State Of The Sun Belt

[MeanGreen61]

State of the Sun Belt

League's hierarchy, concerns stem from money

By Adam Sparks

sparks@dnj.com

The Sun Belt Conference appears to be making a move in a Darwinian direction.

With its addition of Division I-A football in 2001, the league was based on equal opportunity and a good Samaritan mentality.

It took in fledgling I-A football schools and nursed them to the lower end of the nation's highest level of play.

But the Sun Belt's slogan may now be moving toward natural selection and "Survival of the fittest" to better its midmajor species.

Such a topic was raised at the league's recent spring meetings.

"We looked at what we can all do in our own situations to raise our standards, and I looked around the room at each school as if to say, 'Where are you at on this?'" said Sun Belt Commissioner Wright Waters. "It's one thing to look at the top one, two, three teams in the league, but I'm concerned about what 11, 12 and 13 are doing to raise their standards to the rest.

"It's a concern that too many schools aren't raising their standards, ... but I don't want to say it's only the bottom group that's a concern because everyone needs to up their expectations. When you raise the bar, it makes everyone else raise their expectations or look like fools."

Money seems to be the root of both the league's hierarchy and its worries.

Three of the richest Sun Belt schools, in terms of annual athletic budgets, — Western Kentucky, MTSU and North Texas — are also the leading trio in the league's All-Sports points standings since 2000.

Others like Denver and Florida Atlantic have comparable budgets but have competed in limited sports in the conference.

"There is some significance in the difference of resources," said MTSU athletic director Chris Massaro, whose previous football coaching staff in the 2005 season was the highest paid in the Sun Belt.

"MTSU and Western Kentucky are always compared, and then North Texas has also made large strides with their facilities. Those three schools are usually the top three in the (Vic) Bubas Cup standings about every year. That's probably not a coincidence."

The poorest I-A football league in the nation, the Sun Belt's 2004-05 annual athletic budgets ranged from Denver's $18.1 million to New Orleans' $4.2 million, and effects of Hurricane Katrina has even reduced the latter number by 20 percent for the 2006-07 fiscal year.

However, even the more prosperous of the Sun Belt are struggling when compared to conferences one-half step above.

While Western Kentucky, North Texas and MTSU each tout annual athletic budgets between $12 million-$15 million, Conference USA's average budget is more than $22 million, and major conferences like the SEC can reach as high as Florida's $73.8 million athletic budget in 2004-05.

Those figures have further highlighted the conference's monetary misfortunes, especially in men's basketball.

Sun Belt men's teams have not landed an at-large bid or won a game in the NCAA Tournament in more than a decade, letting other conferences take incentives for reaching further into the NCAA bracket.

"That's definitely a financial issue because we're leaving huge amounts of money on the table," Waters said.

According to a revenue study introduced at the league's spring meetings, the Sun Belt has been awarded six shares worth a total of $983,988 in NCAA Tournament money over the last six years, with one share equaling one team's appearance in each round of the Big Dance.

The Sun Belt has been represented by only one team in the NCAA Tournament during the six-year study, and that team has been ousted in the first round each time.

The $983,988 is divided among the member schools and the conference office. In comparison, the Big 12 conference was awarded $14,430,355 from 88 shares in the same six-year period. The Mid-American Conference had 11 shares for $1.8 million, the Western Athletic Conference had 20 shares and Conference USA 44 during the same span.

"We also had a study ranking the 332 Division I (men's basketball) teams based on win-loss records. We had four in the top 100. ... MTSU was 172, but, of course, (coach Kermit Davis) has only been there for four years. (The Blue Raiders) were 103rd in the last three years," Waters said. "But even when you look at it in the short term, we need a cultural change and to raise expectations.

"A winning record doesn't get you where you want to go. We can't accept a winning record as a good year. A good year means competing in the NCAA Tournament and winning."

To compete more consistently on a national scale, the Sun Belt needs its poorer schools to catch up to the initiative of the more prosperous schools.

Waters says that means spending more to buy home games, which will in turn sell more season tickets.

"None are putting enough in the stands to balance their budget, and not every solution is going to work for every school," Waters said. "But one thing is for sure: You can't schedule your way into the NCAA Tournament. Only winning can get you in. But you can sure schedule yourself out of the NCAA. Each institution must find a schedule that allows winning."

Massaro, whose Blue Raiders have bought a home basketball game against Tennessee State this season for $45,000, said each school must mold the league's plan to fit its own means.

"Even if your budget is half of ours, there are things you can do within your schedule," Massaro said. "If the league gets multiple teams in the NCAA, it's well worth it. We're going to do it, and we hope others will, too."

The league is in reasonable agreement that similar football issues aren't as serious as those in the league's traditionally strong sport.

"I don't get real panicked about football. Football is only 5 years old, and it has to go through normal growing pains," Waters said. "I still feel good about it. Am I happy with it? No, but we're getting there.

"We need to get smarter (in football) because even with 12 games, most are getting four money games. We need bowl eligible teams, and so the same scheduling concerns apply. But men's basketball has to be fixed. There's a history there we have to get back to."

While admitting basketball's superior tradition in the Sun Belt, Davis sees the league's concerns stretching across numerous sports.

"This was created as a basketball league. There's no question about that. But the biggest thing we all have to do is sell more season tickets. That's an issue everyone in our league faces," Davis said.

"But still it goes back to raising standards. The point was made (at the spring meetings) that we need everyone to draw closer to the top teams in our league rather than aid the bottom teams. The league needs to make decisions based on how it will help emphasize the top three or four teams in the league. We can't lower our standards.

"Look at Florida State football in the ACC. They couldn't be beaten by anybody in their league for years, but others raised their standards to beat them, and that changed the complexion of ACC football."

But despite the mounting issues for the ever-changing league, the Sun Belt's key figures carry an optimistic view of the conference.

"Back when we started, we put together something called Vision 2010, which is where we would like to be. We want to be a top-10 league in all sports, and I think we can still get there," Waters said. "Overall, we just need to be better organized and have a spirit of cooperation."

After one year of headway at MTSU, Massaro believes one of the league's strongest suits is the athletic administration matching the conference's vision.

"I see a lot of ambition with the ADs around this league," Massaro said. "That's what this league needs, and that can help get us to that vision."

— Adam Sparks, 278-5167

http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A.../606110329/1006

[Eagle1855]

I think this is a pretty good write-up. Perhaps no one commented on it because we all assume we will be a "lock" for a spot in C-USA the next time realignments take place.

In the event that we do not change conferences, what is the feasibility of the goals outlined in the 2010 plan? Whats it going to take for us to get to a C-USA type budget? And are our higherups even on board with this plan? I would tend to say yes, as we have committed to building a host of facilities. But whats it going to take to get to the next level? Time?

Is the Sun Belt ever going to be more than a bottom ten dwelling league?

[buff64]

Would Conference USA even consider a school with an athletic budget $5 million below their lowest budgeted school ? Does anyone know what SMU's sthletic budget is ?

[Eagle1855]

Does anyone know what SMU's sthletic budget is ?

←

Or even ECU, Tulane, or Marshall's budget.

[badgerwolf]

Does anyone know what SMU's sthletic budget is ?

←

Here you go Greenies, from the CUSA Board:

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/

1. University of Memphis: $24,289,381

2. University of Houston: $22,648,933

3. Central Florida University: $22,089,418

4. University of Texas-El Paso: $21,325,408

5. East Carolina University: $21,128,219

6. University of UAB Blazers: $18,784,112

7. Southern Mississippi University: $18,246,484

8. Marshall University: $16,323,459

football ticket sales.

1. University of Memphis: $2,395,837

2. East Carolina University: $2,067,688

3. University of Texas-El Paso: $1,969,639

4. Marshall University: $1,551,690

5. Southern Mississippi University: $1,375,554

6. Central Florida University: $1,145,224

7. University of Houston: $819,500

8. University of UAB Blazers: $592,559

basketball ticket sales. (this is just sad)

1. University of Memphis: $3,708,600

2. University of Texas-El Paso: $1,644,687

3. University of UAB Blazers: $541,217

4. East Carolina University: $520,858

5. Marshall University: $385,931

6. University of Houston: $288,560

7. Southern Mississippi University: $265,336

8. Central Florida University: $53,643

did not report:

Tulsa

Rice

Tulane

SMU

[eulesseagle]

I believe "IF" the University of Central Florida or ECU or both jump to the Big East that will leave one or maybe two openings for North Texas to jump to C-USA. Regardless of our athletic budget being "sub-par" to other C-USA institutions UNT still needs ATTENDANCE at the games. With all the "rumblings" that are coming out of the B.E., the last several months, and the B.E. only having eight football playing schools in a BCS conference they will expand. Expansion, IMHO, will be in the next year or two.

No matter how everyone feels about "our" current situation with the level of play or the coaches it is MORE important to concentrate on ATTENDANCE!!!

UNT may be viewed as an "ugly" sister of D-1A, in the SBC, but having "big breasts" may help pursuade the C-USA powers that be to choose UNT over other similar schools.

[eulesseagle]

UNT Football ticket sales...........$299,515

UNT Basketball ticket sales.......$108,742

[MeanGreen61]

UNT Football ticket sales...........$299,515

UNT Basketball ticket sales.......$108,742

←

This site shows different figures for ticket sales.

Football.... $1,430,676

Basketball ....Mens $217,534, Women's 22,865....total $230,399

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetail.asp?CRITERIA=3

[eulesseagle]

MG61,

Since Badgerwolf quoted ticket sales so did I.

I saw the other figures.

[MeanGreen61]

MG61,

Since Badgerwolf quoted ticket sales so did I.

I saw the other figures.

←

So ? And I just posted a different set of figures for the same period from another site.

[DeepGreen]

UNT may be viewed as an "ugly" sister of D-1A, in the SBC, but having "big breasts" may help pursuade the C-USA powers that be to choose UNT over other similar schools.

←

I don't think I've ever heard it put quite like that.

[PlummMeanGreen]

I believe "IF" the University of Central Florida or ECU or both jump to the Big East that will leave one or maybe two openings for North Texas to jump to C-USA.  Regardless of our athletic budget being "sub-par" to other C-USA institutions UNT still needs ATTENDANCE at the games.  With all the "rumblings" that are coming out of the B.E., the last several months, and the B.E. only having eight football playing schools in a BCS conference they will expand.  Expansion, IMHO, will be in the next year or two. 

No matter how everyone feels about "our" current situation with the level of play or the coaches it is MORE important to concentrate on ATTENDANCE!!!

UNT may be viewed as an "ugly" sister of D-1A, in the SBC, but having "big breasts" may help pursuade the C-USA powers that be to choose UNT over other similar schools.

←

eulesseagle, I think our breast implants, ie, "fakes" seem to be seeping of late?

Was talking about this very (possible) CUSA future expansion subject or possibilities with another fellow alum weeks ago. That particular NT Ex thinks we would be in trouble (again) if CUSA expanded anytime soon (like the next 5 or so years)?. I really beleive we were in our best position to get in last time around when Chuck Neinas visited our campus on CUSA's behalf. This even in light of SMU's behind the table politickin'. Yet now, CUSA might have key concerns about UNT: First of all, CUSA officials can read each of our media guides of all our varsity sports and see for themselves that we have only one varsity coach over .500 on our entire staff. CUSA officials might also ponder this: "Why doesn't UNT think they can do any better with their hiring practices because they keep on adding extended contracts to several of their varsity coaches who are nowhere even close to .500 in wins/losses. Folks, what we do in the darkness will eventually come out in the daylight for all in CUSA (and beyond) to see (and not just for "all" of us on GoMeanGreen.com who banter back and forth on what we really have that is marketble to the rest of NCAA D1-A (outside the SBC, of course).

Our fellow NT alum also suggested that being picked over UNT in a possible future CUSA expansion could be Troy U (new football stadium that debuted on ESPN national telecast with Trojans getting a very impressive win over the 17'th ranked Missouri Tigers); or even Middle Tennessee (funtional D1-A football stadium/new AD/new spirit and attitude) or even ULaLa who has even hosted TAMU before almost 40,000 and a school that might fit moreso in the CUSA footprint than us. Lest one also forgets, there is also Lousiana Tech who schooled us in a football game last Fall.

WHY DO A HARDY HANDFUL OF UNT ELECT ALWAYS SEEM TO FORGET THIS MOST BASIC (yet most glaring and ominous) FACT? We will always have SMU as an albatros around our neck as far as their showing enoughy interest as to sponsor UNT toward a future CUSA membership. If you think about it, CUSA is becoming like the old SWC with just about as many Texas schools as they really need in their conference. They have all the major Texas markets covered, too. Yet for any of our alums to think SMU will turn over a new leaf with their attitude toward UNT is being most naive' and would also be an NT alum who has done little or no research of the history of SMU's attitude toward just about anything relating to UNT, especially when it comes to both schools being in bed with each other in the same athletic conference.

FWIW, I don't even think a good ol' fashioned Methodist brush arbor style revival "Come to Jesus" meeting will ever change this particular group of Methodists as far as their long-standing attitude toward us. Hellsbells, maybe its just in the Mustang faithful's DNA to feel this way toward us, ya' think?!?!?!?

Edited June 14, 2006 by PlummMeanGreen

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

eulesseagle, I think our breast implants, ie, "fakes" seem to be seeping of late?

WHY DO A HARDY HANDFUL OF UNT ELECT ALWAYS SEEM TO FORGET THIS MOST BASIC (yet most glaring and ominous) FACT?  We will always have SMU as an albatros around our neck as far as their showing enoughy interest as to sponsor UNT toward a future CUSA membership.  If you think about it, CUSA is becoming like the old SWC with just about as many Texas schools as they really need in their conference.  They have all the major Texas markets covered, too.  Yet for any of our alums to think SMU will turn over a new leaf with their attitude toward UNT is being most naive' and would also be an NT alum who has done little or no research of the history of SMU's attitude toward just about anything relating to UNT, especially when it comes to both schools being in bed with each other in the same athletic conference. 

FWIW, I don't even think a good ol' fashioned Methodist brush arbor style revival "Come to Jesus" meeting will ever change this particular group of Methodists as far as their long-standing attitude toward us.  Hellsbells, maybe its just in the Mustang faithful's DNA to feel this way toward us, ya' think?!?!?!?

←

Jim, would you please explain just how or why SMU should be a supporter of North Texas?

One axiom that I remember from early childhood is that the best way to have a friend is to be one. You, and 99% of this board, have done nothing but bad-mouth SMU. It's not just a dislike because we're rivals (albeit not much on our part) but it comes across as pure HATRED. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, they were against our joining the SWC but so were the majority of others; especially TCU. Where is the hatred for TCU?

In the latest CUSA fiasco make sure that their support for La Tech was not a request from Tulane because I've heard from several sources that it was. But, (1) it didn't do any good since La Tech was not selected either and (2) they should not have had a vote anyway since they were not conference members at that point.

I would like to beat SMU in every sport every time we play but it's not because I hate SMU. A friendly rivalry with SMU does more for me than the venom and hatred for them that pours from this board.

[eulesseagle]

GreyEagleOne-

You are correct. There were other SWC schools that kept NTSU from joining the SWC. SMU just had one of the several votes that kept NTSU independent. The same will hold true if UNT tries to get into C-USA.

We will, probably, never know who said what and what the final votes will be on this issue in the future with C-USA.

Bottom line is that we need fans in the seats for not only football but also basketball.

30 years is too long to hold a grudge against SMU so IMHO it is time to move on.

The "conference shuffle" is not complete as evidence of what the Big East would like to do. Just like Reagonomics UNT will eventually get the "trickle down effect" from other conference fallout.

As the Boy Scouts of America say, "Be Prepared."

[DeepGreen]

Good points on burying the SMU hatred hatchet.

On another note, can someone tell me why, according to the "IndyStar" report referenced above, travel expenses for North Texas ran $1,407,550 and $1,174,237 for Louisiana Tech of the WAC. Not sure if LT get help from the WAC for traveling to Hawaii during the reporting year, but the bottom line is they spend less on travel than we did. And doesn't La Tech field a baseball team?

Someone please explain to me how this can be. What am I missing in this Sun Belt "utopia" versus travel in the WAC?

By the way, I could not bring up comparative numbers off the government site that was referenced.

Edited June 14, 2006 by DeepGreen

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

GreyEagleOne-

You are correct.  There were other SWC schools that kept NTSU from joining the SWC.  SMU just had one of the several votes that kept NTSU independent.  The same will hold true if UNT tries to get into C-USA. 

We will, probably, never know who said what and what the final votes will be on this issue in the future with C-USA.

Bottom line is that we need fans in the seats for not only football but also basketball.

30 years is too long to hold a grudge against SMU so IMHO it is time to move on. 

The "conference shuffle" is not complete as evidence of what the Big East would like to do.  Just like Reagonomics UNT will eventually get the "trickle down effect" from other conference fallout.

As the Boy Scouts of America say, "Be Prepared."

←

---If my memory is correct, SMU, TCU and Baylor voted against us on the SWC issue with Texas and Arkansas being our biggest supporters. SMU led the fight against us and convinced the other two that it would be in their best interest to keep us out based on two issues.....1. we would be another state supported school and they weren't, plus-- 2. we were located in the same area and would likely eventually take attention from them and might hurt their fan base. These two issues I really understand.

---My problem with SMU has been their attitude toward us and the insulting remarks that they constantly make toward us in the media such as claiming they have the only "whatever" program in the Dallas area when we have a far better and bigger one. We are treated by them as if we do not exist. Their administration and student really have an attitude problem toward us. My problem with them has been their attitude and lack of respect toward us. I think TCU even feels the same way about SMU somewhat, the diffference is they have overcome lots of SMU's arrogance toward them by being rather successful in the athletic programs..

---I really don't think it matters much if we "bury the hacket" or not. They perceive us as a threat (we are larger and state-supported) and they are not going to accept us in any case.....until we become a successful 2000 lb. gorilla that just can't be ignored. The interesting fact to me is how big we may soon become.

---Texas and A&M are trying to hold down enrollment now (at 50,000+) by raising admission standards which mean other state schools will get students not admitted there. The obvious choices are North Texas, TxTech, TxState, and maybe Houston. Most students don't like TxTech location. Houston doesn't seem to have much appeal to many. I see us getting much larger, as well as TexState which pulls a lot of students from Austin/San Antonio and area. The way "Dallas" is growing north we are getting much closer to a huge population.. Many of our students are now transfers from local JC's now. I would like to see UNT reach out to the JC students even sports-wise to get support because a lot of them will become our Jr and Sr. students. Two year students usually have less loyality than 4-year ones, involve these students earlier somehow.

---Personally I believe that the key to better attendence is more in-state universitys and well-known colleges to play in Denton.. There is a huge populatiion base nearby, SMU appeals mostly to their grads only, not the Dallas masses which have no connection with SMU and can't afford their tuition.

--- If we don't change conferences, I would have love to have Tex-State in the Sunbelt. They are huge (25,000+) and have potential of being well recognized as well. It would be are likely big rival for us by being a cross-state rival.. plus we have played each other about 40 games -- just not lately. This is the only I-AA team that I would not object to playing. This game would help both of us attendence-wise in my oppinion. They are suffering growing pains (athletic-wise) just as we were. We have been in conferences with them several times, the latest being the Southland. They are not some tiny unknown school, even LBJ went there. I don't think we should look down on them for being I-AA, we should be able to help each other by scheduling them in several sports..

Last-shot ---As I have gotten older, I have really taken note of the Scout Motto, "Be Prepared". You never know what will happen next and it is really meaningful.

[FirefightnRick]

-- If we don't change conferences, I would have love to have Tex-State in the Sunbelt.  They are huge (25,000+) and have potential of being well recognized as well.  It would be are likely big rival for us by being a cross-state rival.. plus we have played each other about 40 games -- just not lately.  This is the only I-AA team that I would not object to playing.  This game would help both of us attendence-wise in my oppinion.  They are suffering growing pains (athletic-wise)  just as we were.  We have been in conferences with them several times, the latest being the Southland.  They are not some tiny unknown school, even LBJ went there.  I don't think we should look down on them for being I-AA, we should be able to help each other by scheduling them in several sports..

←

Completely agree.

Rick

[Stan R]

A couple years ago I would have said it would be nuts to add SWTSU to our conference but now I'm leaning toward approving it. We need more teams and they're probably as good as most of the teams in our conference anyway. Bring em on.

[Shof]

Completely agree.

Rick

←

There are 2 schools currently in the SLC that I wouldn't mind seeing in the SunBelt some day; Texas State and UT-San Antonio. Texas State could probably make the move any time. UTSA is still a ways from making the move. Interestingly, today's SA Express-News ran an article on the state of athletics at UTSA, and as you might expect, football was at the forefront of that discussion. I don't see them having a viable football program (D-1A) for another 5-10 years; but if they do make the jump, I think the Sunbelt could be a good fit. Now, my opinion is biased on 2 fronts - first, a daughter currently attending UTSA, and second, another opportunity for me to see more of my Cajuns without having to travel 450 miles. Still, either of these schools could be solid additions to the SBC if the chance arrived.

[Stan R]

There are 2 schools currently in the SLC that I wouldn't mind seeing in the SunBelt some day; Texas State and UT-San Antonio.  Texas State could probably make the move any time.  UTSA is still a ways from making the move.  Interestingly, today's SA Express-News ran an article on the state of athletics at UTSA, and as you might expect, football was at the forefront of that discussion.  I don't see them having a viable football program (D-1A) for another 5-10 years; but if they do make the jump, I think the Sunbelt could be a good fit.  Now, my opinion is biased on 2 fronts - first, a daughter currently attending UTSA, and second, another opportunity for me to see more of my Cajuns without having to travel 450 miles.    Still, either of these schools could be solid additions to the SBC if the chance arrived.

←

I draw the line at UTSA... PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF...!!!!

[Shof]

I draw the line at UTSA... PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF...!!!!

←

Don't worry, by the time UTSA is ready for the SunBelt you guys will already be in a BCS conference Regardless, they (UTSA) aren't even talking about the SunBelt. They have visions of a "CUSA type of affiliation to match their metropolitan area". Realistic, probably not; but those in positions of influence don't seem to mind talking about it. At least they're not bashful.

[DallasGreen]

Don't worry, by the time UTSA is ready for the SunBelt you guys will already be in a BCS conference    Regardless, they (UTSA) aren't even talking about the SunBelt.  They have visions of a "CUSA type of affiliation to match their metropolitan area".    Realistic, probably not; but those in positions of influence don't seem to mind talking about it.  At least they're not bashful.

←

At least they are not afraid to have vision, unlike some of the new NT administrators and faculty that hang with the status quo. As for burying the hatchet with the Southern Miserable University Horses' Asses, I have an old Southern slogan for Grey Eagle One and the other horse huggers on this board--- as is said in Dixie---FORGET--- HELL !!!!

[tux]

A couple years ago I would have said it would be nuts to add SWTSU to our conference but now I'm leaning toward approving it.  We need more teams and they're probably as good as most of the teams in our conference anyway.  Bring em on.  

←

I agree. I would love to see more Texas schools in the sunbelt - perhaps even have east and west divisions with a championship game like the Big XII. Plus an instate rivalry could only help fuel game attendance at both schools.