untjim1995

. . . . . . . To me, the WAC looks good for UNT if the following occur with it: We move with another Texas school--preferably UTSA, but also would like to see ULL and Texas State move there, too. That would make the WAC look like this: W-WAC= Hawaii, SJSU, Fresno, Idaho, Utah State, Nevada E-WAC= NMSU, Texas State, UTSA, UNT, La Tech, and ULL This would be a good regional division for UNT with schools that are very similar to us and would provide great travel for fans. The games against the W-WAC wouldn't be too fun to travel for, but neither is traveling to eastern SBC cities. The biggest fear for me in this is if the MWC does take Boise, which is basically going to replace Utah going to the Pac-10. If this happened, the MWC would be back to 9 teams. You could see a scenario play out where they take three other teams from eiter the WAC or CUSA. Imagine that we join the WAC, then see the WAC lose Fresno and Nevada, and then CUSA loses SMU, UTEP, or UH to the MWC. All of a sudden, we are stuck in the WAC without any of the big names to the west, and then CUSA has a spot open up that La Tech fills up. That would stink, but I really do think that are best plan for now is to get into a conference with those two Texas starups and try to become a trio of programs that grow together and move together down the road.

I tend to agree with a lot of your points here, but there is almost zero chance that Boise State will stay in the WAC. The MWC only has 9 teams as it stands now and if Utah/BYU leave, Boise will be the first pick up. I even believe Boise will move to the MWC no matter what, but that will get sped forward if BSU is playing for the MNC this season, which is very possible. Just for argument's sake, if Boise, Fresno, and Nevada left to join a new MWC, the WAC would be left with Hawaii, San Jose State, Idaho, Utah State, New Mexico State, and La Tech, which is apparently a top target of CUSA's next expansion. I just can't tell what league would be better for us, a watered-down WAC that looks like the old Big West, or the SBC, which could very well lose MTSU, FAU, or WKU to another conference. I do know that am 100% convinced we won't be in CUSA as long as SMU is there. The other schools feel that the DFW market is covered with SMU. It is also why I can see UTSA eventually moving into CUSA down the road because that is a large TV market to sell to a network that is interested in gaining broadcast rights.

If Memphis, UCF, and ECU go to a revamped Big East, I would expect CUSA would immediately replace with MTSU, FAU, and La Tech. That gives them more TV markets to sell to a network and it gives them exposure in areas that they still want to be in. One thing that this could do, though, is if Boise State, Fresno State and La Tech leave the WAC, an Eastern move to the WAC with ULL and Ark State might still be available for us. That would give us this new conference lineup: UNT, ULL, ASU, NMSU, Hawaii, Utah State, SJSU, Idaho, Nevada That compares with an SBC that would look like this if MUTS and FAU leave: UNT, ASU, ULL, ULM, WKU, USA, FIU, and Troy Which of those two possibilities is better? Nevada and Hawaii have been good in the WAC, while Troy has been good in the SBC. All of those teams are far away, but I guess the SBC has the time zone advantage, but the WAC has the prestige advantage. I don't know which one looks better for UNT.

. . This link lets everyone know what we are dealing with here. You can blame ESPN for being lazy, but this only adds fuel to the fire, IMHO. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=5214108

. . . . . . . I agree with the post about needing to move up from the SBC, but my question goes back to this: if we can't move on to another conference, what is the long-term effect on our program? Can we continue making strides as a program in ten years if we don't share a conference with any Texas school? Or is the SBC capable of passing CUSA eventually as a better conference over a longer time frame?

. . . . . . . . . . . Reading over the various possibilities on this subject has been extremely interesting to say the least, but it also has me wondering what would happen if the next big expansions involve the BCS conferences capping at 64, thus the rest of Division 1-A being left to sort of be the "minors" of college athletics . If this happens, and we don't get into an improved conference setup (i.e. a new SWC/CUSA league with more regional teams located in Texas), what does UNT's future look like for the next 20 years or so? We have made up so much ground since we got out of 1-AA purgatory, but would this scenario send us back to that level again if we are still in the SBC? Personally, I like the SBC for us right now and have enjoyed it very much, because it has been a place for us to build something up from the ashes, but I also realize that our athletic future of moving upward really does involve being in a conference with better names than what we have now. But my question is if we are left behind in this all, what does that mean for us? Does that force us to go the WAC, even though Boise and Fresno are probably gone? That would basically be a return to the Big West days, which didn't seem to work for anyone east of the Rockies. Does it mean we just have to come to terms with being in the SBC with the current teams, minus a team or two to the east that could potentially get gobbled up (MTSU, FAU, or WKU) which get replaced by programs moving up like USA, UTSA, and Texas State? As a UNT alum and fan, it is just hard to figure out what our "worst-case" scenario would be and how it would affect our university's support for athletics. We have just made so much progress in the last 15 years and I don't want it to get wiped away again over the next 15 years.

I completely agree with you on this

If the SEC expands, it will be with big-time BCS programs. If they expanded, they would probably get current ACC teams or non-Texas Big XII teams. I don't believe that Texas or A&M will ever got to the SEC. The academics over there just don't match up, and the Big Ten and the Pac-10 would give them both excellent inroads both athletically and academically. Remember, especially in the Big Ten's case, the research funding dwarfs the money raised even by a huge TV contract. UT and A&M would fit perfectly in both cases. I would expect, however, to see the Okie schools to be on the SEC's radar, along with schools like Florida State, Miami, Clemson, or Georgia Tech. No matter what happens though with the Texas schools, I still don't see where the state would allow any other school to join a league that has equal or greater name value than the conference where UT sits. Back in the early 90s, the SEC wanted Texas, who quickly said no, so they decided to go after A&M and Houston. The Texas legislature though made it clear that the two big programs (UT and A&M) are stuck together like siamese twins. So where one goes, so goes the other. But what about UH? They were ready to go to the SEC, but nope, that ended quick. And, of course, the SWC broke up and UH got left behind just like Rice, TCU, and SMU. You see, it is all about power in the legislature--and that power is from UT and A&M predominantly (see PUF dollars)and they weren't going to let UH join a league that they could surpass the big two from. Imagine if UH had gotten into the SEC back then and were the only Texas school in that league--they would be at least better off than A&M and maybe even Texas today, with that rich SEC TV contract and all of the bowl money. I just don't see a scenario at play where another Texas school will get into this new Super BCS, except for Tech possibly, but even if they get protected again, it will be due to the fact that they will be in the same big conference as the other two. I just don't see any way that another Texas school will ever be allowed to join a league that could give them a chance to "surpass" the big guys. Just my $.02 but history is on my side on this one. I agree that TCU and UH will probably be in a league together again, but it won't be in a Super BCS-type conference. This separation of the Haves and Have-Nots looks like it will be swift and it will hurt some feelings again, just this time it will be others looking in from the outside (see Baylor, possibly Tech) who laughed at those who they left behind 15 years ago.

I think this is an interesting topic for many reasons. One, it really it hits home on the mountain that UNT faces with the other current Division-1 teams in Texas. The Big XII teams in Texas probably won't play here again, even with a new stadium, because of Jerry World and the Cotton Bowl aggressively hosting games for them. The non-AQ teams that have something, like TCU and UH, have no interest in playing us becasue the benefit just really isn't there for them if they win big versus the huge cost of a loss or close win. As a matter of fact, when we lost at TCU 16-10 back in 2002, their fans at Amon Carter were really bad-mouthing their AD for scheduling that game. But, with teams like Rice or SMU, which have been trying to gain traction and get butts in the seats, UNT has been a good team to schedule. UTEP could certainly fit in with them, too. To me, though, this is why I think extending a hand to UTSA or Texas State to get in the SBC would pay huge dividends for our future. We can get an in-state rivalry going finally and try and schedule OOC with other schools like NMSU, Tulsa, or LA Tech again to fill in the schedule. I also think that you could get a lower-tier Big Ten, PAC-10, ACC, or MWC team to come this way. If I were RV, I would also be on the horn with Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada today to schedule a series. These teams have solid name recognition, esepcially Boise, and those teams would love some Texas exposure. We have to get creative here, but it is going to be easier to draw quality OOC teams from outside of Texas with our new stadium. Looking at the WAC is great because they don't come to the Metroplex like CUSA or MWC teams already do. If we had an OOC schedule of SMU/Rice/UTEP, one of the other "local" non-AQ teams I mentioned earlier, one of those WAC teams or a BCS lower-tier team, and one money game, I think that would look pretty good to most of us.

I couldn't agree more with you on that point of scheduling and attendance. The difference is, though, that Tech has always gotten included--we haven't. Why? Their alumni and students all support their school, in both attendance and $$$. Plus, although they have no conference championships to show for it, they have competed very well with those big names you listed. It all goes back to why is it that a school in the middle-of-nowhere has been able to do so well over time and ours hasn't. Tech's best case scenario is being included in the Super BCS that is about to form, while their worst case is being in a reformed MWC/Big XII that doesn't include Texas, A&M, or OU. Our best case is that a reworked Big XII/MWC makes an opening available within CUSA, while the worst case is staying put in an SBC that loses MTSU, FAU, or someone else. The answers lie somewhere in the middle, and I dislike Tech more than most, but its mostly because they have been "taken care of" by the other Texas schools, while we have never been given the chance in the last 50+ years to even be associated in a league with any other Division-1 school in Texas. And based on Vito's blog about SMU, it doesn't appear that this has changed one bit.

Tech is much more well-known now than it ever was prior to Leach getting there. Its funny how athletic success out in West Texas has brought them so much in attendance, endowment support, and just more TV appearances by hiring Leach and Bob Knight. I realize both are now gone and that both of their sports could very well fall back to where they used to always be, but, again, the bigger point is that their students, alumni, and city care about their school--ours overwhelmingly don't. As far as the SEC extending out this way, it will be real simple. The SEC will get two schools from 2 of these states: Texas, Oklahoma, or Florida. I think the SEC would like to expand into Florida by adding FSU and Miami and expand into Texas with UT and A&M. UT may look down their noses at the SEC, though, because of academics, which means A&M won't go either. Well, the SEC could just go to OU and OSU and expand there if neither Texas or A&M come over. Heck, they could even add one of those Oklahoma schools and add Kansas to get a basketball power and the KC market for more exposure. ONe of the better scenarios of hope for UNT is that the Big XII loses the two Texas schools, but no one else, other than another Northern school, like Mizzou, Colorado, or Nebraska. That would make the remianing Big XII take a look at UH and TCU to get coverage in Texas again. Then CUSA decides to replace UH with UNT because UTEP would be the only large Texas school left in their conference. That scenario is very possible. Otherwise, I think that the SBC will be our home for many years to come, which if it adds UTSA and Texas State eventually, would not be a bad league at all, especially if we can finally get some other in-state schools that we could build a rivalry with and have easier travel for our fans to go and see.

Here is the reality about conference expansion and the state of Texas. To TV and conference big-wigs, in Texas and out of Texas, these three schools matter--UT, A&M, and Tech. (I hate that last name, big-time, but I am jealous of how they used their location to get kids to go out there to school and actually become loyal students and alumni, thus, they get into the SWC and Big XII.) The first two schools are academically superior, which is appealing to big conferences, and Tech will probably be the recipient of the state's plan to move another school up to Tier One, since they have the enrollment, alumni support, and endowment to move up with the most ease. UH, UTEP, and especially UNT, as well as the private schools in the state cannot give the same thing that the other three do. If it wasn't the case, then CUSA and even the MWC would be huge in this state, since it has 5 other schools from Texas already in it. It takes TCU to be a top five team to even get notice in their own town and even then, the MWC is just so remote that the typical fan that only cares about BCS teams doesn't tune in to their games. CUSA is barely above the SBC as a football conference, if at all, yet that league is full of schools that want nothing to do with UNT being in their league, at least they have been that way for the last 50 years or so. Besides, we have proven many times that the Sun Belt is more than enough for us. Even when we won big in the SBC, we rarely stepped out in OOC and made a statement that the national--heck, even regional--media took notice of. It is what it is here at UNT. We made our own bed the same way for decades, athletically, and really, we still are making it pretty much the same way, although the tailgating has helped bring in more fans. We pay our coach about 10 times less than the other local schools, and we finally get a student increase in fees that will just catch up to the rates that UTSA and Lamar fund. The poster who mentioned that we are probably a generation away from being in a conference that has colleges with name value to Texas residents seems dead-on to me.

And some people are like moths to a flame when ANYTHING political gets posted... LOL!!

. . . . . . . . . . . .. I, too, believe that ND will end up in the B10. I also believe that Pitt and Rutgers will, too. The Big East responds by adding Memphis, ECU, and UCF. The SEC will also add some teams to their footprint--this is where I believe that FSU and Miami will end up going. That leads the ACC to add USF and WVU. This makes the PAC-10 get Utah and Colorado. The Big XII then goes and gets BYU. The MWC goes and gets Boise State, Fresno State, Nevada, UTEP, and UH to become a 12 team conference. CUSA has now been hammered, losing ECU, Memphis, UCF, UH, and UTEP. The WAC also has been crushed, as they lose BSU, FSU, and Nevada. This leads to the WAC getting the two Montana schools to move up and asking UTSA to join in 2012. CUSA, now has the following members: Marshall, SMU, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, USM, and UAB. Marshall decides that the MAC makes more sense for them, which gives the MAC 14 teams. CUSA then needs to fill in some holes, so they then ask the following teams to join: La Tech, UNT, ULL, Ark State, MUTS, and WKU. That's how the dominoes will fall...maybe? By the way, I expect the pull-out from the NCAA to happen very soon by the BCS teams and conferences. Whether that includes the MWC or the Big East is still to be determined.

same thing happened to Fry back in the 70s, too. attendance just killed us back then, too

This is typical class from you clowns

Hey, you told us to MARK IT DOWN that we would be a 14 seed!! I kid, I kid--and I agree, we got hosed compared to the 14s above us, especially SHSU.

I was driving along today and trying to hear some college hoops talk. Suffice to say, the only station doing any talking about college hoops was The Fan. 105.3 really sucks and the guy on at 2:30 really is an idiot. He claims that Unt doesn't belong and that we will lose by 50 against a team like Kansas in the first round. He takes a call and a listener tries to say the great thing about the tournament is that the little guy gets his chance. This blowhard wanted nothing to do with that and says that Nebraska is better than any Sun Belt school and if they don't expand soon to 96, then Nebraska should join the Sun Belt and go dancing every year. It was at this point that I turned it off. After the DMN basically ran us down and didn't even cover the SBC tournament, I wonder if we will ever get a fair shake with that bunch. The Ticket basically laughs at Georgio for his UNT fandom, The DMN is a shill for the Big XII & SMU, and the local TV stations only cover UNT when no other local schools are playing. Is just how it will be because of us being out of the SWC or is it because our alumni just haven't ever given these outlets a reason to change? It's just very frustrating to me and I wonder what other dans think about this. I know that winning COULD change this all, but I am not convinced that would really change this all unless we went to the Sweet Sixteen. We never got much attention when we won the NO Bowl, or at least enough to make me believe that the local media will ever look at us as anything other than pissant North Texas. I just hate it but I wonder if we just have to continue to deal with because we are in Denton and not in a Texas-based conference like the other schools in the state?

I hope you're right about that last part, but then again, I thought the current situation would have amde some of that consolidation already occur. It just amazes me how much some of these schools look down on others that really would help them on a lot of fronts. I think about the obvious ones, such as Baylor and Tech looking down on TCU, while TCU looks down at SMU, who looks down on us. But UTEP wants nothing to do with New Mexico State and La Tech wants nothing to do with ULM. If these scholls and alums could just see past some of this, you could have some very good conferences that are aligned more appropriately. I guess TV sets is the big driver these days, though. And I guess TCU and SMU are more closely aligned in football with the DFW media then we are. We have big improvements over the last 15 years, but there are lots of hurdles still in the way for us to be in the conference that would benefit UNT the most.

Your are dead on about that last part concerning a historical power--in both football and basketball. OU, Nebraska, and Kansas may be smaller states in population, but their programs are national names that get attention, even when they are down. The teams in the Big XII that will be fine even if the conference implodes will be UT, A&M, OU, CU, KU, MU, and NU. I would then guess that teams like KSU, ISU, OSU, Baylor, and Tech could get left behind in a realignment of a new BCS. Tech and OSU have a few advantages in that Tech does have Texas market appeal and decent size of student and alumni, while OSU has T. Boone. It will definitely be interesting if Baylor and Tech got left behind in all of this if they would "stoop" down to be in a conference with TCU, UH, SMU, Rice, and UTEP. They may not have a choice.

Sarcasm is hard stuff sometimes.

In the Big XII, as it stands now, you have the following schools that others would find major benfeits in adding: Texas, A&M, OU, KU, MU, CU, and Nebraska. They either have great traditional programs in men's hoops or football or they carry good size TV markets. Eventually, this whole thing will turn into Mega-conferences and some of the lower level BCS schools will also get left behind (i.e. Baylor, Iowa State, Vandy, etc.) I truly believe that the top 60 programs will separate themselves within the next decade, but I don't know if that will be within the framework of the NCAA or as an outside governing body. The next 60-75 schools will probably stay within the framework of the NCAA, similar to the FCS vs FBS setup now, but it will be that way for all sports. Again, the top 60 might look like this: Washington Texas Michigan Arkansas Kentucky West Virginia Oregon Texas A&M Michigan State LSU Tennessee Pitt Stanford Oklahoma Wisconsin Alabama South Carolina Rutgers California Oklahoma State Indiana Auburn Clemson Boston College UCLA Kansas Purdue Florida UNC Syracuse USC Missouri Illinois Georgia NC State Louisville Arizona Nebraska Ohio State Florida State Virginia Cincinnati Arizona State Iowa Notre Dame Miami Virginia Tech Connecticut Colorado Minnesota Penn State Georgia Tech Maryland Duke--because of hoops only Oregon State Washington St Texas Tech Kansas State South Florida Utah--maybe?? BYU could be in this group, too. How does this affect UNT? Well, I still believe that a new SWC is very possible within the next 10 years or so if major realignment occurs. If a new Super BCS was created as mentioned above, schools like TCU and Baylor would have to consider being in a conference with the other Texas schools that they look down at currently. It would definitely be interesting to see if in the next round of conference shuffling if UNT gets mentioned at all for any possible openings, whether its CUSA or, miraculously, a Big 12 that still had teams with name value.

Right now, Arky gets about 10-11 million more every year just from TV for being in the SEC than any Big XII school becasue of the XII's terrible TV package. The Big Ten, Big XII, and the Pac-10 are interested in one big thing--TV markets. Iowa State brings zilch to the Big Ten on that side. The Big Ten would take any of these three schools to fit their target--Rutgers, Mizzou, or Pittsburgh--although they probably already feel that the Pitt market is covered by Penn State sufficiently. Its very similar to why the Big XII will never take another Texas school as long as it has UT and A&M. All of the big Texas TV markets are covered quite sufficiently by the South's teams, especially with Texas and A&M in Houston and San Antonio and with both plus Tech and the Oklahoma schools in DFW. If the Big Ten expands, I think they will get either Pitt or Rutgers, with Rutgers leading the pack. I then believe that the Big East will either replace Rutgers with Memphis alone, or Memphis and UCF to get to nine teams in football for their league. The wild card with each of these leagues is Notre Dame--if they ever say yes to either league, it will be done right there. But assuming ND stays independent in football, I think that CUSA will lose either one or two teams. I then think CUSA will replace Memphis with MTSU to get the Nashville market and if UCF leaves, then I believe FAU would be the next team they choose to get exposure in Miami. The eastern CUSA teams are just not interested in getting another Texas/Louisiana school, which is bad news for UNT and La Tech. The SBC would then have USA moving up to take back one spot and then the league would probably look at UTSA as the next team to move up. Our league would then look like this: UNT, ASU, ULL, ULM, USA, UTSA, WKU, FIU, and Troy.