untjim1995

The key word in this is PRIOR. I didn't think that the NCAA would have the cajones they showed to punish Penn State even a little bit, much less as severely as they did. There is no way that a kid that talented will still go there or stay there. There's just too much stigma attached to Penn State University now--its not just football, either, its the whole university.

I think the 4-year death penalty would have been worse, but what they got hit with is very painful. No one with any talent will go to Penn State for a long time. Back when the Rust Belt wasn't dying, Pennsylvania turned out a lot of HS talent. Now, it has really dropped. Plus, most of the East Coast talent didn't really have a big option closer to home for big-time college football than Penn State. Obviously, Pitt, Syracuse, and Boston College had some great teams here or there, but Penn State was the program for the NE. They haven't been that program, though, for many years, and now, those kids aren't going to Penn State. Future Nittany Lions will not choose PSU over Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Michigan, rather they will be beating out kids from Maryland, Virginia, and Rutgers. In other words, 4-5 star recruits are going to go somewhere else, so PSU will get 2-3 star kids at best. The lifeblood of a program is winning AND recruiting--PSU is not going to build that back in the next 5 years, at a minimum, and probably not for a decade. Literally, Minnesota and Illinois just got a new program to beat up on. This isn't a speed bump--its a freaking highway bridge collapse. Penn State and USC are in two different situations, from demographics to geography to the reasons behind the sanctions. What USC did was awful--but everyone of us will gladly take what they did over anything Penn State has done. So will recruits and future students. I expect enrollment, attendance, and academic/athletic success at Penn State to drop like a rock. No one for the next few years will want to be associated with any of this. For decades ahead, when we hear the name Penn State, the Sandusky child abuse is what we will think of, ala SMU and the Death Penalty. To me, Pittsburgh and the ACC are the biggest winners in this whole deal. The ACC got a great AAU instituition for a lot less than some have gotten schools to join their conference and that state will send its best recruits that want to stay in-state to play in Pittsburgh. And, in a weird way, the Big XII could benefit, too, since West Virginia is so close to Pittsburgh, and if football is really the big driver of the future for college conference alignment, I could see a scenario play out where Pitt, Clemson, Ga Tech, Florida State, Miami, and probably a team like Louisville would move over to the Big XII. But without question, the Big Ten lost a lot here--Penn State was one of its big boys, with Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and the recent addition of Nebraska. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the Big Ten change course here and go after those ACC/Big East schools it would like to get one day and make a move now to help mitigate the Penn State problem. I can see Maryland, Rutgers, Boston College, UConn, and the Virginia schools all being possible targets. And I wouldn't rule out the Big Ten going after Kansas, either. Even though they generally suck at football, they have great basketball, are an AAU member, and have a good market in KC to attract added viewers for the Big Ten network. Plus, I think they would have Nebraska's support, as well as Iowa, too. Lots to still sort out, but I think the dust won't settle in (un)Happy Valley for the next 10 years, IMO.

I don't think Baylor's religious/politcal views will ever allow them to get admitted out West. BYU couldn't get admitted and they are a geographical fit. Sure, Baylor will play on Sundays, unlike BYU, but BYU has been historically much better at football than Baylor and still never got admitted. No CA team or Oregon or Washington will ever vote to let Baylor in. If the Pac-12 expands, its because they finally get Texas and some combination with them, most likely Tech, OU, and OSU. KU and KSU would be ahead of Baylor, too Baylor has had an unbelievable year in sports, but that doesn't add alumni or enrollment to the TV networks.

All I can say is that they better pray very hard that Texas doesn't decide to go out west to the Pac-whatever. Because if they do, they'll take Tech, OU, and OSU with them and then it will be the nicest stadium in the MWC or CUSA.

I think the Freeh Report was basically the NCAA's investigation here. There was so litte to argue here. There will not be a time where Penn State will get away with anything again. I will say this about the death penalty and SMU. I think a death penalty for a place like Penn State would have been "manageable" for them--assuming it was just one year and there would have been the fine still. Even if the bowl ban was for two years and they got no TV, it would have been manageable for them to get back to being a prominent national team. I'm not sure that the penalties levied today aren't more stiff than a death penalty like the one SMU got. Remember, SMU go the death penalty because of rampant and continuous cheating (7 times in a 14 year span, IIRC). When they got the death penalty, SMU added a year to it themselves, then basically came back as a walk-on program. Then, the SMU administration went so far the other direction to avoid any connection to those days of old that they basically made it impossible to recruit and win over there. Penn State would never have made it that hard to recruit and admit football players after a death penalty--I think they would've been able to bounce back faster than SMU did and I am not sure if the death penalty here wouldn't have made it easier on Penn State. No matter what, though, Penn State will not compete for a Big Ten title for many, many years. Indiana, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Illinois are all going to have a new whipping boy. And I cannot even imagine what the Ohio State, Michigan, Michigna State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa scores are going to look like for the next decade. Penn State will load up with MAC and SBC schools in OOC going forward just to get a few wins, but getting more than one B1G win in a season will be very surprising to me in the course of the next 5+ years. Hello B1G basement!!

I actually think they got much worse than I expected. $60 million is chump change to a place like Penn State, but the 10 scholarship cuts, the 4-year bowl ban, and the likely transfer of most of its players to other places will crush that program for the next decade or longer. A death penalty at Penn State probably would have been a year at most with the scholarship cuts, but this will be a killer to their long-term competitiveness in he Big Ten. And it is all so very-well deserved.

They won't need us if a new league got set up, like the NFL, where you have playoffs, not bowl games. Tech schedules the way they do so that they can get into a bowl every year--its been that simple. Nothing more, nothing less. If you get rid of the bowls and get gargantuan money for being included in a Super BCS, then their schedule gets made for them every year. That's how the shift wouldn't hurt a Tech or Colorado right now. It would kill Vandy or Baylor, though--because I doubt they have the clout to be included in a Super College Football League. And, as far as hoops and baseball go, that same consortium of schools could easily just create their own March Madness and College World Series--and ESPN, Fox, Turner, etc...would be waiting at the door with checks in hand for them.

I hate to do this, since I literally have you ignored, but for the rest of the board's entertainment, I will answer this bs. Yes, their recruiting in previous years was higher ranked, but it is abysmal compared to the other Big Texas schools right now. Texas, A&M, Baylor, and TCU will finish ahead of them, and I wouldn't be surprised to see SMU and Houston close to them (yikes!!) Don't include OU or OSU in this or it gets worse. Tuberville is an SEC defense-first guy. His record of success was built on his great Auburn defenses and running game. Those aren't going to work at a place liked Tech. Lubbock isn't conducive to big-time recruits. Leach made his craziness work because of his offense, his ability to take low-rated recruits and fit them into his crazy system and, to be honest, his scheduling. Tech hasn't played an AQ OOC game in like 9 years. Their OOC has always included at least one FCS team and often has a WAC/MWC/CUSA team as well. His offense was genius, but his defense was mediocre to bad, as they usually had 2 to 3 star talent on that side of the ball. Now, Leach leaves, Tech starts sliding back big time, and Tuberville's hot seat in Lubbock is cooking. He can't get defensive talent to match his scheme because they aren't the "up-and-comer school with the cool coach" anymore, he cannot keep a DC, and his offense is some weird version of spread/3 yards of dust. Last year was just awful for them, with no bowl game, even though they beat #1 OU on the road (biggest fluke win in years). Most folks believe that they aren't going to do anything in conference again this year. This is what lies ahed for them in the Big XII in 2012: @ Iowa State--loss--lost big time at home to ISU last year Oklahoma--loss (no more fluke, like last year) West Virginia--loss--they won a BCS Bowl game last year @TCU--loss--Tech took them off the schedule last year because TT said "TCU isn't a team we are ready to play right now" @Kansas State--loss (got beat last year at home in Lubbock) Texas--loss (got trucked in Austin last year--Horns barely threw a pass and still crushed them) Kansas--win (KU is terrible) @Oklahoma State--loss (absolute prison raping in Lubbock last year) Baylor in Arlington--tossup. (Huge beatdown in Arlington last year, although Baylor had their Heisman QB) Its nice (pathetic) of you to find yet another non-UNT school to defend on our website, but this is one where the future is bleak. Tech may finish 6-6 at best, but my money is on 4-5 win season for them, and TT will enter 2013 needing a winning season to keep his job. I'll go back to ignoring your posts.

I thought for sure that this was going to be another thread about Fouts Field

I'll bet that Tuberville won't be coaching in Lubbock with two years.Their recruiting has dried up, their mad scientist genius got fired and took away their one advantage they had, and they arent exactly located within 4 hours of any major metropolitan area. I think that Tech will continue to fall back pretty hard in the Big XII in everything. They had the lowest amount of conference wins by an AQ member in the 4 big sports in 2012. They went something like 26-89. It was atrocious. That all said, I am still majorly jealous of them for finding a way to be the biggest tick on the UT hound all of these years. I guess when you have one section of a huge state all to yourself, its a bit easier to do that.

Exactly--we need to get better at OOC scheduling for sure. I am still just shocked that our only home OOC game this year is against Texas Southern--not Texas State, UTSA, or Sam Houston, but Texas Southern. There won't be 15K for that game, especially after the "Please Don't Let the Check Bounce or Get Anyone Seriously Injured Game" at LSU. I suspect that this will be a hard year for us, since the officiating for teams in their last year of being in a conference generally is atrocious. We aren't gonna get many calls to go our way in SBC games and we don't have the overal talent yet to dominate all of those teams. I see us at 1-3 in OOC for sure, but the SBC schedule is hard to forecast, at least to me. Because of that, I'll predict 4-4 in SBC play (which includes the USA provisional game).

I think the shift will occur, but it will be in phases. I think that the bottom part of the current FBS is definitely at risk of this occuring in the next decade, your SBC and MAC schools. THe next culling could be out aways, but maybe not. That's your current CUSA, MWC, and Big East schools. Not all of the schools in those conferences would get left out, but your Rice's, Tulane's, UAB's, SAn Jose State's, would be at risk, just as we would be. But, I don't think it will happen to CUSA/MWC/BE schools for a longer time out because those schools do have decent budgets, history, and markets. The NCAA has no power over college football, other than "enforcement", which is obviously selective. The threat of eventually having the top 40-50 teams pulling out of the NCAA to form their own coalition is completely possible if the NCAA tried to overstep their bounds in the eyes of the big programs. Besides, legally, there is nothing that forces the NCAA to be the only governing body of college athletics. If it was, then college football would be controlled by the NCAA. What's to say a College Athletics Association wouldn't get formed to "regulate" the new coalition? Its not hard to envision a day where the bigger schools from the BIg XII, SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Notre Dame, and a handful of others would create a football coalition of their own if the NCAA came down too hard on them. ESPN and Fox would be waiting at the door to hand out $$$ that would be incredible if you got a NFL-lite league going. Many will argue that Congress would get involved, but those big schools make up the majority of the legislatures in their states, plus provide economic benefits that far surpass any other schools in their state (i.e. UT and A&M versus anyone else in the state, LSU vs anyone else in LA). If you doubt this, just think of our fair state, where the PUF funds belong to two schools with the most power in the legislature, Texas and A&M. Tech, Houston, North Texas, etc...get squat from that fund. That has been in effect for more than a century!! LSU, the Okie schools, Arkansas all get the same treatment in their own states, in terms of funding, power, media, etc... For North Texas to have a chance in being included in college athletics, the following this had/have to occur: 1.) The university has to actually care about athletics by actually funding a program at a decent level.--getting better 2.) Build a new stadium--done 3.) Get out of Sun Belt Conference and into a better recognized conference--done, thankfully 4.) Win consistently in conference--to be seen 5.) Beat a few big named programs from the AQs--obivously possible, obviously the hardest hurdle of all. 6.) Have the university continue to grow and get better academically as well--most likely, this is the easiest to foresee 7.) Hope that TCU and SMU fall back big time over the next decade. SMu probably will not be a big hurdle, since the far-flung Big East won't last long-term as it is built now, especially now that AQs are basically done. TCU is a true wild card here. Normally, they have sucked as a member of a conference with the big Texas school, but they went the untraditional route and turned themselves into quite a respectable program. If TCU follows the pattern of the conference mate that they look the most like, Baylor, then I suspect that TCU will be back to its SWC form in less than 5 years. Then again, TCU has the Metroplex to recruit kids to stay closer to home while still being a big city environment, unlike Baylor, and FW really supports TCU as its home-town team, which it didn't really start doing until after the SWC broke up and TCU started winning again. If TCU falls back down, to a Baylor-like level (basically any Baylor season in the Big XII minus the RGIII Heisman year), SMU falls back to its regular place of the last 25 years, and North Texas rises to a place it hasn't seen in the past 35 years, you could see a situation come into play where UNT could be attractive to other schools to have us included in a "new highest level" of college football.--Believe it or not, I actually think this could happen, and actually it could happen faster than anyone could ever imagine if the right things happened in Denton, while the wrong things happened in DFW!!

I'll state the obvious first: other than TCU, no one won bigger than North Texas and UTSA in the current realignment. And, if you want the truth, no one other than TCU and Utah made out better than UNT and UTSA. We finally get some teams people have heard of as conference mates and in a league that people know of. A huge and obvious win for UNT's future--assuming we can actually take advantage of this all. As far as the old and new Big XII, I think A&M has a shot at making it big in the SEC if they get their coaching situation right. Sumlin might be the guy, but he may just be a continuation of Franchione and Sherman. I know this--if Texas still finishes behind OU, OSU, and another Texas team (TCU, Baylor, or Tech), the recruiting advantage of the SEC could become even bigger for the Aggies. A&M may fail big time in the SEC--like they pretty much did in the Big XII--but they could also find that Texas HS kids want to play in the SEC while being somewhat close to home. I still think Texas and Oklahoma will do great, but if one falls down and the Aggies step up, you could see A&M get kids that normally went to Austin or Norman. I think TCU will do fine in the Big XII. They are better positioned for success long-term than Baylor or Tech, assuming Gary Patterson stays as their coach. Baylor did great with their once-in-a-lifetime recruit (RG III), but otherwise, they have purely sucked for the better part of 15 years. Tech's greatness under Leach appears to be clearly over, and they know have a MEtroplex team in their league to compete with for kids that they were able to get before. Metroplex kids that were 3-4 stars usually chose the Big XII team over TCU because of the league--now, that advantage is gone for Tech and Baylor. TCU will be fine. I think that Mizzou will be the big loser here. Not in money, of course, but they got really good playing a relatively weak north shcedule, all while reeling in lots of Texas HS talent. Now that they have joined the SEC, they will play A&M in College Station once every 6 years or so. In other words, they will now look a lot like Arkansas did after their Texas scheduling went away. Missouri, as a state, has some talent, and they are the only game in the state, but I don't see that playing out very well for them W/L wise, which will hurt recruiting. West Virginia will do very well in the Big XII--like winning multiple conference championships in the next 5 years. They might be the biggest challenger to the Texas/OU combo in the league, more than OSU. As a matter of fact, I want to see OSU do it again, because I am astill not completely sold on Mike Gundy. Last year was great, for sure, but let's see if that can happen again. Much like Tech under Leach, they had one great year, and have never really been heard from again.

Tech is doing what they always do with their schedule. Play some non-OOC team in Texas that they can beat, until they can't beat them anymore. Look at the teams they have scheduled and then stopped playing over the years in the state. North Texas, beat them twice--really it should have been three times with no thanks to LaDarrin McLane, TCU, who they got shutout by in Ft. Worth a few years ago and then cancelled a game with them last year because, in the words of Tommy Tuberville, "TCU is not kind of team we need to be playing right now.", and UH which beat them a few years ago in Houston. Now that Texas State and UTSA are around, they will get games with Tech for the next decade. Just after we beat them often in that series we played them, they quickly scheduled SMU, who regularly got their clocks cleaned by Tech. Now that SMU is good, they aren't on Tech's schedule anymore. Its just what the sand fleas do...schedule weak as possible in OOC and then beat 4-5 teams in conference and go to a bowl game with a 7-5 or 8-4 record. Its the same old thing every years with them.

Tulsa has been a winner for a while now, so they have that on their side, unlike ourselves. Plus, the city of Tulsa has a lot of Sooners and Cowboys in it, so they give those alums a game in their city every so often. Think of it as the way Texas gives Rice a game in Houston every two years, which is really a gift to the Houston fans. Texas doesn't have to do that up here in Dallas because of the Texas-OU game every year. Basically, Tech has that now, too, with their annual Metroplex game against Baylor. A&M is a whole other ball of wax, though. they have been frozen out of playing fellow Texas schools in the Big XII due to their defection to the SEC. This year, SMU is hosting the Aggies. A&M is very close to Houston, so they don't need any exposure down there, but up here is another story, especially since they will now play Arkansas home-and-home instead of at JerryWorld. If I were RV, I would be on the horn with the A&M AD immediately to talk about a series. The Aggies are going to need exposure up here, since they won't be playing other Texas teams in conference anymore. Sure, they could play Rice or UH, but that isn't a market they need to stay in, since they are an hour and a half away. UTEP probably isn't an option for them, either. But games against SMU and UNT here and UTSA or Texas State could be very reasonable options for the Aggies.

What an outstanding thread. Great historical perspective of our place in Texas Football. It really does paint a picture of just how destructive we were to ourselves, athletically-speaking. Not getting to play teams in the SWC at home was just a killer to public perception, just as it has been since. Its always been interesting to me how when North Texas has played big game opponents, that our crowds at those places are big. Hearing about 10k going to Austin back in 1976 for a game when a home game in the same season against Texas-Arlington probably didn't draw 10k, just explains even further how much of a mountain we have faced. I think about when we have played at SMU, TCU, Baylor, Texas, Tech, or in NO Bowls and seen the large amounts of green in the stands and immediately think, "For many conference games, there haven't been this many people even around Fouts on gameday, much less in the stands." Back then, though, the state of Texas was so SWC-centric, that those great NTSU teams probably weren't ever going to get their due from anyone (local and state-wide media, local fans, even the students and alumni of the time). Just thinking back to the SWC from 1977-1986, Texas, Arkansas, Houston, SMU, A&M, and Baylor had teams that were top ten caliber teams at different times. Even getting ranked back then for us still got glossed over when there were other Texas teams in the SWC ahead of you, playing against each other. I think it was great that Fry and Nolen tried to get us in their club, but I don't think we ever really had a prayer. The private schools weren't going to take another big public school, especially since UH had recently joined, and there wasn't going to enough support from the other public schools in the SWC to add someone who didn't really expand the market. There was no media attention or pressure, either, along with the fact that we have never had a presence of note in the legislature to help us along. To me, the story of North Texas athletics will still come down to the realization that our leaders allowed us to go down to 1-aa and kept us there for that long.We couldn't get people to show up for games against UTA or West Texas State, why would they show up for a game against even smaller Texas schools from even smaller towns (SFA and SHSU are prime examples here.) Sure, al of those SLC schools had alumni bigger than most of the SWC privates, but there wasn't anything compelling to anyone in the Metroplex to go watch UNT play Southwest Texas State at Fouts, especially when a Top Ten matchup between Texas and SMU was being played down the road. I think had we not dropped down or had we at least bounced back up to i-a quicker, basically following the path of Tulsa or Louisiana Tech, we would have never known the Sun Belt Conference existed, much like everyone else in America. We would have been in the WAC or CUSA during the 80s and 90s. Plus, we wouldn't have allowed ourselves to feel like Fouts was acceptable for our university. And we would have never lost 30 years of fans who could have cared less about SLC, Big West, or SBC schools, especially to watch them in a toilet of a stadium. I love that we finally have gotten in CUSA and we have Texas teams and Tulsa, La Tech, and Tulane in our league now. Its a huge step up for sure. People will go watch UNT play Louisiana Tech at Apogee, when we know that getting them to watch us play Louisiana-Monroe at Fouts was never going to happen at a decent level. People here know Tulsa, even if its a small school, because they are a name that Texas fans know and we know alums of their school. Nobody here knows anything significant about Troy, even if they were decent in football. I think there is still time for our university to make some serious strides in the world of college football that would entrench us as members of the top division of college football for years to come. But we have got to start winning again. Losing seasons are even harder to swallow for UNT in today's college world, as the shift of major division football and smaller divisions is about to get rolling again, probably in small steps. The SBC and WAC are most susceptible to being dropped first. But lower rung CUSA, MWC, and Big East schools will eventually get on that chopping block too. We got to CUSA because of size and market, plain and simple. But to assure ourselves of being included at the top levels of FBS for decades to come, we will have to do some winning at a high level (winning divisions, conferences, and bowl games) to show the rest of the world we belong up there. And it would probably do something way into the future that most of us could only dream about--actually having old SWC public schools show an interest in having us as conference mates one day because our programs are strong, our market stays big, and our academics keep getting better. Right now, and probably 20 years into the future, no Big XII school (Current or past) would be able to tell their fans that they want to have us as conference mates--it would not be received well at all, even if we started winning right now. But if we became a school like Southern Miss or East Carolina, ones that regularly finish ranked and have developed a great reputation as a threat, maybe the folks in Austin and Lubbock and Houston and Norman say to themselves, "Why wouldn't we want a strong public school in DFW with us in our conference that brings more people than TCU or Baylor do to games and we get more viewers than the private schools bring when we play North Texas?" Granted, this is a pipedream, especially in today's college football world and with our pecking order within this region of the US, but it isn't an acid-trip either. If college football becomes semi-pro bal for the Top 40-50 schools in the country, then this all changes and it wouldn't have mattered at all anyway. But until that possible nightmare actually becomes a certain reality, we have our chance. And really, it starts now. Win the podunk SBC and the NO Bowl one last time, go to CUSA with momentum and compete for a division championship and a bowl again, build yourself into a scary OOC opponent for the current Big 5 conferences--this is the Southern Miss, East Carolina, TCU, Utah, South Florida, Central Florida, Boise State, etc..model that has helped them become household names. Realistically, we never had a chance at that before now, but times and attitudes change--it can be done here now and be sustainable. But the key is now--it has to start NOW!!

I don't have a name for you, but the fact that he has literally been wrong on everything related to realignment, yet continues to throw stuff out there like he has the answers, is just really annoying to me.

As many have stated, this is the final salvo to the Big 4 conferences essentially becoming the new FBS and the rest of us all being relegated to the minors. And, as I will get to in a bit, I'm not sure that is such a bad thing, either. But, as far as this speculation goes, I think the SEC basically decided that it was going to give back to the Big XII for taking two strong members and at the same time, weaken the ACC so much, that the teams that they do compete with currently in the same markets (Clemson, FSU, Ga Tech, and Miami) will bolt to the the next best league, which is stil much weaker than the SEC. Then, with it all done, the SEC gets to add the programs it really wants from the ACC--basically UNC, NC State, Va Tech, and Maryland. It gives them new TV markets to expand, too, all with programs that are solid in the two main revenue sports. I never imagined that the Big XII would make it, but it appears that the SEC has basically made it clear that the Big XII will be the conference that stays, not the ACC. I think we will see 4 conferences of 18 teams, those conferences will have two divisions that play every team in it (8 games), plus two games in the other division, and then play 2 non-conference games. Basically, with the new setup, losing in pre-conference won't hurt like it does today, since a playoff will be in place for the Super 4, so I don't see any scheduling outside of the Super 4 (72 teams) anymore, unless its against a military academy. Obviously, this will become the new system, and it will lock out the rest of us. But, if the NCAA lets this happen, in part, so that it can save the NCAA Tournaments and the College World Series, where it draws most of its funding and interest from, I think it may not be as bad as it sounds to guys like us. For better or worse, there is no way that we could ever compete year-in and year-out with the NFL-lite programs and their combination of funding, fan support and interest across the country, and tradition. And, btw, neither can the SMUs, Houstons, La Techs, UTEPS, or Tulsas of the college world, keep up with it all, either. And, some programs that will initially be in the Super 4, such as Baylor, TCU, Tech, Iowa State, Vandy, Mississippi State, Washington State, etc..won't be able to compete with the top end, either, and they won't have weaker competition to schedule outside of their conference to mask that reality anymore (see Texas Tech's OOC for the last 10 years). So, in the meantime, those not chosen to be included will still have the ability to show that they can have a program that could replace one of the weaker sisters of the Super 4. Its not hard to conceive a situation where Boise State replaces Wazzou, South Florida replaces Vandy, or Houston replaced TCU if those included teams fall backwards in a big way (think Baylor for all but the RG III years in the Big XII). Even if we play in a level that is not Supreme BS 4 or whatever they will be, as long as we are in a regional conference with other schools that Texans know and care about, we will be ok. I believe that UNT fans will still go watch a game against Tulsa, UTEP, New Mexico, La Tech, SMU, Rice, Tulane, etc..,even if we are not considered as "major" level, because we never have been included in a major setup. Getting to play those schools I just mentioned is a GIANT step up from what we have asked our fans to tolerate for the last 30 years. Our level of being non-AQ is basically ignored by the big media anyway, so if we have our own unique setup for conference play and playoffs, it might be enough to create interest beyond anything we currently have with non-AQs playing each other in some non-chalant bowl game in December or early January that doesn't draw much interest beyond the schools playing. Our future is still brighter than it has been since the late 70s because our school finally decided to fund a decent Athletic Department. Nothing that a Super 4 setup will create changes what we need to do and can still do over the course of the next 20 years.

ONe thing you can be sure of about Chip (Mack) Brown--whatever he speculates, the exact opposite will occur. Never have I seen someone so wrong in my life about all things realignment. Some of Chimp's best work on the subject: "Its a done deal. UT, Tech, OU, OSU, and A&M to the Pac-whatever" in summer of 2010. "Absolutely no way the Aggies can leave Texas behind and go to the SEC. No way that ever happens." Last summer "Texas, OU, Tech, and OSU to the Pac-16--the LHN will be used as a conference network." Last year "Look for Notre Dame and Arkansas to join the Big XII soon...ok, maybe BYU...ok, maybe Louisville..." They got TCU and WVU This guy absolutely is the anti-Nostradamus of Conference Realignment, but I gotta hand it to the guy--he's a volume poster and one of these days, whatever DeLoss tells him to throw out there will be right.

IIRC, I believe that the buyout clause is always built into the contract if one party cancels the game/series. Since we know money is no problem down there, I'm sure we will see an announcement at some point over the next year saying that they want to play a more recognizable opponent that their fans want to see them play, or some other bs. I have never believed for a moment that we will see that series get played out, other than maybe a home-and-home. At least we are supposed to play at home first. Otherwise, I could have easily seen them host the first one, then pay off the rest of the schedueld series. The one caveat to all of this is if we suck, then the series will get played, no questions answered. Since the Death Penalty, the only times they have played us is when they needed a recognizable game against a weak UNT team. Look at those games: 1989-1992, we played three games (two in Dallas, one in Denton) while we were i-aa (90 scholarships to our 65) and not again until 2006-2007 (when we were obviously dropped down as a program and they were just praying for .500). When we have been decent and begged them to play (see Safeway Parking Lot reference), we got nothing in response. When we were making our way in the SBC and actually winning the conference for four years in a row from 2001-2004, look at who we played from 2001-2005 (the season after our run ended, but games scheduled OOC were made while we were winning), we played TCU twice, Baylor twice, Tech, Arkansas, A&M, UT (twice), Tulsa, and La Tech. Granted, we didn't play Houston, Rice, or UTEP either during that timeframe, but we made it very clear that we wanted to play SMU. It took Phil Bennett and Darrell Dickey's friendship to put it all together--and it probably didn't help Phil Bennett that he lost to us and then barely hung on to beat a Todd Dodge-coached UNT team for his only win in his last season on the Hilltop. Both of those years, the attendance at both games was very high compared to the rest of the schedule. Since the series basically got scheduled the season before we played in 2006, it wasn't as if you could use the excuse of not being able to schedule a game. Heck, SMU beat Texas State in its only win in June Jones' first year there in 2008 and they played SFA at home, as well, the next year, IIRC. I understand that they like playing TCU beacuse of the rivalry and it being in the Metroplex, but I still think that it is obvious that they have only scheduled us when it is good for them. And if they cancel even one game against in this upcoming series, I wouldn't play those people ever again and I would immediately talk to UH, TCU, and Baylor about starting a series.

I will be shocked if we play even one game of that scheduled series with SMU in a few years. Just watch.

It would be beyond nice for us to finally show up big in one of these big games we get play every now and then. When we play a road game against a ranked opponent, it usually is just brutal. It would be great if, just this once, we actually competed for 40 minutes. Heck, even if we lose, just keep it under 5. I get tired of these "opportunity" games in basketball being double digit losses.

I think that its funny that this link was thrown out there as a troll (by a troll) to get people fired up around here. It sounds as if this report isn't even close to correct for our records, but even if it was dead-on right, who f---ing cares? We got what we wanted in the last three years--new stadium, new coach, new conference. I don't care if we were dead-ass last on that list, because the results are about as good as we could have dreamed of just five years ago. In 2006, when this "report" started, we fired a coach who hated his job here and hated the fans while providing us with the best three rushing plays-and-punt offense imaginable. We then hired a HS coach, in part, because we couldn't fully pay a decent coach while paying off the old one and were still being run as a school who looked at funding athletics like I look at jumping out of a window. We played conference games against nobody from Texas and against "powers" from the SBC. And, worst of all, we played in a toilet of a stadium, which was literally an albatross on the program. By 2011, every one of those hurdles have been cleared for our future. After we finish off 2012's SBC schedule, its off to CUSA and its friendly locales for fans to travel and build up a rivalry or two with. We have a great ambassador in Dan McCarney, who also happens to be a very solid football coach. And, of course, we have Apogee, which is just incredible. Our future is so much brighter than this dark period covered. Truly, it appears that it is the darkest just before the dawn. No more Dickey, Dodge, Big West, SBC, Fouts, lack of local rivalries, etc...And if I were an alum of Texas State, UTA, UTD, Collin County Community College, or some other place that I took classes at because UNT "did me wrong", I would be very bitter, too, at UNT's movement in the last three years. And if I tried to fool everyone into believeing that I was a SMU fan, I, too, would try to make UNT's progress seem as poor as possible, since I actually know that UNT's progress in the last three years alone shows everyone that if the university decides that they want to be a bigger player in college football, that would only hurt SMU's future, not help it in any way, shape, or form. GL2Spareness is a great troll, but I respond to this because I want the rest of GMG to recognize just how bright the future is getting here at UNT-Denton!!

Quality is a relative term when it comes to college sports. It can cover TV markets, winning, tradition, attendance, etc... The factors that lead to the big 5 conferences getting massive TV deals is that those leagues have the ultimate combination of all four concepts covered. A lot of it, too, involves political ties, cash, and location, but the "rich get richer" always applies here. What is the hardest part to define as quality is conference members themselves. North Texas would love to be in a conference with SMU, but SMU literally wants nothing to do with that. However, SMU would love to be conference mates with TCU, who has made it clear that they have no interest in that, as TCU pretty quickly broke ties with all of the non-Big 12 SWC teams as confernence mates. Baylor didn't want TCU in the Big 12, but they didn't have anyone else to back them up on that, so Baylor had to deal with the fact that TCU is now in the conference that they have used against them in recruiting for the last 15+ years. If the Big 12 kept A&M and Mizzou, much less Nebraska and Colorado, is there any doubt that the "quality" of that league would be much more than it is today, even though they just signed a record TV contract? The sets of eyeballs would have kept the Big 12 at a level similar to the "quality" of the big 10, Pac-12, ACC, and SEC. Its funny how the pecking order builds up in college sports. No Big 12 institution would have considered TCU quality until they won the Rose Bowl and an opening came available that would strengthen the conference. Otherwise, the Texas schools in the Big 12 always looked down on TCU, SMU, UH, and Rice. UH and SMU would do anything for a Big 12 invite one day, but the Texas schools currently in the Big 12 look down on those two, even though they are in two huge markets. What one views as quality often gets seen as having little worth to another.

I do believe that the Big East splitting up to basketball-only schools will happen sooner rather than later. Those that play football in the NE (Uconn and Rutgers) will be going to either the Big Ten or the ACC. Louisville, USF, and Cincinnati will have a home somewhere in the ACC or Big 12. Boise State and SDSU will go back to the MWC. The others that remain will probably be forced to start a new conference. To me, that will be terrible for CUSA/UNT. Those old CUSA teams (Tulane, Tulsa, USM, ECU, Marshall, and UAB) would love to get into a league with SMU, UH, Memphis, UCF, Temple, and Navy. Basically, we would have to replace those schools with SBC schools or FCS schools to get back up again. The only saving grace would be continuing to have Texas and Louisiana schools in our conference. UTEP, UTSA, Rice, La Tech, and maybe ULL and Texas State would still be conference mates in the same division, hopefully. I don't think Rice will get any consideration to move up because of UH, so that would help the other Texas/LA schools to keep a presence in Houston. But, make no mistake about it, I don't want this split to occur on basketball/football programs for the Big East. It would hurt CUSA, as it currently stands, very badly. I want that conglomeration to remain a league, but see some of the members leave becasue the AQ goes away. Boise is the best team over there, but they should be out west and that will happen, just like it will for SDSU. Rutgers and UConn will get gobbled up sooner rather than later, and Louisville wants out badly now. But, hopefully, with the Big12 and the ACC signing new deals, those schools will have to stay in the Big East for a few more years. Then, maybe things work out to where we finally start winning and getting strong attendance numbers in both money sports, which leads to us finally leap-frogging SMU in terms of value to a conference. SMUs history and cash get a lot of media coverage to this day--even ESPN used the Death Penalty thing to give SMU a free commercial on how the program has "risen" from the ashes in that 30 for 30 episode. But their attendance for games against opponents that Texans don't care much about has really been awful for as long as ours has. Without a connection to local fans and with small alumni and student bodies, SMUs ceiling is almost being reached right now. TCU has them blocked for anything bigger than their current conference setup. They cannot compete with the "potential" that we have because of our alumni base, student body, and Denton's size--granted UNT has done relatively nothing to gain on that potential, but it exists. If we were to win a conference championship or two in the next 5 seasons, and it led to a ranking and attendance that averaged around 25k, we would absolutely leap-frog them. June Jones is trying to get out of there right now--he knows that the long-term viability at SMU is not something that is sustainable. Even having winning seasons there recently have produced very little in attendance. Now that we won't have to play SBC teams every year, after this season, lets see how attendance starts to look. Playing a game against Southern Mississippi or East Carolina is a lot different from playing Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee. If we can do what we want to do in CUSA, the rest of this stuff will take care of itself, both media-wise and in conference affiliation.