La Tech mentioned as Top Candidate for AAC

[Aquila_Viridis]

I would expect Old Dominion to be a much more attractive candidate than LT since OD is outspending the rest of the conference by a mile and is in a metro area not the middle of nowhere.

[Rudy]

This just keeps getting worse and worse.

[DeepGreen]

2 hours ago, UTSA Fan said:

My uneducated guess would be adding LA Tech to those three as the top 4. I hope there is very little movement this go around to buy time. I hate to think things are finally in place and then there is a major shake up/realignment and then all the teams are stuck in place for a long time.

The timing for this go round of conference changes couldn't be worse for UNT if something does happen.  That means something will happen!

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

All indications is Big 12 only adds 2. So doubt we lose more than 1 team. It will be Rice. 

[Harry]

11 hours ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

All indications is Big 12 only adds 2. So doubt we lose more than 1 team. It will be Rice. 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659093/Critical-vision-of-Oklahomas-Boren-has-put-BYU-in-crosshairs-of-Big-12-expansion-plans.html?pg=all

Is history on their side?
A look at overall average football attendance since 2005, for Big 12 expansion candidates (with best attendance year in parentheses)

BYU: 61,024 (64,497 in '07)
USF: 40,545 (53,170 in '07)
UCF: 36,381 (44,018 in '07)
Cincinnati: 30,288 (37,096 in '15)
Memphis: 29,769 (43,802 in '15)
Houston: 25,630 (33,980 in '15)
Colorado State: 23,053 (29,347 in '05)

[UTSA Fan]

Just a thought. How would you like to be Rice in CUSA if Houston goes B12? You are now recruiting against B12 (Houston and UT) and SEC (A&M) for players. 

[Wag Tag]

5 hours ago, Harry said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659093/Critical-vision-of-Oklahomas-Boren-has-put-BYU-in-crosshairs-of-Big-12-expansion-plans.html?pg=all

Is history on their side?
A look at overall average football attendance since 2005, for Big 12 expansion candidates (with best attendance year in parentheses)

BYU: 61,024 (64,497 in '07)
USF: 40,545 (53,170 in '07)
UCF: 36,381 (44,018 in '07)
Cincinnati: 30,288 (37,096 in '15)
Memphis: 29,769 (43,802 in '15)
Houston: 25,630 (33,980 in '15)
Colorado State: 23,053 (29,347 in '05)

UH that low? Very surprising! Good info!

[NTXCoog]

6 hours ago, Harry said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659093/Critical-vision-of-Oklahomas-Boren-has-put-BYU-in-crosshairs-of-Big-12-expansion-plans.html?pg=all

Is history on their side?
A look at overall average football attendance since 2005, for Big 12 expansion candidates (with best attendance year in parentheses)

BYU: 61,024 (64,497 in '07)
USF: 40,545 (53,170 in '07)
UCF: 36,381 (44,018 in '07)
Cincinnati: 30,288 (37,096 in '15)
Memphis: 29,769 (43,802 in '15)
Houston: 25,630 (33,980 in '15)
Colorado State: 23,053 (29,347 in '05)

 

49 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

UH that low? Very surprising! Good info!

Odd to go back 11 years instead of a more rounded 10 or 5.  Agenda?  Trying to get UH's worst year? 

How relevant is even 10 years ago?  Last 5 years UH is up to an average of 29,105 and that includes a season where we didn't have a permanent stadium including playing a couple of games in a soccer stadium that only held 22k and a season where we didn't show up trying to get a coach fired (worked).  At this point we almost have 25k season tickets sold. 

What do you think is more important:  average attendance 10 years ago or season tickets sold now?

[Wag Tag]

5 minutes ago, NTXCoog said:

 

Odd to go back 11 years instead of a more rounded 10 or 5.  Agenda?  Trying to get UH's worst year? 

How relevant is even 10 years ago?  Last 5 years UH is up to an average of 29,105 and that includes a season where we didn't have a permanent stadium including playing a couple of games in a soccer stadium that only held 22k and a season where we didn't show up trying to get a coach fired (worked).  At this point we almost have 25k season tickets sold. 

What do you think is more important:  average attendance 10 years ago or season tickets sold now?

Oh he is picking on poor uh! I think it was done with all the schools? You in get rid of the bully victim! Congrats!

[NTXCoog]

42 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

Oh he is picking on poor uh! I think it was done with all the schools? You in get rid of the bully victim! Congrats!

No. Just using an odd time frame is an attempt to bias data.  They may have been trying to show another bias by including the most positive point for another school and it may be a coincidence that UHs worst year was the same year. But there is no chance someone chose an 11 year timeframe without a reason. Its like when someone says they were the best at X in the last 13 years. You can guarantee 14 years ago was bad.

No poor UH. We had weak attendance in the past. Everyone knows it. We've made major strides since then. But if you want to judge UH based on 11 years ago, youre missing a lot of positive development since then

[Green Otaku]

On 7/30/2016 at 7:48 AM, GrandGreen said:

If SMU can shoot for the Big 12, there is no reason that NT should not be aiming for the AAC.   Wins and losses can change, but location, academics, and size of school are a lot more stagnant.   The good news is that one good year can turnaround the perception of a program.   

I believe that NT is in as good of a position to move up as any other Western division CUSA team even with an awful recent record in the major sports.  In terms of a combination of location, markets, size, academics and potential; NT has advantages over every team.    Based on winning in the big three sports, NT would be at the bottom; but that is actually the easiest factor to change.   

 

Seriously? If that is the easiest factor to change why, in our 100+ history as a team, have we not been able to change it?  Let it sink in that we have two years under Fry as the only time making any kind of national noise. The reality is that is one of the hardest things to change,  and unfortunately with our long history we have dug ourselves into a deep hole as far as perception goes. 

[Ben Gooding]

6 minutes ago, Green Otaku said:

 

Seriously? If that is the easiest factor to change why, in our 100+ history as a team, have we not been able to change it?  Let it sink in that we have two years under Fry as the only time making any kind of national noise. The reality is that is one of the hardest things to change,  and unfortunately with our long history we have dug ourselves into a deep hole as far as perception goes. 

Well, technically, we're a winning program over the last 100+ years. We've just had a really, really bad decade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, RV. 

[Green Otaku]

5 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Well, technically, we're a winning program over the last 100+ years. We've just had a really, really bad decade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, RV. 

 

Someone should have told them that was one of the easiest things to change before we took all those Ls. 

[GrandGreen]

2 hours ago, Green Otaku said:

 

Seriously? If that is the easiest factor to change why, in our 100+ history as a team, have we not been able to change it?  Let it sink in that we have two years under Fry as the only time making any kind of national noise. The reality is that is one of the hardest things to change,  and unfortunately with our long history we have dug ourselves into a deep hole as far as perception goes. 

Actually, there were a few more good years than the Fry years; but that doesn't matter, the record is not good.   I assume you think moving the college, advancing  a school up the academic ladder, and becoming one of the biggest colleges in the USA are all easier than winning at major sports.  

I will attempt to explain, NT for the most of time as been a pretender at FB division football.   It has been under budgeted and had a horrible football venue.  It has never invested in the program the way it is now.  

Winning really isn't that hard on an even playing field.   CUSA or the AAC are not the SEC; NT doesn't have to advance that far to be competitive in either one. 

I do wonder about all the fans that really believe that it is such a massive task to counter the awful culture and perception of NT athletics.   It happens all the time, bad programs become good ones.  That mysterious perception is based on losing and that changes when the wins start.  

[GrayEagle]

A lot depends on how many teams the Big XII takes for expansion.  If they only take two then BYU and Houston should be at the forefront.  That should even strengthen the league.  There will be some dropoff if they go to fourteen.  But they might to appease West Virginia.  That could mean Cincinnati and/or Connecticut.  Should both happen then I see them taking one CUSA team in the East and two in the West.  

Market size is a factor in the selection for AAU but so is money.   In the CUSA West, Rice produces the largest amount of revenue with North Texas second.  Ironically, the two best sports teams in the West, and often the conference are #13 (Louisiana Tech) and #14 (Southern Miss).  I believe that was the main factor why USM wasn't chosen at the formation of the AAC.  They certainly had better attendance and sports teams than Tulane but neither the money nor the market.  In the East, Old Dominion has the largest revenue but is only a year removed from FCS and has a 20,000 seat stadium.  Marshall doesn't have the strongest numbers but they would likely be the pick in the East.

We faltered at the wrong time but I believe that we would get strong consideration based on financial commitments and new administration.  Maybe, just maybe, Dr. Smatresk and Wren Baker can sell sizzle.  Last year, such a thought would have been hopeless with RV and the football staff but this year I'm encouraged...especially if the football team show dramatic improvement.

 

[Green Otaku]

37 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

Actually, there were a few more good years than the Fry years; but that doesn't matter, the record is not good.   I assume you think moving the college, advancing  a school up the academic ladder, and becoming one of the biggest colleges in the USA are all easier than winning at major sports.  

I will attempt to explain, NT for the most of time as been a pretender at FB division football.   It has been under budgeted and had a horrible football venue.  It has never invested in the program the way it is now.  

Winning really isn't that hard on an even playing field.   CUSA or the AAC are not the SEC; NT doesn't have to advance that far to be competitive in either one. 

I do wonder about all the fans that really believe that it is such a massive task to counter the awful culture and perception of NT athletics.   It happens all the time, bad programs become good ones.  That mysterious perception is based on losing and that changes when the wins start.  

 

The school has made great strides to get to where it is now. Being big doesn't mean being a good school so I'm not sure what that has to do with academic standards. 

 

An even playing field? You mean like conference play? Where our best season did not even get us a conference championship? You are oversimplifying how hard it is to keep consistency at a G5 school. If it were that easy DD would have kept winning conference championships and built something more. Money and backing are good but for a G5 team it's about building success over years to get ahead. The very nature of being a G5 team leads to instability, just the way it is. Case in point, look at the great job JJ did with the basketball program, and how all that came crashing down with 1 bad hire.  

 

If this realignment stuff moves quickly we are woefully behind where we need to be. 

[edcollopy]

2005-2015 seasons...seems like that time frame makes sense to me for a comparison.

[NTXCoog]

1 hour ago, edcollopy said:

2005-2015 seasons...seems like that time frame makes sense to me for a comparison.

So you think an 11 year time frame is most logical?  Do you also rank top 11 instead of top 10?

[Ben Gooding]

4 minutes ago, NTXCoog said:

So you think an 11 year time frame is most logical?  Do you also rank top 11 instead of top 10?

If UNT is 11th then hell yes. 

[GrandGreen]

9 hours ago, Green Otaku said:

 

The school has made great strides to get to where it is now. Being big doesn't mean being a good school so I'm not sure what that has to do with academic standards. 

 

An even playing field? You mean like conference play? Where our best season did not even get us a conference championship? You are oversimplifying how hard it is to keep consistency at a G5 school. If it were that easy DD would have kept winning conference championships and built something more. Money and backing are good but for a G5 team it's about building success over years to get ahead. The very nature of being a G5 team leads to instability, just the way it is. Case in point, look at the great job JJ did with the basketball program, and how all that came crashing down with 1 bad hire.  

 

If this realignment stuff moves quickly we are woefully behind where we need to be. 

Being a big school has nothing to do with academic standards, not sure were you got that inference.  Being big does have a lot to do with student and alumni support plus in a lot of cases like NT how much money comes from athletic fees.  

Even playing field is with other G5 schools.  Apparently, according to you; consistency is easy; as you argue that NT has a herculean task to move out of the loser category.

There is a lot of reasons, DD didn't continue to win championships like badmouthing the school he was trying to recruit players to, lazy recruiting, and focusing on his next big job instead of the one he had.  There is also some personal stuff in there, I won't go into.  

You realize that all G5 have those same issues as NT, yet some manage to be consistent winners?

I agree NT is behind were they need to be in terms of winning.  Not sure there are many G5's they trail in the other factors.  Boise State, Houston and a few others are way ahead, but NT is not competing with them for a spot in the AAC.    Remember that Tulane and SMU managed the same move with similar records.  

[Green Otaku]

13 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Being a big school has nothing to do with academic standards, not sure were you got that inference.  Being big does have a lot to do with student and alumni support plus in a lot of cases like NT how much money comes from athletic fees.  

Even playing field is with other G5 schools.  Apparently, according to you; consistency is easy; as you argue that NT has a herculean task to move out of the loser category.

There is a lot of reasons, DD didn't continue to win championships like badmouthing the school he was trying to recruit players to, lazy recruiting, and focusing on his next big job instead of the one he had.  There is also some personal stuff in there, I won't go into.  

You realize that all G5 have those same issues as NT, yet some manage to be consistent winners?

I agree NT is behind were they need to be in terms of winning.  Not sure there are many G5's they trail in the other factors.  Boise State, Houston and a few others are way ahead, but NT is not competing with them for a spot in the AAC.    Remember that Tulane and SMU managed the same move with similar records.  

 

So then please explain to us what you meant by saying winning is the easiest factor to change? 

[untjim1995]

Rice will be first to leave, for sure. They replace UH to give the AAC a Houston presence, plus they have the backing of the three small private schools of SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa.

If Cincy goes, I expect the AAC to poach a MAC school, either Ohio or NIU. If it's CUSA school, it will be Marshall.

If Memphis leaves, MUTS is the sure replacement.

If Colorado State leaves the MWC, UTEP will be the replacement.

My guess is that the Big XII expands by four, adding BYU, Cincy, UH, and Memphis. 

[meangreenbob]

1 hour ago, untjim1995 said:

Rice will be first to leave, for sure. They replace UH to give the AAC a Houston presence, plus they have the backing of the three small private schools of SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa.

If Cincy goes, I expect the AAC to poach a MAC school, either Ohio or NIU. If it's CUSA school, it will be Marshall.

If Memphis leaves, MUTS is the sure replacement.

If Colorado State leaves the MWC, UTEP will be the replacement.

My guess is that the Big XII expands by four, adding BYU, Cincy, UH, and Memphis. 

That will be one watered down Big 12 and one very unattractive P5 Conference. No way Oklahoma and Texas hang around very long. That's too embarrassing. So they will depart leaving the Kansas schools, Iowa St., Ok St. and the remnant to either reshuffle or stay were they are. Either way they lose credibility as a P5 conference. So I believe that there very well may be, at least ONE more realignment after the Big 12 finishes with their current agenda. Heaven forbid we pull an RV, becoming complacent, thereby once again failing to position ourselves as the crown jewel of athletic programs available for a new and more attractive conference affiliation.

Edited August 2, 2016 by meangreenbob

[TreeFiddy]

People have been saying one last realignment for 30 years.

 

[untjim1995]

1 hour ago, TreeFiddy said:

People have been saying one last realignment for 30 years.

 

Well, this time the power conferences have been given control over this from the NCAA schools. The NCAA knows that these schools will break away if they push back, so this time probably will be different...just a matter of when it happens over the next decade.

The Big XII is the ticking time bomb. If it can exist, as is, with UT, OU, and KU as its bellwether schools, then it can diffuse this to some degree. But assuming it explodes, the leftovers will be stuck in non-power leagues. And I believe that the non-power leagues that will still get to play the power schools in OOC and in bowls will be a collection of two leagues of 28-32 teams. And I believe that unless the MWC invites us before the big XII dissolves, which would be very short-sighted, we aren't gonna be in that grouping. And what nobody can answer is how our fanbase will react to being at a lower level again inside college football--will we still get around 15-20k a game as we do today or will we go back to less than 10k a game for attendance? That's the scariest possible scenario that we would have to deal with again...