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 the MWC Better for UNT


Hookset
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, TIgreen01 said:

You and I have a completely different approach to competition, I guess.  Smu gets killed on the reg by tcu.  Michigan gets owned by Ohio st.  20 years of losing in both series.  Guess they should admit they can’t compete and just go find someone else to play when 90% of their fan base cares only about that one game every year.

 

Michigan/Ohio State are conference games. 
SMU had won many more than 6 (TCU leads the series 43-39-7) games against TCU. Much more evenly matched programs.

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

26 minutes ago, Hookset said:

Michigan/Ohio State are conference games. 
SMU had won many more than 6 (TCU leads the series 43-39-7) games against TCU. Much more evenly matched programs.

Series is close but SMU has been on the losing end a ton post-Death Penalty.  I think its like 4 wins over TCU since 2000.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the MWC Better for UNT?

No, not without several members of CUSA West going with us to form a MWC eastern division. Even then, it may not be beneficial because only the dregs of the MWC, including schools that we should never want to partner with (Utah St, Hawaii, San Jose St) may be left.

  • Lovely Take 2
  • Skeptical Eagle 1
  • Oh Boy! 1
  • Eye Roll 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ADLER said:

Is the MWC Better for UNT?

No, not without several members of CUSA West going with us to form a MWC eastern division. Even then, it may not be beneficial because only the dregs of the MWC, including schools that we should never want to partner with (Utah St, Hawaii, San Jose St) may be left.

Agree.

Anywhere we go (if we move at all) will be a gamble. Schools will say today they are staying put, then tomorrow they could change their mind.  It’s all unstable.  It almost reminds me of how the transfer portal is functioning.  It’s just not my favorite time to be following NCAA sports with what’s coming down from Indianapolis & the NCAA rules committee. 
 

🦅

  • Upvote 6
  • RV 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PlummMeanGreen said:

Agree.

Anywhere we go (if we move at all) will be a gamble. Schools will say today they are staying put, then tomorrow they could change their mind.  It’s all unstable.  It almost reminds me of how the transfer portal is functioning.  It’s just not my favorite time to be following NCAA sports with what’s coming down from Indianapolis & the NCAA rules committee. 
 

🦅

The transfer portal is the greatest equalizer for G5 programs.  Also, finally the student-athlete has the leverage where for so long these kids get buried on the depth chart somewhere and feel like they don't want to lose a year of eligibility or sit out to play.

Let the kids go where they want to go.  If programs are run in a player-friendly environment you will be the beneficiary of the portal and not a victim of it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Confused 2
  • Skeptical Eagle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, SMU2006 said:

The transfer portal is the greatest equalizer for G5 programs.  Also, finally the student-athlete has the leverage where for so long these kids get buried on the depth chart somewhere and feel like they don't want to lose a year of eligibility or sit out to play.

Let the kids go where they want to go.  If programs are run in a player-friendly environment you will be the beneficiary of the portal and not a victim of it.

Where SMU has a huge advantage on this is that they use their combo of the AAC and academic prestige in the business world to get transfers. People here don’t want to hear it, but SMU’s Cox Business School is a huge draw. A lot of young men that play football major in some form of business.

  • Upvote 3
  • Skeptical Eagle 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

Where SMU has a huge advantage on this is that they use their combo of the AAC and academic prestige in the business world to get transfers. People here don’t want to hear it, but SMU’s Cox Business School is a huge draw. A lot of young men that play football major in some form of business.

Good, spot on post.  Face it, SMU is a fine academic University.

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

Is the MWC better for UNT?

That depends on what you value....

Overall, the MWC is comprised of higher ranking universities than C-USA. Their athletic programs are regularly ranked in national polls. Their media deal is a lot better than C-USA's. Their athletic departments have larger budgets than C-USA. In many ways conferencing in the MWC would elevate UNT on the national stage.

On the flip side, UNT would have no regional rivals in the MWC. But, that didn't stop TCU.

In my opinion, if the MWC extended UNT an invitation, we will jump at it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ADLER said:

Is the MWC Better for UNT?

No, not without several members of CUSA West going with us to form a MWC eastern division. Even then, it may not be beneficial because only the dregs of the MWC, including schools that we should never want to partner with (Utah St, Hawaii, San Jose St) may be left.

Define dregs. Utah State kicked our ass in the New Mexico bowl a few years ago, St. Jose St. had a winning season last year and went to a bowl, and who wouldn't want a trip to Hawaii. Since UNT is one of the dregs of CUSA  it sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2021 at 12:59 PM, ADLER said:

Is the MWC Better for UNT?

No, not without several members of CUSA West going with us to form a MWC eastern division. Even then, it may not be beneficial because only the dregs of the MWC, including schools that we should never want to partner with (Utah St, Hawaii, San Jose St) may be left.

UTEP and RICE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2021 at 10:07 AM, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Very strange defeatist arguments going on here. We don't deserve better, so don't do better? Like the abused spouse... 

Being a North Texas fan is on some levels exactly like being an abused spouse.  Every year we get beat down, only to say we're out, just to hear the promise that this year is different, we give them another chance, only to get beat down again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2021 at 11:06 AM, untjim1995 said:

The problem is that networks aren't tapping the brakes on that San Antonio TV market

No one cares about the market a team is in.   If that was true everyone would be beating down the door for Rice (Houston, #8 DMA) and Temple (Philadelphia, #4 DMA) to join.  Advertisers (and therefore networks and conferences) care about how many eye balls the programs can deliver.

When it comes to viewership advertisers care about the following counts:

  • 1 Million viewers: Worth some national advertising campaigns, valuable for regional campaigns.
  • 3 (or 4) Million Viewers: Definitely worth national campaign dollars, very high demand. 
  • 7 Million viewers: Super high demand from national campaign dollars.  Through last week this years CFB schedule had only delivered 5 of these.

UTSA doesn't deliver the SA market, they deliver like most G5 teams do.   UTSA/ILL brought in 211K in Wk1.  UTSA has had success on the field this year, and we're still out drawing them at the gate.

So the first number the advertisers/networks/conferences are looking for is viewers.  The conferences are also looking at total expenditures on athletics:

HOU             73.6M
NT                   39.9M
TXST            37.1M
UTEP            32.9M
UTSA              32.2M
UTA               17.1M

These numbers are from 2019, but it's the latest NCAA reported numbers I could find.  Rice/SMU are private and did not report. 

 

The AAC/MWC is not looking at any of the remaining Texas teams because of TV viewership.  No one left delivers high value there.  The MWC has said they are looking for school near their own expenditure rate (about $50M/yr), no one available in Texas delivers that either.

So why would they look at Texas teams?  If anything it's recruiting.  AAC already has SMU.  I can't imagine the ponies being willing to sign off on anyone in Texas.  I also have no idea how the AAC votes on membership.  Could the MWC look at adding Texas teams for recruiting?  Maybe.  They are in a tough spot.  There just aren't that many desirable football  programs in the west.    BYU was a big target for them for several years, but they are B12 bound.  Could they lose BSU in the next round of P5 expansion?

Look the only reason we would want to be in the AAC or MWC is network money.  However, the reason OU/UT left the B12 is they felt B12 money was going to stagnate.  If the B12 has hit its high water mark, then all the G5 conferences have to realize the days of free TV money is gone. 

The AAC is absolutely going to get their money chopped with the departures.  The MWC knows their next contract is going to stagnate at best.  These conferences aren't going to do anything that hurts their per team distributions.   That's the main thing you have to keep in mind.  If you can deliver more eyes (and spend more) than the teams in the conferences, they want you. 

MWC Athletics Expenditures:


SDSU: 55M
AFA: 54M
CSU: 54M
UNLV: 50M
FSU: 50M
BSU: 49M
Wyo: 48M
Nev: 43M
USU: 41M

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cerebus said:

No one cares about the market a team is in.   If that was true everyone would be beating down the door for Rice (Houston, #8 DMA) and Temple (Philadelphia, #4 DMA) to join.  Advertisers (and therefore networks and conferences) care about how many eye balls the programs can deliver.

When it comes to viewership advertisers care about the following counts:

  • 1 Million viewers: Worth some national advertising campaigns, valuable for regional campaigns.
  • 3 (or 4) Million Viewers: Definitely worth national campaign dollars, very high demand. 
  • 7 Million viewers: Super high demand from national campaign dollars.  Through last week this years CFB schedule had only delivered 5 of these.

UTSA doesn't deliver the SA market, they deliver like most G5 teams do.   UTSA/ILL brought in 211K in Wk1.  UTSA has had success on the field this year, and we're still out drawing them at the gate.

So the first number the advertisers/networks/conferences are looking for is viewers.  The conferences are also looking at total expenditures on athletics:

HOU             73.6M
NT                   39.9M
TXST            37.1M
UTEP            32.9M
UTSA              32.2M
UTA               17.1M

These numbers are from 2019, but it's the latest NCAA reported numbers I could find.  Rice/SMU are private and did not report. 

 

The AAC/MWC is not looking at any of the remaining Texas teams because of TV viewership.  No one left delivers high value there.  The MWC has said they are looking for school near their own expenditure rate (about $50M/yr), no one available in Texas delivers that either.

So why would they look at Texas teams?  If anything it's recruiting.  AAC already has SMU.  I can't imagine the ponies being willing to sign off on anyone in Texas.  I also have no idea how the AAC votes on membership.  Could the MWC look at adding Texas teams for recruiting?  Maybe.  They are in a tough spot.  There just aren't that many desirable football  programs in the west.    BYU was a big target for them for several years, but they are B12 bound.  Could they lose BSU in the next round of P5 expansion?

Look the only reason we would want to be in the AAC or MWC is network money.  However, the reason OU/UT left the B12 is they felt B12 money was going to stagnate.  If the B12 has hit its high water mark, then all the G5 conferences have to realize the days of free TV money is gone. 

The AAC is absolutely going to get their money chopped with the departures.  The MWC knows their next contract is going to stagnate at best.  These conferences aren't going to do anything that hurts their per team distributions.   That's the main thing you have to keep in mind.  If you can deliver more eyes (and spend more) than the teams in the conferences, they want you. 

MWC Athletics Expenditures:


SDSU: 55M
AFA: 54M
CSU: 54M
UNLV: 50M
FSU: 50M
BSU: 49M
Wyo: 48M
Nev: 43M
USU: 41M

 

 

So why did CUSA take UTSA, UNT, FIU, Charlotte, and Old Dominion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

So why did CUSA take UTSA, UNT, FIU, Charlotte, and Old Dominion? 

Cause they were wrong.  Our TV contract proves it. 

Payout was $1.1M with the old schools, CUSA brought in a ton of teams in markets that they don't deliver, and now our TV payout is a pitiful. 

EDIT: Which is exactly the error none of the other conferencesare looking to repeat.

Edited by Cerebus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

Cause they were wrong.  Our TV contract proves it. 

Payout was $1.1M with the old schools, CUSA brought in a ton of teams in markets that they don't deliver, and now our TV payout is a pitiful. 

EDIT: Which is exactly the error none of the other conferencesare looking to repeat.

I’m not arguing anything your posting. I just think the biggest point in all of this is that we aren’t going to be moving upward, no matter what UTSA does. But I do believe, rather obviously, that they will be more attractive than we will be if the AAC/MWC expands…

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

No one cares about the market a team is in.   If that was true everyone would be beating down the door for Rice (Houston, #8 DMA) and Temple (Philadelphia, #4 DMA) to join.  Advertisers (and therefore networks and conferences) care about how many eye balls the programs can deliver.

When it comes to viewership advertisers care about the following counts:

  • 1 Million viewers: Worth some national advertising campaigns, valuable for regional campaigns.
  • 3 (or 4) Million Viewers: Definitely worth national campaign dollars, very high demand. 
  • 7 Million viewers: Super high demand from national campaign dollars.  Through last week this years CFB schedule had only delivered 5 of these.

UTSA doesn't deliver the SA market, they deliver like most G5 teams do.   UTSA/ILL brought in 211K in Wk1.  UTSA has had success on the field this year, and we're still out drawing them at the gate.

So the first number the advertisers/networks/conferences are looking for is viewers.  The conferences are also looking at total expenditures on athletics:

HOU             73.6M
NT                   39.9M
TXST            37.1M
UTEP            32.9M
UTSA              32.2M
UTA               17.1M

These numbers are from 2019, but it's the latest NCAA reported numbers I could find.  Rice/SMU are private and did not report. 

 

The AAC/MWC is not looking at any of the remaining Texas teams because of TV viewership.  No one left delivers high value there.  The MWC has said they are looking for school near their own expenditure rate (about $50M/yr), no one available in Texas delivers that either.

So why would they look at Texas teams?  If anything it's recruiting.  AAC already has SMU.  I can't imagine the ponies being willing to sign off on anyone in Texas.  I also have no idea how the AAC votes on membership.  Could the MWC look at adding Texas teams for recruiting?  Maybe.  They are in a tough spot.  There just aren't that many desirable football  programs in the west.    BYU was a big target for them for several years, but they are B12 bound.  Could they lose BSU in the next round of P5 expansion?

Look the only reason we would want to be in the AAC or MWC is network money.  However, the reason OU/UT left the B12 is they felt B12 money was going to stagnate.  If the B12 has hit its high water mark, then all the G5 conferences have to realize the days of free TV money is gone. 

The AAC is absolutely going to get their money chopped with the departures.  The MWC knows their next contract is going to stagnate at best.  These conferences aren't going to do anything that hurts their per team distributions.   That's the main thing you have to keep in mind.  If you can deliver more eyes (and spend more) than the teams in the conferences, they want you. 

MWC Athletics Expenditures:


SDSU: 55M
AFA: 54M
CSU: 54M
UNLV: 50M
FSU: 50M
BSU: 49M
Wyo: 48M
Nev: 43M
USU: 41M

 

 

Yep. I believe Boise State also knows their tv contract is about to stagnate/decline. They are going to another conference for that reason. 
The new tv contract that will be negotiated then will be much less. The MWC will not be a better conference soon.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

No one cares about the market a team is in.   If that was true everyone would be beating down the door for Rice (Houston, #8 DMA) and Temple (Philadelphia, #4 DMA) to join.  Advertisers (and therefore networks and conferences) care about how many eye balls the programs can deliver.

When it comes to viewership advertisers care about the following counts:

  • 1 Million viewers: Worth some national advertising campaigns, valuable for regional campaigns.
  • 3 (or 4) Million Viewers: Definitely worth national campaign dollars, very high demand. 
  • 7 Million viewers: Super high demand from national campaign dollars.  Through last week this years CFB schedule had only delivered 5 of these.

UTSA doesn't deliver the SA market, they deliver like most G5 teams do.   UTSA/ILL brought in 211K in Wk1.  UTSA has had success on the field this year, and we're still out drawing them at the gate.

So the first number the advertisers/networks/conferences are looking for is viewers.  The conferences are also looking at total expenditures on athletics:

HOU             73.6M
NT                   39.9M
TXST            37.1M
UTEP            32.9M
UTSA              32.2M
UTA               17.1M

These numbers are from 2019, but it's the latest NCAA reported numbers I could find.  Rice/SMU are private and did not report. 

 

The AAC/MWC is not looking at any of the remaining Texas teams because of TV viewership.  No one left delivers high value there.  The MWC has said they are looking for school near their own expenditure rate (about $50M/yr), no one available in Texas delivers that either.

So why would they look at Texas teams?  If anything it's recruiting.  AAC already has SMU.  I can't imagine the ponies being willing to sign off on anyone in Texas.  I also have no idea how the AAC votes on membership.  Could the MWC look at adding Texas teams for recruiting?  Maybe.  They are in a tough spot.  There just aren't that many desirable football  programs in the west.    BYU was a big target for them for several years, but they are B12 bound.  Could they lose BSU in the next round of P5 expansion?

Look the only reason we would want to be in the AAC or MWC is network money.  However, the reason OU/UT left the B12 is they felt B12 money was going to stagnate.  If the B12 has hit its high water mark, then all the G5 conferences have to realize the days of free TV money is gone. 

The AAC is absolutely going to get their money chopped with the departures.  The MWC knows their next contract is going to stagnate at best.  These conferences aren't going to do anything that hurts their per team distributions.   That's the main thing you have to keep in mind.  If you can deliver more eyes (and spend more) than the teams in the conferences, they want you. 

MWC Athletics Expenditures:


SDSU: 55M
AFA: 54M
CSU: 54M
UNLV: 50M
FSU: 50M
BSU: 49M
Wyo: 48M
Nev: 43M
USU: 41M

 

 

Does anyone outside of the AAC/MWC spend $50M? I think if anything MWC will end up standing pat and AAC is going to be in trouble. If Boise and Memphis leave for Big 12, all of the remaining G5 conferences are pretty weak. Even Houston relies heavily on institutional support and student fees. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hookset said:

Yep. I believe Boise State also knows their tv contract is about to stagnate/decline. They are going to another conference for that reason. 
 

They aren't going anywhere soon. 

Only way they improve media payout is going to to a P5.  Moving to the AAC isn't worth the exit/entry fees, especially if they are hoping to make the P5 jump on the next wave.

Since none of the P5 are ready to expand just yet, they are in the MWC until then.  Don't forget they have an unequal distribution system in the MWC, something the AAC members are against. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

They aren't going anywhere soon. 

Only way they improve media payout is going to to a P5.  Moving to the AAC isn't worth the exit/entry fees, especially if they are hoping to make the P5 jump on the next wave.

Since none of the P5 are ready to expand just yet, they are in the MWC until then.  Don't forget they have an unequal distribution system in the MWC, something the AAC members are against. 

Boise State gets the lions share. Another wave of alignment is likely to happen in 2-3 years. They will likely leave for the BIG12 or PAC12. Both conferences are going to try to be 16 teams like the SEC. 

MWC tv deal will be renegotiated and it will be less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cerebus said:

No one cares about the market a team is in.   If that was true everyone would be beating down the door for Rice (Houston, #8 DMA) and Temple (Philadelphia, #4 DMA) to join.  Advertisers (and therefore networks and conferences) care about how many eye balls the programs can deliver.

When it comes to viewership advertisers care about the following counts:

  • 1 Million viewers: Worth some national advertising campaigns, valuable for regional campaigns.
  • 3 (or 4) Million Viewers: Definitely worth national campaign dollars, very high demand. 
  • 7 Million viewers: Super high demand from national campaign dollars.  Through last week this years CFB schedule had only delivered 5 of these.

UTSA doesn't deliver the SA market, they deliver like most G5 teams do.   UTSA/ILL brought in 211K in Wk1.  UTSA has had success on the field this year, and we're still out drawing them at the gate.

So the first number the advertisers/networks/conferences are looking for is viewers.  The conferences are also looking at total expenditures on athletics:

HOU             73.6M
NT                   39.9M
TXST            37.1M
UTEP            32.9M
UTSA              32.2M
UTA               17.1M

These numbers are from 2019, but it's the latest NCAA reported numbers I could find.  Rice/SMU are private and did not report. 

 

The AAC/MWC is not looking at any of the remaining Texas teams because of TV viewership.  No one left delivers high value there.  The MWC has said they are looking for school near their own expenditure rate (about $50M/yr), no one available in Texas delivers that either.

So why would they look at Texas teams?  If anything it's recruiting.  AAC already has SMU.  I can't imagine the ponies being willing to sign off on anyone in Texas.  I also have no idea how the AAC votes on membership.  Could the MWC look at adding Texas teams for recruiting?  Maybe.  They are in a tough spot.  There just aren't that many desirable football  programs in the west.    BYU was a big target for them for several years, but they are B12 bound.  Could they lose BSU in the next round of P5 expansion?

Look the only reason we would want to be in the AAC or MWC is network money.  However, the reason OU/UT left the B12 is they felt B12 money was going to stagnate.  If the B12 has hit its high water mark, then all the G5 conferences have to realize the days of free TV money is gone. 

The AAC is absolutely going to get their money chopped with the departures.  The MWC knows their next contract is going to stagnate at best.  These conferences aren't going to do anything that hurts their per team distributions.   That's the main thing you have to keep in mind.  If you can deliver more eyes (and spend more) than the teams in the conferences, they want you. 

MWC Athletics Expenditures:


SDSU: 55M
AFA: 54M
CSU: 54M
UNLV: 50M
FSU: 50M
BSU: 49M
Wyo: 48M
Nev: 43M
USU: 41M

 

 

There are only 4 G5 public universities outside of the AAC and MWC that generate over $40 million in athletic revenue... ODU, Charlotte, Buffalo, and UNT. We are the closest thing to a MWC level athletic department in C-USA West. If only we were winning on the field.

Edited by Side.Show.Joe
  • Upvote 1
  • Lovely Take 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2021 at 5:23 PM, Side.Show.Joe said:

There are only 4 G5 public universities outside of the AAC and MWC that generate over $40 million in athletic revenue... ODU, Charlotte, Buffalo, and UNT. We are the closest thing to a MWC level athletic department in C-USA West. If only we were winning on the field.

If we’re asked & want in MWC that budget info will help us get in, IMO. 
 

🦅

 

Edited by PlummMeanGreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2021 at 9:49 AM, Hookset said:

What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

That is the logic they used when they dropped down to the FCS.  Instead of demanding better and investing in the program they gave up.  What if a decently talented recruit was here reading this?  How inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, PlummMeanGreen said:

Took this pic of San Diego States crowd right before the kick-off today).  
So Big 12 Light for the Aztecs? 

The Aztecs are playing in Los Angeles while their stadium is being rebuilt in San Diego.   That isn’t a fair representation of their typical attendance when they actually play at home.  It isn’t great and absolutely better than us but it is closer to 30k or more from what I remember going to a couple of games when I lived there.  Jack Murphy Stadium held more than 65k so even when they had 35k+ it looked bad. 

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.