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.

Last minute SMU led pustch to disavow NT from the AAC


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

Old men clinging to their money, power, and outdated perceptions.

Dark-Crystal-Skeksis-Feature-Image-1.jpg

 

 

Careful there.  Thought you were talking about me except I have no money or power and I don't think my perceptions are too outdated.

  • Upvote 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMU AD is on the expansion committee and he is not finalizing anything with out talking it out with his Pres. Publicly this is a sports issue, behind the scenes it is a money issue. They will sell it as this is the best option now and we will fight like hell to get into the Big12! So we need for you to donate more money!!! See it is really a fund raiser!

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

1 hour ago, Cr1028 said:

I get why they don’t want us in their conference. They see us as beneath them. The same would happen with many in our fanbase if Texas State jumped up to whatever conference we were in.

But they don’t see UTSA, FAU, Charlotte, below them? 

No This is all about bad mouthing NTSU all these years with they’re rich Christian pride and now the unthinkable happens. They will have to compete with us on a level playing field.

It’s like the people you have been looking down on thinking you were so much better just moved into your neighborhood in the house right next door. 

Best move the AAC could have made after losing Houston, UCF and Cincinnati.  

Edited by meangreenbob
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

I get why they don’t want us in their conference. They see us as beneath them. The same would happen with many in our fanbase if Texas State jumped up to whatever conference we were in.

In looking at the conference map, it appears SMU can either partner with us (and develop a very nice rivalry across all sports), stay paired up with Tulsa (a school that is withering on the vine), or join up with the Roadrunners (who's basketball gym isn't even as nice as some Highland Park homes' private gyms).   Rice likely pairing with Tulane & UAB with Memphis.

If SMU had any sense, they'd read the room, swallow their pride, and embrace lil' ol' NTSU as their travel partner, because their other options are not as good.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF SMUT blocks us we should not be playing them in any sport,   It will hurt their attendance more than their ours.  I mean we can live without their 150 fans that come to apogee.   Yes I know it brings in more UNT fans for the game as well.  But SMUT will have few at their home game when they replace us with NMSU.   

  • Upvote 4
  • Ray 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

I don't understand this line of thinking that comes up from time to time. 

 

SMU was one of the worst teams in all of football for 10+ years and not much better for another 10+.  We spent 1997-2013 in a conference not much better than yours.   For a lot of that time TCU was also garbage.  What field could be any more level? UNT had every opportunity to match or pass SMU and didn't have the administrative and/or booster support to pass SMU's incompetent administration and boosters.  It's been level for decades and we have been playing you frequently. 

While I get where you are coming from, the perception level was never even, which was a problem in things such as recruiting, but also in attracting attention and getting opponetns that drive interest. The sun Belt in the 90ies was nowhere near C-USA. NT was a complete geographical outlier. That affected costs and familiarity with opponents and spectators. That all has backlash on things like donations.

The other part, and i guess you are correct there, is that UNT didn't do enough work and investment for the first ten of those 20 years you are referring to nor at any point in the 20 years before that). It has however truly started  doing its part and investing in the last about twelve years, even more so since Smatresk became president. You can't make it all up at once, which is why perception among some at places like SMU is still so negative. But  unlike fans, presidents at other institutions are seeing UNTs work and its steady inmprovement in student body and faculty. They see the facilities, the budget and incidentally also the Tier one research institution. In those senses NT is -for example- way ahead of UTSA, which nobody wonders about why they are invited. And yet I still feel that without a potential MWC grab of NT, this might not have happend. Can't prove it probably will take decades before that becomes public, as none of the involved parties has any interest in admitting that if it is so. I get that some at SMU are not happy. UNT joining will intensify the competition between the two institutions when it comes to on-field talent. Not immediately (right now NT is terrible and SMU is good), but somewhere down the line. But even if some SMU folks can't see it, NT is much more of a peer insitution now, than it was 15 years ago. What is more, the disparity in enrollment means that UNT has a potential that -if it ever manages to really tap it - SMU can't match.

Edited by outoftown
  • Upvote 4
  • Lovely Take 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

I don't understand this line of thinking that comes up from time to time. 

 

SMU was one of the worst teams in all of football for 10+ years and not much better for another 10+.  We spent 1997-2013 in a conference not much better than yours.   For a lot of that time TCU was also garbage.  What field could be any more level? UNT had every opportunity to match or pass SMU and didn't have the administrative and/or booster support to pass SMU's incompetent administration and boosters.  It's been level for decades and we have been playing you frequently. 

That’s all irrelevant. You people for the most part have always belittled UNT.  When we were in the MVC, arguably the best Basketball conference in the nation your school mocked it and put it down. Sure, you guys were in the SWC, arguably the best football conference in the country and football was king.

Whats so ironic is that the  original CUSA was made up of many old MVC schools. Louisville and Cincinnati have moved on to the P5. 

UNT with improved facilities and an enrollment of 42,000 may just...........

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DentonStang said:

I don't understand this line of thinking that comes up from time to time. 

 

SMU was one of the worst teams in all of football for 10+ years and not much better for another 10+.  We spent 1997-2013 in a conference not much better than yours.   For a lot of that time TCU was also garbage.  What field could be any more level? UNT had every opportunity to match or pass SMU and didn't have the administrative and/or booster support to pass SMU's incompetent administration and boosters.  It's been level for decades and we have been playing you frequently. 

You are exactly correct with all you’ve posted.  
We had too many bureaucrats at UNT with not one clue about running an NCAA football program, especially during a time we should have been shaking & baking in our D1-AA era in the 80’s. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, outoftown said:

While I get where you are coming from, the perception level was never even, which was a problem in things such as recruiting, but also in attracting attention and getting opponetns that drive interest. The sun Belt in the 90ies was nowhere near C-USA. NT was a complete geographical outlier. That affected costs and familiarity with opponents and spectators. That all has backlash on things like donations.

The other part, and i guess you are correct there, is that UNT didn't do enough work and investment for the first ten of those 20 years you are referring to nor at any point in the 20 years before that). It has however truly started  doing its part and investing in the last about twelve years, even more so since Smatresk became president. You can't make it all up at once, which is why perception among some at places like SMU is still so negative. But  unlike fans, presidents at other institutions are seeing UNTs work and its steady inmprovement in student body and faculty. They see the facilities, the budget and incidentally also the Tier one research institution. In those senses NT is -for example- way ahead of UTSA, which nobody wonders about why they are invited. And yet I still feel that without a potential MWC grab of NT, this might not have happend. Can't prove it probably will take decades before that becomes public, as none of the involved parties has any interest in admitting that if it is so. I get that some at SMU are not happy. UNT joining will intensify the competition between the two institutions when it comes to on-field talent. Not immediately (right now NT is terrible and SMU is good), but somewhere down the line. But even if some SMU folks can't see it, NT is much more of a peer insitution now, than it was 15 years ago. What is more, the disparity in enrollment means that UNT has a potential that -if it ever manages to really tap it - SMU can't match.

SMU has zero desire to grow enrollment the way that UNT has done in recent years.  Trust me the general thought among many alums (myself included) is that the university should actually be somewhere in the 5,500 to 6,000 undergrad range with an acceptance rate in high 30's low 40's.  We don't want to turn into TCU with a near 10,000 undergrad population and relatively mediocre SAT/ACT and GPA metrics by which other private schools are measured.  

Becoming "bigger" for the sake of being bigger is a fool's errand for a private institution.  SMU should focus on being better and growing the endowment and attaining AAU status.  It is borderline criminal that the endowment is only $2.3 billion with the university's ties to Dallas/Fortune 500.  Too many old Gerald Turner sycophants on the board content with where things stand while our aspiration peers like Tulane and USC are separating.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, UNT Texas Hooligan said:

A local conference rivalry boosts interest and they would double their average home attendance in one game with our fans there. 

Totally agree, if this does come to pass this will just elevate the rivalry even more as both schools will play each other across all sports. If this story is true, it’s foolish. They literally have no where to go. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SMU2006 said:

LOL.  This is beyond preposterous.

Rick Hart, the SMU AD, was the largest proponent of adding UNT and Rice.  

I don't see why SMU would be "afraid" of adding a program like North Texas.  There is zero reason for that as proven on the field.

The additions of Rice and Charlotte are completely outrageous.  The general consensus is that adding six now helps offset the eventual departures of AAC legacy schools in the near term.  Either way Rice has shown zero commitment to football and Charlotte plays in a 15,000 seat stadium with an athletic budget akin to a Sun Belt program.  

 

I would think there would be some strings attached to their membership? I mean..AAC has the leverage here, why wouldn’t they ask more of these schools if and when they would become members? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMU is scared. They know what will happen once we are in the same conference. UNT becomes Houston and SMU becomes Rice. Just look at how the college football power structure shifted in the city of Houston once UH joined the SWC. There is a reason Rice Stadium has been reducing their size for the past 50 years.

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

Why does everyone think SMU is out to get NT.   They have plenty of issues other than area competition.  Competition for the entertainment dollar in the Metromess is vicious.   

SMU and NT don't make a dent in the DFW sports market.   

Everyone that goes to NT/SMU games know that SMU needs affiliation with NT a lot more than NT needs SMU.  

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SMU2006 said:

SMU has zero desire to grow enrollment the way that UNT has done in recent years.  Trust me the general thought among many alums (myself included) is that the university should actually be somewhere in the 5,500 to 6,000 undergrad range with an acceptance rate in high 30's low 40's.  We don't want to turn into TCU with a near 10,000 undergrad population and relatively mediocre SAT/ACT and GPA metrics by which other private schools are measured.  

Becoming "bigger" for the sake of being bigger is a fool's errand for a private institution.  SMU should focus on being better and growing the endowment and attaining AAU status.  It is borderline criminal that the endowment is only $2.3 billion with the university's ties to Dallas/Fortune 500.  Too many old Gerald Turner sycophants on the board content with where things stand while our aspiration peers like Tulane and USC are separating.

Agree. Totally different missions for a State School and a private school. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.