Green Otaku
-
Posts
1,961 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6 -
Points
41,450 [ Donate ]
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
GoMeanGreen.com
Posts posted by Green Otaku
-
-
55 minutes ago, C Rod said:
I see the GMG.com admins also deleted the "What an Indictment of Caponi..." thread.
Wow, admins are gutless.
-
1
-
-
If we stayed and others left I'd want to poach teams like JMU, APP, NIU, or whoever are the other top candidates.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, MeanGreenGlory said:
Listen, I get the disdain for SMU, but please don’t take the tribal mentality, all hate all the time approach.
@SMU2006 isn’t being a jerk or pretentious or anything like that. If you look at everything he’s saying about this next shift in conference realignment, he’s actually advocating pretty hard for UNT’s success in all of this.
This, and if we are being honest (and I hate to say this) we might actually owe SMU for doing us a solid by going to the ACC. Imagine if they were still in the AAC, all the talk would be about getting Tulane, Memphis, SMU, and 1 more. We wouldn't even be remotely considered.
-
6
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SMU2006 said:
Who is to say they won't be a bidder? I'm sure they'll want to kick the tires.
My point is the value will be absorbed elsewhere. If they are moving puzzle pieces to bid on the PAC then they'll be fine brokering a deal to assist Tulane/Memphis. Even if they don't I could see a streamer like Apple (in tandem with a linear distributor) having interest in the PAC.
Possible, I just think if they thought they were worth paying for they would have brought them into the Big12. If they are at a reduced rate maybe that gives them interest. With AZ, ASU, BYU, CO, Utah, Cal, and Stanford as ESPN late night options they just seem like they are fairly covered.
-
3 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:
They'll do the same thing they did when the AAC lost teams to the Big 12. Go grab schools from another ESPN property (ex. Sun Belt/MAC)
That's what I'm saying, ESPN didn't lose inventory with those moves. Assuming they aren't bidding for this new conference this would be different.
-
The other part of this we aren't really thinking about is, assuming ESPN isn't bidding for this new PAC conference, what are they doing on their end? Are they really going to let Memphis and Tulane walk away if they get an attractive offer from the PAC? If Pernetti comes to ESPN and says,"We are going to lose two of our top brands, what can you offer?" will ESPN listen?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:
UCF is the only BIG 12 market in Florida. If we were hours away from SMU then it could happen but we literally share the same market. Why in the world would the ACC want two schools in the same market? The PAC and BIG 10 are the only major conferences with no Texas market. We're not going to the BIG 10 so PAC it is.
True, it is a huge obstacle. Future movement is inevitable, we just have to be in the best spot possible and hope the chips can fall in our favor. I'd much rather be at the top, and seen as a Cincy/Houston/UCF when the next big wave hits.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, SMU2006 said:
A little inside baseball here but needless to say there is no realistic scenario where UNT is a member of the ACC.
Big 12 TV contract runs through 2029. ACC will target Utah, Kansas, and Arizona. There is a reason the ACC schedule model runs through 2030. They are going shopping when the Big 12 has to go to market and renegotiate without Texas/OU.
No one thought UCF would be in the Big12 a decade ago. Like I said, you put yourself in the best spot to be the next team in line, win championships, clinch the CFP spot and that looks less like a pipe dream. Shoot for the top, there's no point in settling for less.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, SMU2006 said:
It's a pretty easy goal, follow what Cincy did. If any future P4 realignment happens you make yourself the clear pick.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Cowboy Up said:Be gentle and use lots of lube please. This Wyoming team is way underperforming and lost right now. I was excited to start the season but we are in big trouble with this staff.
Welcome, much respect to the Cowboys.They have always been a solid team throughout the years. They are the type of team we should be scheduling home and homes with. Hoping for a good game (with a Mean Green victory of course) and that everyone stays healthy. Cheers.
-
8
-
4 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:
CW is owned by Paramount. I don't know exact details of Paramount but it's a relatively new company that stems from a Viacom and CBS merger. CW has a streaming app and is looking for sports content. So is Amazon and so is Apple TV. There will be bids as the other major conferences are set for the next 5+ years. Also worth noting the current MWC deal is with CBS and Fox which has been at about $5 mil per school and expires when the new PAC is starts. This means they'll also be looking to fill some content and could buy a few games.
And understood on your stance on the PAC. Obviously it has to all make sense financially. My concern is the top AAC schools will leave to the ACC when that collapses. I doubt we'll be included with SMU already being there. Then we're in CUSA 2.0. This is an opportunity to get out before that happens. We'll see how this plays out.
As far as the ACC I think that's why we have no time to lose, we need to make ourselves attractive by winning multiple AAC championships and even getting into the CFP so we make ourselves an undeniable candidate. I know SMU is there, but we need to make our resume so strong that we are a no-brainer pick.
-
2 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:
Do you, or anybody else throwing around numbers of $6 million, realize the PAC2 has a media deal with CW for this season with an estimated value of $5-$9 million for each? Just two schools getting what you and others seem to think the PAC would get as a whole conference. It's not crazy to think the new PAC would get upwards of $10-$15 million per. Also, as it's been mentioned USF, Memphis, and Tulane are not in the same boat as us. They're favorites to join the ACC. They're also much further east than we are. The logistics are nowhere near the same and, as it's been said, they're getting full AAC shares. We are not.
$10-15M possible? Yes. Likely? I have doubts, mostly because will a network be willing to pay $80-$150M a year depending on the number of teams? ESPN and FOX seem to have their late night slots covered, would they bid for it? Does a network like the CW have that kind of money?
Also maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it feels like multiple people think I'm saying turn any kind of interest for the PAC down immediately. I said in multiple posts that if we get interest from the PAC we should definitely take a look, run the numbers and weigh the options. If the deal is good go, if not stay in the AAC. My personal opinion/speculation is skeptical that the numbers are there, but I'm not saying we should be closed off to the idea.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, MeanMag said:
You win championships by playing the stats game. On both sides of the ball. He had shots at them. More than any other time in school history aside from Dickey. I just do not want to move backward.
If you have enough stats go a certain way that's a trend, and SL's trend was never being able to make it over the hump. Close a few times, but couldn't put it all together. No one wants to go backwards, but that's on the AD to make the right choices.
-
1 hour ago, FirefightnRick said:
With his best DC, Skladany..(a.k.a The Morton’s Fisherman)… he came up 7 points short from winning a conference championship that year.
Rick
Hardest hitting defense I had ever seen. Lee and Trice I remember specifically being monsters.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, MeanMag said:
I don't understand how it was not fruitful.
In 2015 UNT was dead last in the entire FBS in offense and 5th to last in defense led by a defensive minded head coach.
Since then, Littrell and his offense gave UNT the best chances to win championships and football games, regardless of bowl game status. Two of the best seasons, record-wise, in history. It took North Texas to 6 bowl games from 2016 to 2022. Prior to that, North Texas had been to 6 bowl games since 1959. To me, that is fruitful.
UNT had a guy that ran a balanced, successful offense that transformed when Mason Fine left to add TE wrinkles. Hired an experienced defensive coordinator with former head coaching experience. Everything fans are currently asking for, I feel like. The results were not there and instead of letting him work through it, powers that be got rid of it.
The grass is always greener... but football and offenses have left the wishbone, the swinging gate, the triple option behind.
If that is the criteria for the next head coach, you may immediately eliminate some of the best options available.
Yes good offense that was cancelled out by bad defenses.
Defense by year:
2016: 96
2017: 111
2018: 43
2019: 105
2020: 126
2021: 78
2022: 110
No bowl wins, no conference championships. Stats are nice, but people don't put stats in trophy cases. Isn't that what this whole thing is about? Winning championships and creating a winning culture?
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, C Rod said:
Sure, everyone is going to have to deal with it. However we’re in a stronger position to recruit against our conference peers in both football and basketball as full-share members.
Let’s say the PAC TV deal comes in at exactly the same amount as the current AAC deal, $8-10 million per year. We would be stupid to stay in the AAC receiving half-share if the new PAC offered us full-share from day 1.
It may be a lateral move for Memphis, Tulane, and USF because they’re already in the top-tier of the AAC. But that doesn’t make it a lateral move for us if the PAC comes calling offering full-share media rights. Plus, let’s not forget those three schools are looking for the first opportunity to jump ship from the AAC to the ACC when the time comes.
And I expect the AD to take the pros and cons and weigh what's best.
What I am predicting here is if the PAC can't lure Memphis/Tulane the contract is not going to be near the numbers being thrown around. Maybe $6-$8m, if I had to guess. We have to remember that the west is very sparsely populated and the big city centers are all in the B1G, ACC and Big12 (LA, Seattle, SLC, Phoenix, Denver, SF) without the central time zone teams what kind of deal can they get? Can the media partner offer the same level of coverage and exposure of ESPN? What will the travel expenses be? I'm not saying don't take a look at what's offered, but you have to run the numbers and see what makes sense, and that's going to be up to the AD to decide. Personally I find it a high hurdle to clear if they can't lure the top of the AAC as a block.
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, C Rod said:
Thanks @Green Otaku, I stand corrected on UNT receiving half-shares for the entire time of the deal. I've searched but haven't been able to find published specifics on the ramp up schedule. Unfortunately this still doesn't solve the dilemma we're about to find ourselves in.
What dilemma you ask? Exhibit A: House vs NCAA
Whether we like it or not, schools directly paying athletes via NIL is coming in the very near future and could happen as early as next fall. As the above linked ESPN article states, this antitrust settlement is currently on hold as the the judge in the case waits for both the plaintiffs and the NCAA to address her concerns. The lawyer for the plaintiffs has already signaled they are fine making the requested changes, so now we wait for the NCAA to agree. The NCAA has very little leverage so I expect them to begrudgingly agree.
So what does this mean for us?
Once this antitrust settlement takes hold, schools will have the green light to pay their athletes directly through NIL dollars. Those NIL dollars will come from revenue generated from ticket sales and you guessed it... TV media deals. For G5 teams, the vast majority of the NIL money will come from their TV media deals.
Now let's consider the fact that UNT, UTSA, Rice, Charlotte, FAU, UAB, and Army are currently receiving half-shares in the AAC while the other seven AAC schools (Memphis, Tulane, USF, Temple, Tulsa, ECU, & Navy) are receiving full-share revenue deals. We're essentially playing in a two-tiered G5 conference for the foreseeable future, and unfortunately UNT is in the bottom tier when it comes to revenue share and being able to pay our athletes.
Talk about a huge competitive disadvantage within our own conference!
To further my point, read this article titled: TEMPLE AD FACES CRITICAL DECISIONS AS REVENUE SHARING APPROACHES
Everyone is going to have to deal with that when the decision comes. We might see some big shifts and maybe even some teams not wanting to continue/a split to a new division 1 for those teams who can. Those issues will come up despite whatever conference we are in.
If the PAC brings a few AAC teams and offers a good chunk of money we should go if invited. If the brands of Memphis, Tulane, USF stay in the AAC, we should really consider staying as those schools not taking an offer means the move will be a lateral one with more travel.
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, TIgreen01 said:
Sorry, but this is nuts. As others have pointed out, too many high schools in Texas run this offense to not run at least some of the schemes. We'd effectively knee-cap our recruiting efforts.
The problem has been pairing a defense first mindset along with it. Seems like Lincoln Riley finally has turned a corner at USC. That gives me hope that maybe we can do the same, eventually.
All the years we have run that system have not been fruitful, so we just keep doing the same thing? It's fine to take bits and pieces that work, but I would like to see someone outside of this coaching tree.
I think it'd actually be a good thing to expand recruiting.
-
2
-
-
If Morris is eventually fired I'd be ok with not seeing the air raid/Leech offense at UNT ever again.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, VideoEagle said:
First of all, based on everything I've read, NT started with a 50% of AAC media revenue. But it's on a sliding scale that increases over time reaching 100% within 10 years or earlier.
Secondly, you have the PAC-2 saying they believe their media deal will be larger than the AAC, not actual media sources. Does anyone thinking rationally believe the G-5 PAC X is worth 75% of what Apple was offering the PAC-12 minus USC and UCLA? Does anyone believe Colorado State, Boise, San Diego State, and Freso are at least 3/4 the media value of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and ASU? I have a hard time believing ANY combination of MWC and AAC schools is 3/4 the media value of the old PAC-12 less USC and UCLA which was $20 million per school with a lot of subscriber incentives.
Some posters are undervaluing our current media deal by $10 to $15 and they are overvaluing the Pac-2 deal by $5 to $10 A YEAR over a 10 year period! The math is against the deal even before realizing all of the new revenue side is based on number from the PAC-2 which is HIGHLY motivated to grossly exaggerate the deal. Remember the gross exaggerations of the PAC-12 after USC and UCLA departed!
And nowhere is the $10 to $15 million annual increase in expenses being accounted for!
Comparing SMU buying their way into the P4 ACC to us joining the G5 PAC-X is bogus as well. If just joining a conference that once had lots of national powerhouse programs was the goal then we should be joining the Southern Conference that once had Alabama, Auburn, and a half dozen other SEC schools. Of course, that makes no sense as the Southern Conference is nowhere near what it was back with those schools - much as the PAC-X is nowhere near what it was a couple of years ago.
Agree. The PAC will be listened to by the teams that they are interested in, but it is in no way a slam dunk.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, southsideguy said:
I not sure why any league gives new teams less money for five or ten years. If they want their teams to be competitive they should give them full shares to help them build up their programs. A competitive league is a fun league and leads to more success against other conferences. Did we get any money when SMUT bought out of the league?
Because networks don't want to give more money for the same product, with media deals they also don't have to. Most realignment deals happen when media deals are already in place. The AAC lost 3 members getting paid roughly $21M a year, ESPN was unwilling to pay an extra $21M a year to have the 6 schools get equal shares. So if the AAC wanted to have all teams getting full shares they would have just added 3, but would we have made the cut?
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, C Rod said:
Memphis, USF, and Tulane are full-share members of the AAC so they are hesitant to move without knowing more about the estimated TV deal and how much they can expect to make.
However UNT, UTSA, RICE are only receiving 50% of the AAC TV media money until 2034. 10 years at half-share is a lot of lost revenue. The new PAC can offer new members full-share when the future media deal is established, as an incentive to leave the AAC.
From what I've read the AAC payout will not be half shares for the entire time of the deal. There are no specifics as to how much, but the money is supposed to ramp up to be equal to a full share towards the end of the deal.
QuoteConference USA schools currently receive less than $1 million annually in television revenue. The amount they will receive is still being finalized, but the television revenue will be more than $2 million at the start of the deal and rise significantly from there. Incumbent AAC members are still expected to average about $7 million annually over the course of the current ESPN television deal, which runs through 2031-32.
https://www.agent49.net/the-charlotte-49ers-are-american-athletic-conference-bound/
-
1 minute ago, Meangreen Fight said:
And if you program has given the HC too much money to afford to make him "bear the consequences" what then? The HC leadership is a reflection of Athletic Department's leadership: Giving mediocrity too much financial security in my opinion. Eric to his credit wasn't greedy with his first contract allocating more money for assistant coaches. But it looks like he wasn't prudent with that allocation. 🤷🏽♂️
Then you keep looking higher up the chain and find out what isn't working, because someone's choices might have cost us 2 years of wasted resources.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:
By who? Vito?
Oof... I forgot who our reporter is....
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If Memphis is invited to the Pac-12, the Tigers should pack their bags and move on from the AAC
in Conference ReAlignment
Posted
vs Cal- ESPNU (national)
@ FIU- ESPN+
@ LATech- ESPN+
vs ACU- ESPN+
@Navy- CBSSN
vs Temple- ESPNU
@Tulane- ESPN2
vs Memphis- ESPN+
vs UTSA- ESPN+
@ SMU- ESPN2
@ Tulsa- ESPN+
vs UAB- ESPN+
IIRC ESPN has a 10 day window to choose who to pick up where, if we did better we would have been on national coverage more. Tulane had almost every game on ESPN/2 last year.