl game in Dallas on NYD could have such a huge green crowd show up for us playing UNLV but wouldn't show up for a conference game in Denton. Eventually, the stress and his coping with it thru drinking almost killed him, as he suffered a stroke. And he was never the same after that. And neither were his teams. What Dodge had recruited was put to use in a solid way by DMac and his staff, but what they had recruited couldn't come close to replicating the same talent he had inherited, especially at the skill positions. And two years later, with the worst collection of QBs we have ever had, we hit rock bottom in the worst loss in modern college football history, that 66-7 loss at home to FCS Portland State on Homecoming. He was rightly fired immediately after the game and the rest is history. Similar to Littrell, having had some success here got him an extension, but it just meant that we had to buyout more in the end.
Hoping Morris' tenure will be different, but so far, nothing has suggested we are on a different path.
-
7
-
-
37 minutes ago, NT80 said:
Oh, I totally agree the big programs were doing similar, and probably worse, and more so today. But the NCAA decided it needed to "make an example of someone" before it got out of control, to show they were still in control.
So SMU was the designated example. Probably based on small size, elite culture, not a public school, and wealth to endure the penalties eventually.
They should have done the same thing to Baylor. But the SMU example was so painful, the ncaa would never do it again. The sports media felt so sorry for SMU, even though they cheated better than anyone ever had, over and over.
I still say that SMU should sue the NCAA out of existence for what they did. It cost them billions.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, NT80 said:
I agree with this. Similar to funding and strength disparity within FBS as a whole, the same within G5.
It would make the most sense. We don’t need to be playing UT, OU, A&M, LSU, etc…all of whom have hundreds of millions in revenues, humongous stadiums that are sold out, and rosters that are full of NFL caliber players. Let us play teams that play in stadiums that are between 25k and 50k. Play teams with similar attendance issues and funding that is not completely out of whack with the lower programs in this level. And if SMU, TCU, Baylor, UH, and others want to play in a conference without us, go ahead. But we can play on their level. We can’t play on the levels of these NFL-lite programs. And as I’ve said many times, it’s blatantly unfair to everyone associated with a G5 program and never being able to play for a national title, like every other level Of football allows.
-
5
-
1
-
-
On 7/1/2024 at 11:08 AM, rojomojo said:
Honestly, I wouldn't mind having the G5 merge with FCS... I am sure FCS folks would differ though
Sadly, I think the lower G5s will have to do that, the ones in CUSA and some in the MAC and the SBC.
But the Higher G5s in those leagues and the MWC and AAC will stay above that, joining the former power schools that could left behind.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:
SMU has been ranked in football four of the last five years and currently has a borderline Top 30 recruiting class without playing a down of P4 football. We also just hired away a sitting Big 10 head coach for basketball who has been to multiple Sweet 16's and an Elite 8.
Revenue is for poverty programs. Billionaires are a fun cheat code right?
But I do enjoy the copium.
Then why are you hanging around here. You and Cougar King just troll this place to brag about being higher up the food chain. Neat. Do you go by the food shelter and brag about shopping at Whole Foods and having a full pantry?
Because that’s what you’re basically doing here. We get it. You have money, local media, and a ton of history that gets mentioned and even celebrated. We have none of that.Hell, our own alumni dominate the local sports media and they just don’t care about us to do anything but make fun of us. We don’t need smu posters to remind us of how much you loathe ever being associated with us and have more goals by for you. We all know it.
-
2
-
2
-
-
I give SMU credit for making the ACC happen. There is no doubt that it’s a huge deal and they got in because of their money, which is why they’re known in the CFB world. The media fawns over their “unfair” punishment and that is something that just baffles me. The ACC knows that they are buying time here until the inevitable breakup of their league. Getting SMU, Stanford, and Cal is their hope to keep teams like Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville to stay after the big state schools leave. Maybe add in other schools like UConn, Tulane, ECU, and USF. Maybe that group can stay as a power conference, like the Big 12 hopes.
My guess is that none of the above really happens, though. The ACC gets blown apart and the other three power conferences pick them apart.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, MrAlien said:
Conference champions will automatically qualify for the field of 64, so its not like the WAC's champions will be out. The additional 4 teams will be those bubble team that currently miss a bid, and they will not go straight to the tournament instead they will go to a play-in. Using the NET's formula, it is very fair in determining which teams should have a shot.
So, are you cool when 7-11 or 8-10 power teams in their conferences get those spots when the third AAC team or the second MVC team gets told they didn’t measure up against what Wake Forest or Georgia or Northwestern did because of their conference’s depth?
because that’s what will happen.
-
4
-
1
-
-
I just can't agree with one single iota of what SMU2006 is posting. You got into the ACC because you agreed to not take a penny of TV money from the ACC, that you had GWB and other billionaires beg for entry into a league that you will not be able to compete in at all as it currently stands, and that ACC GOR is only as solid as the strongest members want it to be. UNC, NC State, Clemson, Duke, Louisville, Pitt, Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, UVa, and Va Tech all have homes in the B1G, SEC, and Big 12 right now if the ACC falls apart. Syracuse and BC go the way of UConn, while Wake Forest, SMU, and Cal are left behind. Stanford is the true wildcard in all of that, as I can see them in either the B1G or Big 12.
If I had to bet, the B1G would get Stanford, UVa, UNC, and Duke. The SEC would get Va Tech, NC State, Clemson, and FSU. The Big 12 would get Pitt, Louisville, GT, and Miami. The others get the Oregon State/Wazzou drop. Then, in another 5-10 years, the culling will go further, cutting out lower brands in those three leagues to get down to 36-48 programs.
-
1
-
-
There is no way you are convincing Texas, A&M, Alabama, Ohio State, North Carolina, USC, Notre Dame, or Michigan, as well as their media, to accept playing teams like SMU, Washington State, Boston College, Baylor, or other schools that are just not big enough to match their eyeballs.
When they whittle this down, it's gonna be about 48 schools, max. Maybe as few as 36 schools. The B1G and SEC, along with main parts of the ACC and Big 12 will move on, leaving the rest behind.
It will be one of my absolute favorite parts of that schism occurring when SMU has to play teams that they are meant to be playing, not any power conference that let them pay their way in for a few years.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, emmitt01 said:
Maybe that's a good thing. I've thought for several years now (ever since that 2013 team) that we need to stop running out of the tunnel with the announcer yelling "Here's comes, the Mean Green..." only to be followed by "Tee it high, let it fly, and watch the other team run by."
Say what you will about the Dickey days, but you won't say those teams were "pushed around." Even in losses, I felt like we hit somebody.
Perhaps Wyoming will punch us in the mouth and we'll respond.
Dickey did a great job of playing physical football. So did DMac. The problem for both of them was that their offenses were really, really boring and usually got us nowhere against a decent team. But our defenses would hit you hard, until they were spent. What got to be problematic for both Dickey and McCarney was finding talent to run their offensive game plan that TX HS football coaching had dropped for running the spread. And when neither could get even decent QBs, the losing just piled up. But it’s been the exact opposite with Dodge, Seth, or Morris, where a hard hitting defense never came close to materializing. I will still say that the two best UNT teams I’ve seen here since 1990 were the 2003 and 2013 teams, both of whom won 9 games, while pounding you physically, and having a QB who was smart and made solid throws when necessary.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:
I can't just agree with this. Your points are easy to follow. They have logic and sense. I still can't just rollover to it. The cat is already out of the bag, but when tv contracts started to balloon in the 90s, what is now referenced as G5 programs should have done everything in their power to bow their backs and put their foot down. If individual players can bring the lack of payment to the courts during an obvious time of amateurism, how could 65 universities not collectively come together and push anti-trust suits into the courts and not dictate financial fairness?
The answer: The beta males that were the AD/HCs didn't care. It wasn't of their interest because there is nothing to financially gain for them in doing that. If anything, only negative consequences would come their way in acting. They balked. Fast forward a generation and they continue to balk in the name of self interest. They put themselves over the university in which overpays them.
You’ve said this before, but those ADs and coaches are always looking for their next gig up the totem pole of college athletics. Disturb that apple cart and you never get to have the chance to eat the apples. And that’s exactly why the division ended up happening.
All of this has made me think that the places that have cared about sports and funding it, only to watch people bigger than them leave, are the biggest losers in all of this. Say that you’re a Tech alum or you went to Baylor. You’ve been ranked in the top 5 in football and basketball (men’s and women’s), as well as making trips to Omaha. You built up a program that often surpassed the Texas, Oklahoma, and Aggie triumvirate. And it meant nothing because those schools have all the money, t-shirt fans, and TV markets covered. Sure, they benefitted greatly from getting to play them in the first place, but their political strength and appreciation of sports got them there to the SWC/Big 12. And now, they both might be left behind.
We got what we deserved for never caring about sports enough and for not using our location and size to make us better. We went arts and music and cheap tuition and got hundreds of thousands of alumni who won’t give back or go back to Denton. This Split should help us to at least stay even with a lot of teams and programs we should always be peers with, even if most of them have zero interest in being associated with us. If we get left behind again after this is done, somehow being stuck behind SMU, TCU, and UH, amongst others, I then think it’s time to close up shop. But I just don’t see that scenario happening again.
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, MrAlien said:
I dont necessarily see it like that. It's true the tournament is a massive money generator, however just about everyone has a shot at getting in with their conference tournament. And while college basketball has its blue bloods, the talk of the tournament every year are about upsets and Cinderella runs.
I dont think adding 4 teams to a play-in help benefit high majors over anyone else, its going to benefit those schools that barely miss the cut under the current format.
Trust me, the teams that will "barely" miss will be conference champions of midmajors that lost in their conference tournaments or the 2nd place teams in non-power league conferences. It'll mean 4 more teams from the Big East, ACC, B1G, SEC, Big 12, and maybe a team from the A-10 or the WCC.
-
3
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:
What the G5’s never had the balls to do, will now be forced to do. Our own playoffs and championship game.
Its the best thing that could ever happen for fans, players, and coaches of G5 schools. It remains the only level of football, from pee wee to the NFL, that doesn't ever have a championship team. Its blatantly unfair...
-
6
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 6/19/2024 at 4:26 PM, NorthTexasWeLove said:
Who is this 6 you keeping insisting on adding into your p6?
And have you watched their football games? Rabid isn't a word I would use. More like an aging/dying fanbase... much like UNT.
Man, that's not even close to true.
-
1
-
-
Its just so sad to see greed make college athletics all about 50 schools in football, basketball, and baseball.
-
2
-
NCAA approves roster limits
in Mean Green Football
Posted
105 scholarships is just a way for the schools to handle the portal taking away their rosters every season.