Jump to content
  • Welcome to GoMeanGreen.com!

    Thank you for visiting us!  Registering is easy and free, and provides you with the ability to participate in the discussions along with many cool features and content.

Poll: MWC or stay put?


MeanGreenTexan
 Share

Mountain West Conference Poll  

137 members have voted

  1. 1. If you were offered a Mountain West Conference invite tomorrow, would you take it?



Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, UNT90 said:

UNT isn't crappy UTSA, who has no facilities at all. We at least have a football stadium that we can be proud of. 

Not to mention much more FBS football history. 

IF UNT is trying to stay equal with UTSA, just shut the Mofo down, because athletics has already lost. 

If longevity, post season wins and campus stadium are the criteria for football, Texas State would be the champion of the three schools SWT, UNT, UTSA. There needs to be better criteria.

  • Downvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UTSA Fan said:

If longevity, post season wins and campus stadium are the criteria for football, Texas State would be the champion of the three schools SWT, UNT, UTSA. There needs to be better criteria.

Under any criteria, UNT kicks UTSA's ass.

So don't compare a start up to a 100 year football playing university with a beautiful football stadium and its own (kinda) 8000 seat basketball arena.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, the C-USA that we are in is quite clearly not the conference that was originally pitched to UNT.  The Sunbelt was an unrespected league of last resort, and now C-USA has taken on that same role.  Everyone is looking to get out and move up.  If we don't get out early, we'll be there forever. 

MWC isn't a perfect solution, but at least there's some nationally known teams and a bit better recognition.  Both are critical for alumni support, and more importantly, for recruiting.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

That would be quite a gamble... saying "no" to the MWC because you're hoping/wishing/praying for an AAC invite.

yeah, it's a terrible idea to turn down Katie Holmes in hopes of landing Kate Hudson when you currently have Fran Dresher.

Edited by Rudy
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On August 5, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Eagle1855 said:

Honestly, what does move the needle locally? We still haven't sold out Apogee, where we've played host to a handful of regional programs, including UH. We hosted K-State for our final game in Fouts, which also wasn't a sell-out. 

It funny that you mention the Houston game which did move the needle and got Apogee it's biggest crowd ever.   That 2011 Houston team was coming off a 5-7 season  in CUSA that isn't going to excite anyone.   Kansas State is was in the middle of 7-6 season at the time they came to Fouts and UNT was about to fire Todd Dodge for poor team performance, do those sound like must see events for your average college football fan?  Bring Houston or Kansas State into Apogee for a game while we are in the middle of successful run and you will get a sellout or dam near a sellout.    A late season match up between a bowl eligible UNT and bowl eligible SMU could get a sellout also.  The scheduling has been awful and whenever we do have attractive match up at home we are in the middle of a losing stretch or coming off a losing season.

Edited by Mike Jackson
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rudy said:

yeah, it's a terrible idea to turn down Katie Holmes in hopes of landing Kate Hudson when you currently have Fran Dresher.

C-USA is more like Rosanne Barr. Never a looker, but had some notoriety back in the day. The Sun Belt is like Mama June. The MWC is like Kourtney Kardashian. A B-list star that's birthed a few kids, but still better then what we got now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Under any criteria, UNT kicks UTSA's ass.

So don't compare a start up to a 100 year football playing university with a beautiful football stadium and its own (kinda) 8000 seat basketball arena.

I didn't compare at all, in fact you did the comparison with the facilities and longevity post- I was responding to your post pointing out the criteria/logic you used was dubious at best and obviously flawed by the Texas State example (no reply, eh chief?). I offered no comparison or evaluation of either school. Why the vitriol with the post? The last post you posted also isn't factually correct. Regardless of extenuating circumstances, on the field head to head is a universally recognized measure of success, since your calling me out and making it personal. Now that is a comparison as I proposed an examination of both programs against each other to produce a judgment of value. You don't have to agree with me, but you also don't have to be condesending either. I'm not an idiot and I'm not a grade school child your going to intimidate. Regarding basketball, I don't fully understand the 'kinda' comment on the UNT facilities. I'm trying to get up to speed with the football and the only thing I can gleen is the fan base is unhappy about the basketball coach.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, UTSA Fan said:

If longevity, post season wins and campus stadium are the criteria for football, Texas State would be the champion of the three schools SWT, UNT, UTSA. There needs to be better criteria.

Where do you get that?  Texas State has played something like 5 years at the FBS level.  They've never won a bowl game at the FBS/1A level.  North Texas has played for decades at the highest level.  They've only won 3 bowl games during that time, but 3 is still better than zero.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Where do you get that?  Texas State has played something like 5 years at the FBS level.  They've never won a bowl game at the FBS/1A level.  North Texas has played for decades at the highest level.  They've only won 3 bowl games during that time, but 3 is still better than zero.

I Googled the school and saw when it was founded, etc. It didn't make the distinction between fbc/fbs. Had I realized that was a consideration, I would have looked farther into it. I assumed UNT was not fbs the whole time and didn't see a disparity of comparison. Honestly, I never actually researched it other than the Google for specifics- I heard a radio ad for the school and was struck by their playoff success and early founding and it stuck in my head. One of my distinct disadvantages is never graduating from UNT or UTSA, so my background knowledge of either and both is almost zero. That is why I come on here, to learn. I get my share of grief because people assume I graduated from UTSA, but in reality and as mentioned earlier, I graduated from neither and I am trying to learn about both to support both for different reasons. I go on these boards to learn, but, unfortunately, both schools' boards recognize I'm not a graduate by my lack of shared culture. 

Edited by UTSA Fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, UTSA Fan said:

I Googled the school and saw when it was founded, etc. It didn't make the distinction between fbc/fbs. Had I realized that was a consideration, I would have looked farther into it. I assumed UNT was not fbs the whole time and didn't see a disparity of comparison. Honestly, I never actually researched it other than the Google for specifics. I heard a radio ad for the school and was struck by their playoff success and early founding.  

The post you initially responded to said "Not to mention much more FBS football history."  Other than a 13-year purgatory between 1982 and 1994 when we moved down to 1AA (FCS), NT has been playing at the highest level for a long, long time.

And North Texas was founded before Texas State as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

The post you initially responded to said "Not to mention much more FBS football history."  Other than a 13-year purgatory between 1982 and 1994 when we moved down to 1AA (FCS), NT has been playing at the highest level for a long, long time.

And North Texas was founded before Texas State as well.

My bad, you are correct, 90 does state that. Sorry, I did miss that. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

This is where I am with the C-USA and football.  The C-USA is, in reality, C-USun Belt.  The C-USA schools that were here before us, save Southern Miss and Rice are gone.  Oh, and Marshall...or, was Marshall still MAC then? 

Anyway, it was very disheartening to have Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky, and The Floridas follow us.  THEN, worse, all of the start-ups and jump ups:  Old Dominion, Charlotte, UTSA.   C-USA "leadership" under Banowsky was reactionary instead of proactive.  

(SIDE NOTE:  At minimum, to me, why the f*ck The Floridas instead of Arkansas State and Louisiana?  I mean, if you are going to bring in more Sun Belters, why pass over the more competitive members?  F*cking stupid all the way around, Banowsky.) 

The truth is, no matter what time the games start (which is a stupid measure of which conference you want to be in), the MWC has higher visibility than the C-USA and has better competition.

I mean, we'll have 14 schools next year when UAB rejoins.  It's f*cking stupid.  Seven team divisions.  It's too much.

Honestly, again, we need out if we can get out.  AAC and MWC are the only acceptable, realistic choices.  The C-USA and Sun Belt seriously need to square up, admit who, what, and where they both are, and reconfigure the conferences based on geography.  No one P5 level is going to notice or care anyway, so just do it.

The vast majority of college football fans and commentators won't care or notice, anyway, either.  So, just sack up and do it.  Have no idea what C-USA and Sun Belt think they are trying to prove or whom they are trying to fool.  It's total and complete llama crap any way your spread it.

Each conference should rake up it's pile of llama crap closer to itself geographically and be done with it.  Hamster masters.

This right here. Very good question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, UTSA Fan said:

Maybe they were asked & declined?

I assure you that is as false as false could be.  Why do you think the two schools all of a sudden started pumping money into their A.D.'s when several other Belt schools jumped and they were left behind?  Maybe they would decline now (I still really don't think so), but they certainly wouldn't have declined a few years ago.  Watch the Texas State press conference when they were joining the Belt and tell me that there was a single Belt team who wouldn't have preferred to be in C-USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On August 5, 2016 at 4:45 PM, UTSA Fan said:

If longevity, post season wins and campus stadium are the criteria for football, Texas State would be the champion of the three schools SWT, UNT, UTSA. There needs to be better criteria.

I'm confused as to how TxState is the champion of these three. Sorry, UNT is on another level in every metric above those two.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ryan Munthe said:

I'm confused as to how TxState is the champion of these three. Sorry, UNT is on another level in every metric above those two.

He was just making weird and ill informed assumptions. He corrected himself above. Kind of weird to assume such all things considered. A decade of dumpster fire football can get casuals to assume such I suppose. That's why winning in football, as crazy as it may sound, is important in every university facet. 

Edited by Ben Gooding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some serious delusion on this thread. The MWC ain't expanding here in Texas beyond filling up a void created by a current MWC team leaving to go to the Big XII, which probably isn't happening, either.

The MWC can easily wait out the Big XII falling apart and taking in the scraps they want. TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, UH, ISU, and KSU are possible/probable casualties of when the Big XII falls apart. Beyond them, UTEP represents a school in Texas that has history with those schools, a solid basketball program (which they care about big time in that league), a bowl game tie-in possibly, and a market that is big that is centered around UTEP. Rice will replace UH in the AAC when they go to the Big XII, so that is another one that will be gone. That leaves us with UTSA as being the next Texas option for the MWC to consider. IOW, it ain't happening...

We blew that chance for the MWC a long time ago. That ship sailed and we have to accept that our future is with SBCUSA schools. I suspect that within 10 years, our conference affiliation will include this setup:

NMSU, UNT, Texas State, UTSA, ULL, ULM, Arky State, La Tech, UAB, USM, SFA, and Sam Houston. All are schools that are regional, have either no TV market or bad revenue sports, and have close travel for the future that non-FBS teams will find critical to contain costs and encourage fan travel.

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

There is some serious delusion on this thread. The MWC ain't expanding here in Texas beyond filling up a void created by a current MWC team leaving to go to the Big XII, which probably isn't happening, either.

The MWC can easily wait out the Big XII falling apart and taking in the scraps they want. TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, UH, ISU, and KSU are possible/probable casualties of when the Big XII falls apart. Beyond them, UTEP represents a school in Texas that has history with those schools, a solid basketball program (which they care about big time in that league), a bowl game tie-in possibly, and a market that is big that is centered around UTEP. Rice will replace UH in the AAC when they go to the Big XII, so that is another one that will be gone. That leaves us with UTSA as being the next Texas option for the MWC to consider. IOW, it ain't happening...

We blew that chance for the MWC a long time ago. That ship sailed and we have to accept that our future is with SBCUSA schools. I suspect that within 10 years, our conference affiliation will include this setup:

NMSU, UNT, Texas State, UTSA, ULL, ULM, Arky State, La Tech, UAB, USM, SFA, and Sam Houston. All are schools that are regional, have either no TV market or bad revenue sports, and have close travel for the future that non-FBS teams will find critical to contain costs and encourage fan travel.

There is no reason at this point for that much pessimism about the new leadership. Right now I do not think they would let us get left in a situation like that. Yes there will be changes but I don't expect it to turn out like that. Only 2 of those schools are even remotely comparable to NT.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/05/2016 at 7:56 PM, Side Show Joe said:

C-USA is more like Rosanne Barr. Never a looker, but had some notoriety back in the day. The Sun Belt is like Mama June. The MWC is like Kourtney Kardashian. A B-list star that's birthed a few kids, but still better then what we got now.

Yeah, but not everyone has had their turn in the MWC, unlike the Kardashians.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aquila_Viridis said:

There is no reason at this point for that much pessimism about the new leadership. Right now I do not think they would let us get left in a situation like that. Yes there will be changes but I don't expect it to turn out like that. Only 2 of those schools are even remotely comparable to NT.

Just his M.O.  He should change his name to Eeyore.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Just his M.O.  He should change his name to Eeyore.

I'll gladly admit to being negative about our place in the future of college football's hierarchy. I have heard the terms "potential", "sleeping giant", and "great location to take advantage of" since I first stepped into Denton in 1990. Hasn't mattered who is in charge, who has been the head coach, the conference we have played in, or the stadium we have played in. It's almost always the same, sans 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2013. That's 5 winning seasons in 25 years. Now, it's supposed to all be better because we have chosen to focus more on athletics than we ever have before, but everybody above the SBCUSA has been doing this for years/decades before us. That's why I feel like the reality is that the best we can probably expect is being in a conference with teams we have played in various leagues (SLC, Big West, SBC, and CUSA) for our long term future. We don't have the clout, the history, or the support of other teams above us in FBS to be included in the haves and the almost haves that the power conferences and their affiliated leagues (AAC and MWC). We started too late.

I like Seth Littrell and Wren Baker. I think they are tremendous hires. But I think they are also gonna have to climb out from under a mountain of dog$hit left behind by their predecessors. It will take years to do, even if it's just to build us back up from being the worst team in FBS to just being a bad G5 team. If we are really, really lucky, we follow the USM three year plan and Seth Littrell turns this around and gets hired somewhere else after pulling off a major turnaround. But, as far as I'm concerned, in regards to UNT revenue sports, which is all I care about, I'm gonna look at it from the Bill Parcells viewpoint--"Don't tell me how hard it is being pregnant, just show me the baby." 

And Ill gladly admit to being wrong if/when the MWC or AAC admits us and the league still holds its place as the top non-power leagues, as CUSA was before the AAC came into existence. But we offer those two leagues absolutely nothing right now that they don't have or that they need. Only way that it changes is if we win big--bigger than we ever have since the Fry years. 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

There is some serious delusion on this thread. The MWC ain't expanding here in Texas beyond filling up a void created by a current MWC team leaving to go to the Big XII, which probably isn't happening, either.

The MWC can easily wait out the Big XII falling apart and taking in the scraps they want. TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, UH, ISU, and KSU are possible/probable casualties of when the Big XII falls apart. Beyond them, UTEP represents a school in Texas that has history with those schools, a solid basketball program (which they care about big time in that league), a bowl game tie-in possibly, and a market that is big that is centered around UTEP. Rice will replace UH in the AAC when they go to the Big XII, so that is another one that will be gone. That leaves us with UTSA as being the next Texas option for the MWC to consider. IOW, it ain't happening...

We blew that chance for the MWC a long time ago. That ship sailed and we have to accept that our future is with SBCUSA schools. I suspect that within 10 years, our conference affiliation will include this setup:

NMSU, UNT, Texas State, UTSA, ULL, ULM, Arky State, La Tech, UAB, USM, SFA, and Sam Houston. All are schools that are regional, have either no TV market or bad revenue sports, and have close travel for the future that non-FBS teams will find critical to contain costs and encourage fan travel.

La Tech will escape into the AAC.  And, possibly, Southern Miss. 

Either way, C-USA has ended up being Sun Belt reheated and a microwave, whatever flavor it was supposed to have long gone...thanks to Banowsky The Fink.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.