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.

Is it time to start lobbying for the AAC?


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, greenminer said:

I get TV market, I don't get how that's SMU say.

These commissioners will weigh in with that long before anything goes to SMU for "permission" or vote.

SUMG sent me a DMN SportsPage blurb back in 1982(?) after UNT had just had an “ABC-TV” regional game televised. (Remember those regional games)?  That game featured North Texas vs. UL-Monroe of which UNT QB Greg Carter & the Mean Green won.


•••The Blurb:  Then DMN sportswriter Cathy Harasta penned that particular article & in it she stated how in this SW region the North Texas Mean Green had won the 📺Nielsen TV ratings time slot for 3 hours. It was a big enough deal back then that she wrote about it. 🤔 I can’t ever remember that feat being celebrating, either, because it was for damn sure worth celebrating.  Yet 1982? ( I forgot—no Internet).

OK, we can all theorize about who & why said school can command a TV market in the North Texas Metroplex, but I’m with GrayEagle when he posted—“300,000 (UNT alums in the Metroplex) counts for something” in any TV ratings discussion.  Yes, GrayEagle, I wholeheartedly agree & would say—it do, but wouldn’t it be much more than 300K if you count UNTs other constituencies?  
 

I’m an avid reader of the annual Texas Almanac & in 1972 when I transferred from Alvin JUCO to UNT here were the numbers from that annual Lone Star State publication as I recall:  
🦅In 1972 Denton County had a 99,000 citizen population & was described by Texas Almanac as “a rural county.”  •In 2021 Denton County is now closing in on a population of 1,000,000. (Pretty dramatic most would agree). 

🦅In 1972 the city of Denton had about a 39,000 population. •In 2021, the city of Denton is closing in on 150,000 population.    •••I like that number because in a sense that means Denton can still maintain its “college town” description & for whatever reason I see that as a good thing.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/denton-tx-population
 

If Kansas State U. in obscure, sparsely populated Manhattan, Kansas, can overcome 50 years of losing I think UNT (no matter our conference affiliation) can do the same. 
 

❇️🦅❇️
 

 

Edited by PlummMeanGreen
  • Ray 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jtm0097 said:

Yes, I understand our other sports are doing well. 

However, Football we are very meh.

We barely compete in C-USA, much less AAC. The football team had those 2-9 win seasons, and the 1 good season with McCarney. Other than that, we have been very mediocre in the conference.

Mediocre? Nah. We've been pretty awful. 

  • Upvote 2
  • RV 1
  • Eye Roll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, GrayEagle said:

Even if we add 300,000 new viewers?  That's the opinion of many but no one to my knowledge has figured the plusses and minuses.  We'd have to build a strong football program in the next few years to make a good case.  As for SMU I don't believe that there is the animosity that once existed between us.  We left the teachers college status about 70 years ago and most of that stigma has been removed.  As to openings, Connecticut hasn't been replaced.  If that is decided before we gain support then the only other possibilities are Tulsa throwing in the towel or the AAC deciding to expand to 14 teams. 

But the DMA of DFW is in the millions...networks aren’t going to pay someone to cover the same market twice. The mistake, from my standpoint, for a conference in today’s world, is having small private schools in those DMAs, instead of the big schools. Hence, the reason that Rice and UH will never be in a conference again. And why we will not be a conference with SMU or TCU.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

But the DMA of DFW is in the millions...networks aren’t going to pay someone to cover the same market twice. The mistake, from my standpoint, for a conference in today’s world, is having small private schools in those DMAs, instead of the big schools. Hence, the reason that Rice and UH will never be in a conference again. And why we will not be a conference with SMU or TCU.

Half a century (& more for others)  of following this program will teach one much & one is that North Texas should do like Houston did 60 years ago; that is, quit worrying about Southwest Conference private schools & just start making its own winning history. There really could be a brighter future for Mean Green athletics without any affiliation to schools who have little in common as far as public vs private universities.  🟦🟩 With that I hope the ‘Stangs & Mean Green will continue to tee it up.  It still makes cents for both. 

GMG🦅

Edited by PlummMeanGreen
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TV markets don’t matter in college football. It’s really simple-no matter where you’re located, if you put out a product worth watching, people will watch it.

The Myrtle Beach bowl was the lowest rated bowl of the season by a long shot. 2 million less viewers than Liberty v Coastal. 

All of our previous bowl games were also at or near the bottom of TV ratings. 
 

The kool aid is strong when people think we’ve actually put out a product that the general public are interested in tuning in to. 
 

And the 1982 game that Plumm always likes to talk about the ratings for-it was probably the only game on TV at the time. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Confused 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are looking at this all wrong. The question isn't if you're going to add value to the aac with smu in it (no tv network is going for that). The question is when the aac expands for football only with Boise, unlv, and sdsu, will north texas stay in cusa or join two others in going to the mwc.

  • Upvote 4
  • Eye Roll 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no SMU animosity to keep you out for some non-existent (to SMU) rivalry. Does adding UNT to AAC further their goals?  The AAC goal is to get P5 level treatment. There are only two factors that matter to that:

1. Football Prestige and 2. Money.

1.Does UNT regularly appear in the top 25 and get mentioned for potential high bowls?  No.  So you don't help there. 

2. Does adding UNT generate more money, significantly more money, per school to further competing for a P5 upgrade?  No.  

So you add nothing that matters. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by DentonStang
  • Upvote 4
  • Eye Roll 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ttunt1970 said:

Hey has SMU been able to do this in last 40 years when they weren’t cheating even with Brown in basketball inquiring would like to know?

Basketball is irrelevant to expansion but to your point, no, other than the last 2 or 3 years when we have been as high as the teens in football for parts of the season and gotten some press.

 

But when the AAC formed, nobody was doing that other than UCF. We got in on the ground floor.  But now the AAC has a number of teams competing at a high level.  We don't need to add anyone who isn't going to push us higher. 2016 SMU would not get in today. But the conference is in a different place today.  

If we look at final 2020 RPI rankings, UNT was below everyone in the AAC other than Temple and South Florida. That's not an add. That's not even competitive. 

Edited by DentonStang
  • Upvote 2
  • Eye Roll 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GRN-WHT said:

TV markets don’t matter in college football. It’s really simple-no matter where you’re located, if you put out a product worth watching, people will watch it.

The Myrtle Beach bowl was the lowest rated bowl of the season by a long shot. 2 million less viewers than Liberty v Coastal. 

All of our previous bowl games were also at or near the bottom of TV ratings. 
 

The kool aid is strong when people think we’ve actually put out a product that the general public are interested in tuning in to. 
 

And the 1982 game that Plumm always likes to talk about the ratings for-it was probably the only game on TV at the time. 

You are right, GRN-WHT, about our product. That must improve (& I think it will). Our Mean Green Village top shelf venues are going to do wonders for UNT recruiting as I think most believe they already are.  
••• How long did it takes Todd Dodge’s recruits to come to full fruition?  Maybe on New Years Day, 2014, from McCarneys 2013 MG team at the HOD Bowl game before the largest number of UNT fans most have ever seen? 

The (over-stated)🙄 1982 ABC-TV game is for those UNT fans who even as far back as 1982 have said we could never produce good TV ratings no matter which decade. I’ll try not to use that again. 

Is it time for the G5 to have a pro-active Commissioner?  If so, one with a similar philosophy as the author of this linkedin article would be one helluva’ good start.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stop-name-calling-college-football-jeff-pizzino-apr?trk=public_profile_article_view

Here is the entire article-Readers Digest Large Letter Edition?🧔🏼

Why the P5 and G5 Branding Must End in College Football

December 10, 2020 • 3 Likes • 0 Comments

In the world of corporate communications and marketing, names can make or break an organization/entity and/or product. The same goes for product taglines.

Names are typically created from two sources: By the entity itself (or its creative agency, be it public relations, advertising or marketing), or by others (such as by the competition and/or those trying to elevate their cause or market positioning above the entity it's naming).

No alt text provided for this image

In 1973, the band The Association released a song titled, “Names, Tags, Numbers & Labels.” I can recall singing along to this song when I was young (I still have the single). The first part of the chorus goes like this:

Names, tags, numbers, labels

Other people teach you what you are

You believe them as a rule…

College Football Name Calling

Since we’re in the midst of the college football season, let’s take a look at the name calling that exists within this sport — from a PR perspective. 

There are 129 teams in the FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) of Division 1 in college football. Within the FBS are 10 conferences and seven independents. All 129 teams belong to the same group (subdivision).

But that’s where the equality ends.

Power 5 and Group of 5 Labeling

Somehow the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, PAC-12 and SEC was gloriously “branded” with the name “Power 5 Conferences.” But the American, C-USA, MAC, Mountain West, and Sun Belt are labeled the “Group of 5 Conferences.” (Of the 7 independents, Notre Dame is the only school that reaps the perks the P5 conferences receives. BYU (go Cougars!!), although regarded by many as a P5-quality program, lives in this hazy P5/G5 limbo.

The precise origin of the Power 5 and Group of 5 names is unknown, though the harmful impact is unquestioned. This diminutive, bigoted-sounding term of “Group of 5” makes it sound as if G5 teams are the poor, shoeless peasants working out in the fields. These names are unfair, unwarranted and offensive. Let me explain…

P5: Enriched Beyond Belief

To have a better understanding of this misdirected, possibly nefarious branding, we first need to “follow the money.” 

Without question, some of the best college football is played by teams in the so-called P5 conferences — and it will continue to be due to the unfair competitive advantage they and their TV contracts have created.

 

In 2019, the top 5 revenue-producing football programs were (these figures include TV revenue, ticket/concession sales, merchandise and more):

1.     Texas: $156.1 million

2.     Georgia: $123.1 million

3.     Michigan: $122.3 million

4.     Notre Dame: $115.5 million

5.     Ohio State: $115.1 million

In 2019, the 4 teams in the so-called “playoff” each received $6 million and each of the so-called P5 conferences received a $66 million base payout. There are more monies being tossed around, but what I’ve cited is sufficient to make my point.

And if you think a G5 team will ever be invited to the 4-team pseudo playoff for the mythical national championship, then you’re dreaming. It’ll be a cold day in Tuscaloosa, Alabama before that ever happens.

Here are Your Leftovers, G5ers

Contrast that to the total $90 million given to the nearly 60 teams in the 5 so-called Group of 5 conferences in 2019. That means each of these schools received approximately $1.5 million from TV revenues (remember: Texas alone took in $156 million in total revenue!).

And to apparently avoid an anti-trust lawsuit, the P5ers guarantee the top-ranked G5 team a spot in one of the New Year’s Six bowl games. Hey, don’t overdo the generosity.

College Football is a Rigged System

 

Anyone disagree that this system is rigged? The playing field should be level for all 129 teams in the FBS. But instead, this scheme of money hoarding allows the rich to keep getting richer. That means they can build better-equipped, more attractive facilities; entice more of the top-rated talent; and continue to dominate the majority of G5 teams they play.

Can you imagine the NFL designating half of their teams as the “power” teams, paying them 10x or more in just the TV revenue of the others, and then only letting the top 4 teams into a playoff? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous.

The P5 Royalty vs. the G5 Peasants

Now, with the gross unfairness in revenues clearly laid out, let’s return to the labeling, i.e., the name calling.

 

To preserve the higher “perceived value” of teams in the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, PAC-12 and SEC, someone created the “Power 5” branding to give them an aura of elitism, superiority and, well, complete and absolute “power.” “We are the real kings and rulers, bow down to us!” they seem to communicate. They’re like the top executives at a corporation with the posh, corner windowed office in the high rise.

“And to all the others not part of our exclusive club, we’re going to label you a Group of 5 team. We have the power. You have a, well… a group.”

“You will never and can never rise to the fame, fortune and glory we’ve achieved,” say the haughty P5 royalty to the G5 peasants.

Abolish the Labels

To all those FBS teams not part of this hoity toity club, I say to you: Don’t let others teach you what you are. You don’thave to believe them like a rule.

The chorus to “Names, Tags, Numbers & Labels” concludes with:

While my name for you is beautiful

Your name for me is fool.

Don’t let anyone put you down. You’re shouldn’t be the Powerless 5 when you are part of the same FBS family of teams. You deserve the same access to the TV money, the bowls, the playoff, and the recruits.

Given a level playing field, you can be (and often are in spite of the obstacles) just as good as any P5 team. Anyone canbeat anyone on any given day. BYU, Boise State, UCF and others have had their share of victories over P5 teams. And let’s remember what’s dubbed one of the biggest upsets in sport’s history: the Sept. 1, 2007 Appalachian State victory over Michigan.

In the meantime, I’m throwing a yellow penalty flag for unsportsmanlike conduct on anyone that utters these horrible terms: Power 5/P5 and Group of 5/G5. That includes players, coaches, ESPN, sports writers and fans. Let’s abolish these terms from our vernacular and start treating all FBS teams equally and fairly. Level the playing field!

These terms are nothing more than PR spin at its worse. 

As a PR/communications pro working with words and messaging daily (and as a college football fan), I felt it was time to speak up and expose this “name calling” for what it is.

❇️🦅❇️

Edited by PlummMeanGreen
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Yet smuT posters always end up over here to make a comment.  For a school that doesn't matter much to some of you, you all sure can't seem to stay out of our backyard.

The greatest fear of smuT at this point if for the giant public university in their market to catch fire and finally live up to its potential.  There is a great benefit to smuT to keep North Texas "in its place."  Well, I have a feeling the tide is about to turn.  

I live in Denton, I've always followed UNT on the side. 

Of course a scenario where UNT, for the first time ever, suddenly commits to football and makes the systemic changes necessary to be top tier is bad for SMU in general. But worse, now, would be to have a top tier program NOT in AAC.  We'd snatch that up in a second, as we have been trying to do to Boise, who IS an add. You're just not. Maybe one day. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Eye Roll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you guys don't want to talk expansion in an expansion thread? Seriously, three mwc schools to the aac is a very strong rumor and has potential huge ramifications for north Texas.  I'm not making this up.

 

Would north texas join a mwc lacking three of its current members? I wouldn't recommend it, but I have real interest as smu was in the wac with a lot of those schools. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Eye Roll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NorthTexasSportsNetwork said:

My tweet!

A few things.

1.We have won the most championships in the conference in the past 2 years, and had 3 MVPs with a Male Athlete of the year.

2. Football and SMU is holding us back. I don't see what would be wrong with us in the same conference as smu. If smu claims they are a AAC powerhouse, they shouldn't need to worry about little ole us. If they're the powerhouse, they shouldn't have a problem with TV and attendance ratings, recruiting, and so on.

To be  honest, it's between us and UAB. Both are building great programs, and while UAB is building back basketball, we are building back football. If we can get a few years of success in football, I don't see why we wouldn't be a fancy choice to add to the AAC.

 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Go for it!

  • Upvote 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RBP79 said:

I don't know..but I do know they were very successful when that guy named Hayden Fry tried to get NTSU into the SWC....they led the private schools in their desire to keep us out..

We're talking about media markets in 2021.  The BCS, CFB playoffs, AAC and - hell - the internet didn't exist back then.

There is some valid carry-over from these vintage SMU-NTSU mindsets/traditions.  I don't see how this is one of them.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blue Horse said:

So you guys don't want to talk expansion in an expansion thread? Seriously, three mwc schools to the aac is a very strong rumor and has potential huge ramifications for north Texas.  I'm not making this up.

 

Would north texas join a mwc lacking three of its current members? I wouldn't recommend it, but I have real interest as smu was in the wac with a lot of those schools. 

They'd be looking at a very east CUSA or a very west MWC. Either way I'm thinking they need to stay with the other CUSA Texas schools

Edited by DentonStang
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SMUleopold said:

Guys, the problem isn't us or any other school per se.  The problem is ESPN.  

TV markets run the show now and the rumor is the conference is getting pressure to add school on the West Coast that don't make a lick of sense outside of possible TV eyeballs.  It was ESPN that brought Mizzou into the SEC over even founding member Georgia Tech, created the damned Big XII and added f'ing Rutgers and Maryland to a conference with Nebraska and Minnesota.  

I've stated before that if UNT or any school can add to the TV money that is what will carry the day, and if anyone in here can seriously come up with a way to counter TV money every conference commissioner in the country is waiting for that answer. - some of us want control over our conferences and scheduling back.  But to pretend that a single school has more power than a potential 8 figure annual check is unfortunately wrong. 

Good post.  I would also add that Coronavirus will likely delay any expansion talk for awhile as programs are going to be focused on getting butts in the seats again. 

That said, I imagine donations are way down and therefore discussions on economics will return rather quickly.

For my 2 cents, I think the realignment will return once the Texas decides to bail on the Big 12 and/or the Longhorn network contract is back up for negotiation.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Blue Horse said:

You guys are looking at this all wrong. The question isn't if you're going to add value to the aac with smu in it (no tv network is going for that). The question is when the aac expands for football only with Boise, unlv, and sdsu, will north texas stay in cusa or join two others in going to the mwc.

A few things.

Those rumors of BSU, SDSU, and UNLV talking with the AAC were so false. I don't know why people believe some random twitter account that had 50 followers on that type of news.

UNLV is the biggest joke besides New Mexico in the Mountain west. The only thing they have is a nice new stadium that doesn't belong to them. They haven't done anything in football in at least 5 years.

Who do you drop if you add those 3. 

The Mountain west without SDSU and Boise State are basically a glorified WAC with huge TV contracts. CUSA is way more appealing at that point.

 

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

If the AAC adds another football team to their league, I’d bet it would be Army as a football only add before anyone else would get a full member invite. 
 

What UNT needs badly is for TV to lose its grip on conference revenue and who gets to be members in these G5 leagues. That should be an NCAA controlled process. If that means watching the P5s go away on their own, sobeit. That would be the best thing that could ever happen, for reasons of competition and visibility. CFB has become so amazingly stale and predictable with the following teams always making the playoffs: Bama, Clemson, Oklahoma, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State, or ND. Nobody else even matters beyond these teams right now. That’s not an issue if there are 32 teams, but it is if you look at 65 teams much less 129.  Let them create their own system and let it be a more Level playing field. 
 

When that all Shakes out, and TV doesn’t drive the conference affiliation bus instead of fan attendance and cost controls, then we can easily see a day where UNT and SMU, as well as Rice and UH to be in the same conference setup. But until then...we will have to enjoy our CUSA West setup, which is still the best we have ever had here since the MVC days of the 60s.

  • Upvote 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, untjim1995 said:

If the AAC adds another football team to their league, I’d bet it would be Army as a football only add before anyone else would get a full member invite. 
 

Army has apparently said 'no' early on and that's for the best.  The AAC desperately needs a top 10 or even NC presence and Army isn't going to fulfill that.  That, and since Army is likely to leave their other sports in the Patriot League with Navy then I don't want another stupid football team/basketball team addition.  

Frankly, I'm for leaving BSU in the MWC where there are currently few quality wins and bringing in a top team from the Sunbelt who is positioned to actually challenge the AAC as the 'best of the rest' in the coming future.  The SBC could have 3 top 25 teams this year and any discussion over 'quality wins' ends, especially if ULL beats Texas this year. 

Edited by SMUleopold
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

  Well, I have a feeling the tide is about to turn.  

Gee, how many times have we heard "The Sleeping Giant is waking up in Denton" over the last 20 years? Hell, just typing it into the search bar will bring up hundreds of posts. 

UNT hasn't done anything to indicate that it's a rising power in football.

  • Upvote 3
  • Sad 1
  • Eye Roll 1
  • Downvote 2
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.