Wac Had Bcs Bowl Champ, Now Has 2 In Top 25

[CMJ]

Troy isn't getting more votes because they have 3 losses. "Mid-majors" don't break the top 25 with 3L's. Hell, look at Boise. One loss - with their recent winning history - and they're #19.

Edited November 23, 2007 by CMJ

[PlummMeanGreen]

Tory isn't getting more votes because they have 3 losses. "Mid-majors" don't break the top 25 with 3L's. Hell, look at Boise. One loss - with their recent winning history - and they're #19.

But its who Troy U lost to that should not make them lose 2 freakin' votes for Top 25 consideration. They played Georgia close and then lost votes. Comprende?

[PlummMeanGreen]

Tory isn't getting more votes because they have 3 losses. "Mid-majors" don't break the top 25 with 3L's. Hell, look at Boise. One loss - with their recent winning history - and they're #19.

But its who Troy U lost to that should not make them lose 2 freakin' votes for Top 25 consideration. They played the Georgia Bulldogs in a close game and then lost their few poll votes. Does that bode well for future SBC football champions or................do we just all love going bowling as a non-ranked Bottom 25 football program to get schooled by a non-ranked CUSA opponent? That seems to be the best our future has to offer in the SBC and someone please show a significant trend (not just an occasional win over non-ranked former Top 25 schools, either) that suggests that we will break out of this cycle anytime in the next decade?

How tall a mountain should Mean Green athletics force itself to climb if their is an easier way to do all this is my main question? Last year, I thought the WAC idea was a terrible idea, but events and studying which region's non BCS schools seem to have no problem getting Top 25 rankings have changed everything for this one alum.

IMO, if the SBC ever gets a Top 25 ranked school, it will want to move on to greener pastures pronto. Why does UNT need to stick around with our traditional business as usual approach to lower echelon athletics, do nothing, build nothing and maybe even suffer the shame (once again) of watching yet another conference implode in front of our very faces while some young NT alums (who don't seem to know their now defunct SWC/CUSA history of anti-voting for UNT politics as a few keep coming up with pipe dreams of our being associated with those same Texas-based schools who have never wanted in each of their respective athletic histories to be assocated with University of North Texas?

Hayden Fry told a gathering at a fish fry within the last 6 mos. that UNT should get out of the Sun Belt, and I'd think more would be more prone to listen to what this progressive-thinking (and most perceptive) College Football Hall of Famer would have to say on the subject. So yes, we probably all need to listen to Coach Fry once again or...........we can take the low road and go thru another 30 plus years of whatever you want to call it since he left town for the Big 10. Whoever wants all that again for 3 more decades do raise their hands?

We do seem to have a choice with the WAC (which we will never have with CUSA) or a New SWC which will black-ball UNT like the old SWC (now mostly CUSA) would do again. Jeez, do NT alums like to play the role of Job or whoever with its athletic program, specifically football? Well.....?

PS: Someone tell me why UNT should continue membership in a league our fellow conference-mates would leave in a New York Minute if they had other choices or invites?

Someone also tell me why La Tech has never wanted to leave the WAC for the Sun Belt for even one minute? Do they know something we just don't? FWIW, La Tech has been out-recruiting UNT in DFW and Texas the last few years looking at their results on the playing field including their drubbing of our Mean Green team last time we played the Bulldogs. So please..........I'm all ears with this WAC versus SBC discussion (which is all it is since our officials have made no WAC overtures...(and I'm also a bit bored as I look out the window and watch it snow on this Thanksgiving Day, circa 2007.

Edited November 22, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[CMJ]

Name 3 "mid major" schools in any conference that plays a top 10 school close, loses, and gains votes in the Top 25. Hell usually schools in the "Big 6" leagues lose votes as well, no matter how well they play a school near the top.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Name 3 "mid major" schools in any conference that plays a top 10 school close, loses, and gains votes in the Top 25. Hell usually schools in the "Big 6" leagues lose votes as well, no matter how well they play a school near the top.

I know we can go back & forth with all this (which we are doing) but in the below listed latest polls all that stands out to me is the WAC has 2 of its schools in the Top 25. One of the polls shows only 1 SBC school with just votes, that is, 2 votes--a long ways from any semblance of a Top 25 ranking.

"It's a matter of voltage" (from the movie Crimson Tide) and CMJ, I believe the WAC would give North Texas the necessary kind of conference voltage (if you will) to rev up our football engines as to do the kinds of things nationally that if we stayed another few years in the Sun Belt we will never do; that is, we would only have further disappointment as far as having a nationally recognized football program which I think many of us on this board still think is do-able. If we have it in our power to change our present course in NCAA D1-A football, I think we should look very hard at the present changing climate, trends, future conference alignments (that do not include North Texas) and do so.

PS: Is very interesting to see other football programs once at our level (or even below UNT's) who (obviously) made the right & bold decisions to take charge of their football futures and as a result some of these schools have now catapulted into the Top 25 stratisphere of NCAA D1-A--& not just getting a few votes, either. How about we start with the University of South Florida (who BTW is in the Top 25 with 3 losses).

2007 NCAA Football Rankings - Week 12 (Nov. 18)

Season: 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007

Week: Preseason | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Other Polls Index USA Today Associated Press Harris Poll Master Coaches Poll BCS standings ESPN.com Power 16 ESPN.com Bottom 10 ESPNU Allstate Standings

Add Widget BCS Standings

1. LSU 10-1

2. Kansas 11-0

3. West Virginia 9-1

4. Missouri 10-1

5. Ohio State 11-1

6. Arizona State 9-1

7. Georgia 9-2

8. Virginia Tech 9-2

9. Oregon 8-2

10. Oklahoma 9-2

11. USC 8-2

12. Florida 8-3

13. Texas 9-2

14. Boston College 9-2

15. Hawaii 10-0

16. Virginia 9-2

17. Illinois 9-3

18. Tennessee 8-3

19. Boise State 10-1

20. Connecticut 9-2

21. Wisconsin 9-3

22. Clemson 8-3

23. South Florida 8-3

24. Cincinnati 8-3

25. BYU 8-2

Complete Standings

AP Top 25

1. LSU (60) 10-1 1,619

2. Kansas (3) 11-0 1,541

3. Missouri (1) 10-1 1,469

4. West Virginia (1) 9-1 1,457

5. Ohio State 11-1 1,341

6. Georgia 9-2 1,246

7. Arizona State 9-1 1,219

8. Virginia Tech 9-2 1,131

9. Oregon 8-2 1,057

10. Oklahoma 9-2 1,031

11. USC 8-2 967

12. Florida 8-3 874

13. Texas 9-2 863

14. Hawaii 10-0 795

15. Boston College 9-2 678

16. Virginia 9-2 614

17. Boise State 10-1 597

18. Illinois 9-3 548

19. Tennessee 8-3 512

20. Connecticut 9-2 327

21. Clemson 8-3 294

22. Wisconsin 9-3 274

23. Brigham Young 8-2 158

24. Cincinnati 8-3 149

25. Auburn 7-4 100

Others Receiving Votes

Texas Tech 89, South Florida 73, Kentucky 38, Michigan 19, Arkansas 9, Air Force 7, California 6, Florida State 6, Oregon State 5, Penn State 4, Utah 4, UCF 2, Tulsa 1, Northern Iowa 1.

Dropped From Rankings

Kentucky 22, Michigan 23.

Complete Rankings

USA Today Poll

1. LSU (51) 10-1 1,483

2. Kansas (8) 11-0 1,441

3. West Virginia (1) 9-1 1,345

4. Missouri 10-1 1,328

5. Ohio State 11-1 1,276

6. Arizona State 9-1 1,158

7. Georgia 9-2 1,105

8. Virginia Tech 9-2 1,019

9. Oklahoma 9-2 931

10. Oregon 8-2 890

11. Texas 9-2 883

12. USC 8-2 879

13. Hawaii 10-0 828

14. Florida 8-3 736

15. Virginia 9-2 626

16. Boston College 9-2 619

17. Boise State 10-1 593

18. Illinois 9-3 485

19. Tennessee 8-3 430

20. Wisconsin 9-3 343

21. Connecticut 9-2 264

22. Clemson 8-3 225

23. Brigham Young 8-2 161

24. Texas Tech 8-4 80

25. Auburn 7-4 65

Others Receiving Votes

Cincinnati 63, Air Force 51, Michigan 38, Kentucky 36, South Florida 32, Arkansas 25, Penn State 22, Florida State 12, UCF 11, Rutgers 7, TROY 2, Michigan State 2, Oklahoma State 2, Oregon State 1, Fresno State 1, Houston 1, Indiana 1.

Dropped From Rankings

Penn State 22, Michigan 23, Cincinnati 25.

Complete Rankings

ESPNU Allstate Standings (Fan poll)

1. LSU 10-1

2. Kansas 11-0

3. Missouri 10-1

4. West Virginia 9-1

5. Ohio State 11-1

6. Georgia 9-2

7. Arizona State 9-1

8. Virginia Tech 9-2

9. Oklahoma 9-2

10. Oregon 8-2

11. USC 8-2

12. Florida 8-3

13. Hawaii 10-0

14. Texas 9-2

15. Boston College 9-2

16. Illinois 9-3

17. Boise State 10-1

18. Virginia 9-2

19. Tennessee 8-3

20. Connecticut 9-2

21. Wisconsin 9-3

22. Clemson 8-3

23. Auburn 7-4

24. Cincinnati 8-3

25. Brigham Young 8-2

Others Receiving Votes

Texas Tech, South Florida, Kentucky, Arkansas, Michigan.

Edited November 23, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[CMJ]

Simple math.

Hawaii has zero losses.

Boise has one loss.

Troy has 3 losses.

So, Plumm...what's your point?

[flyeater]

Let's dream, shall we?

Hawaii

Fresno State

San Jose State

Nevada

Idaho

Boise State

Utah State

New Mexico State

North Texas

Arkansas State

Louisiana Tech

Louisiana (ULL)

Even better, bye bye Idaho

Hawaii

Fresno State

San Jose State

Nevada

Boise State

Utah State

New Mexico State

Texas State

North Texas

Arkansas State

Louisiana Tech

Louisiana (ULL)

This would rock.

Also, getting San Antonio to host a second bowl game for the E-WAC would be easy to do, especially if Texas State were included at some point.

The SBC would survive. They could easily add App St and Georgia Southern to get back to 8.

Interesting dream, but consider that an expanded WAC already failed (miserably) once when the current MWC schools told the eastern half of the WAC to go F itself around 1998. TCU apparently maintained some relationships there and wriggled an invite back into the fold. San Diego as the largest TV market apparently didn't cut it. Most of those East WAC schools are now in C-USA after a serious domino effect of conference shakeups. I'm curious as to what goes down next time, but a (likely) non-BCS, two-division setup...seriously doubt it.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Simple math.

Hawaii has zero losses.

Boise has one loss.

Troy has 3 losses.

So, Plumm...what's your point?

My point is that the best the SBC has to offer in its 7'th year of operation is still hardly even on the "poll votes" radar of those who vote in these Top 25 polls. BTW, Cincy' has 3 losses and they are still (strangely enough) in a Top 25 poll or 2--go figure since Cincy' is hardly a past known football powerhouse. Hell, we even beat them in a bowl game (and we all gave DD his due praise with that win way back before his attitude about his employer and its alums went south).

There is so much truth to the "if you don't learn from your history you are likely to repeat it." Do we really want to repeat our history of the last 30 years, folks, that includes no Top 25 rankings and one of the most bumpy roller coaster rides any NCAA D1 school has ever had? Even a UNT athletic novice could peruse our last 30 years of UNT athletic history and understand we have really been bumbling around much of that time and you merely need football and basketball media guides to use as your references. Those media guides tell our North Texas athletic story in plain'o black & white for those who want to be serious about where we've been and where we are going.

YET........ if you are happy with the last 30 or so years with our roller coaster ride, then maybe a few of you are just happy with our school merely fielding varsity teams no matter how they do, least of all having a concern of whether they ever get national rankings.

Maybe even a hardy handful of you were more than just hunky-dory happy with what DD Ball produced in his 9 year under .500 career that included non-stop radio barbs at his employer and its alums. Yet, it was our school that did have a history of being in NCAA Division 1 longer than any of the other SBC schools (even with our 12 year sabbotical in 1-AA) and our own past number of years as a D1 program which should have made it a scenario whereas we were shooting SBC fish in the barrell its first 4 years of football operations. All this allowing us to go to 4 bowl games as unranked teams to play CUSA's "4th" best un-ranked" team; nevertheless, if all that made of few of you happy little Mean Green campers, then why waste your time and keyboarding skills on this thread if the first place? But if you do, state a few valid reasons as to why you feel the SBC is our nirvana of a conference co-existance, and please point out to those of us who will listen (with not attempts to make a joke) of such valid reasons showing past trends that indicate the SBC will soon have a Top 25 ranked school (and I did say school--singular).

Another Top 25 School We Should Look At: Focus on the U of Cincinnati in these polls. The Bearcats have "3" losses, too. Yet the Bearcats changed conferences. For sure they are now in one of the Big 6 BCS conferences, but why is this traditional "non-football" power now (suddenly) a school that can maintain a Top 25 ranking with 3 losses? One possibility is they moved to a new conference which (w/o a doubt) has a voting bloc of eastern sportswriters who will insure that "their" Big East is well represented in the Top 25 polls--anyone notice South Florida is also still in a Top 25 poll? But I think most who want to stay serious about this thread subject know Cincy' did not seem to have such support in the former league they called home, right? And when did the Cincy' Bearcats just suddenly overnight become a football power that could command votes to stay in any Top 25 poll with, uh.............................."3" losses?

The SBC came around at a good time for UNT; hell, we had no other place to go. The CUSA schools were not exactly knocking our doors down back then and one SMU president over-looked UNT last expansion time and suggested WAC'ster La Tech. Folks, the politics will forever keep us out of CUSA or even a New Southwest Conference since its the same schools who look down their noses on us--and did even after a 4 year run of bowl games for the Mean Green.

Those of you who would like to see UNT continue with the SBC, instead of the "anti'WAC" posts, give us some "pro-SBC" posts and simply point out some viable reasons we should stick around? Even as you may even have to admit trends among poll voters that suggests we have one helluva' tough row to hoe if we stick around a league that still has not one Top 25 ranked team legacy another 10 or so years (give or take). I will say from PM's and emails I've received, I am hardly alone or on an island unto myself with this WAC idea. We actually have many NT alums/Mean Green fans who think Top 25 ranking potential would happen moreso in the WAC than what they see the Sun Belt ever giving us a similar potential.

QUESTION: If we were still in the SBC and CUSA raided us for 1 or 2 eastern CUSA footprint schools and the SBC had to replace those 1 or 2 were with App. State and/or Georgia Southern; are you content that we hung in there with the SBC when we had an opportunity to get in a conference that has had a school in the Top 25 now for 6 or 7 years running? And yes, the WAC has 2 schools in the Top 25 at this time. The SBC had a school with 2 votes in recent weeks. Does a possible watered down SBC really stir you loins as to inspire you to want to fund an academic chair at our alma mater's main campus?

Edited November 23, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[flyeater]

Read again. TCU didn't leave the WAC. The WAC broke up when it's more established members (BYU, Air Force, Utah, etc.) left and formed the Mountain West. TCU then went to a league (C-USA) that better suited it from the standpoint of television (ESPN), bowls and geography. The newly formed Mountain West invited TCU back about three years ago, selling a model of potential growth and the first conference-specific television network (The Mtn.) that, unfortunately for them, is still not carried on sattellite or cable in Texas. The television end hasn't worked out, but TCU has won or competed for that league's title (not so much this year) and will go to something like a eighth or ninth straight bowl when it wins at San Diego State on Saturday.

As far as the WAC hindsight stuff, doesn't apply. Boise wasn't in the league then, and Hawaii didn't have Colt Brennan. Timmy Chang was a pretty good QB, but they didn't play any defense. Then, no one could predict those two programs being as good as they are now. Hell, Hawaii still has no recruiting budget. It's a completely different WAC now, so you can't say TCU screwed up; SMU, Rice, UTEP and Tulsa were WAC schools, too. Hawaii, Fresno and San Jose State are the only remaining original WAC schools.

You hear the MWC get trashed for its bowl partnerships, but in three years, TCU will have gone to Houston, San Diego and probably Albuquerque this season. The league champion goes to Vegas, and TCU is an attractive at-large team in years when Houston or El Paso can't get all of their conference tie-ins filled. Both have invited TCU in past years under that scenario.

I find it funny reading on this board more than occasionally how crappy TCU's situation is and what dumb moves they made. Other than not being able to break through that BCS ceiling, they appear to have things under control. We need to worry about our situation, which is quite a bit more dire these days. The idea of us being in a conference with them is ludicrous; you can't argue that they "should be" when they 1) won't even play us in a nonconference game and 2) practically lap us in budget, facilities, fan and donor support. Just because UNT says they should do it doesn't mean TCU should. I'd say we already have a full plate of issues.

[CMJ]

My point is that the best the SBC has to offer in its 7'th year of operation is still hardly even on the "poll votes" radar of those who vote in these Top 25 polls. BTW, Cincy' has 3 losses and they are still (strangely enough) in a Top 25 poll or 2--go figure since Cincy' is hardly a past known football powerhouse. Hell, we even beat them in a bowl game (and we all gave DD his due praise with that win way back before his attitude about his employer and its alums went south). , now doesn't it?

blah, blah, blah

Pay attention to conference affiliation Plummer. What CONFERENCE are the Bearcats in? The Big East - aka one of the Big 6. You can have 3 and even 4 losses in those leagues and be ranked. They aren't in CUSA anymore. I know you mentioned it in your post, but it makes all the difference in the ranking world. Kansas was never known as a football power either were they? They aren't getting voted so high on history, but instead on conference affiliation(and the fact they're undefeated).

There is one Mountain West School currently ranked. It's almost stunning to me BYU is ranked since they have 2 losses honestly. In second place is 3 loss Air Force. They are among the "others recieving votes" in all of the polls, but only in the Coaches are they close to a ranking(in the AP they are barely recieving votes).

EDIT: Harris almost has them in their poll too.

Any CUSA schools ranked right now? UCF is leading the conference with 3 losses. I think they have 2 votes. Like Troy.

Edited November 23, 2007 by CMJ

[PlummMeanGreen]

Pay attention to conference affiliation Plummer. What CONFERENCE are the Bearcats in? The Big East - aka one of the Big 6. You can have 3 and even 4 losses in those leagues and be ranked. They aren't in CUSA anymore. I know you mentioned it in your post, but it makes all the difference in the ranking world. Kansas was never known as a football power either were they? They aren't getting voted so high on history, but instead on conference affiliation(and the fact they're undefeated).

There is one Mountain West School currently ranked. It's almost stunning to me BYU is ranked since they have 2 losses honestly. In second place is 3 loss Air Force. They are among the "others recieving votes" in all of the polls, but only in the Coaches are they close to a ranking(in the AP they are barely recieving votes).

EDIT: Harris almost has them in their poll too.

Any CUSA schools ranked right now? UCF is leading the conference with 3 losses. I think they have 2 votes. Like Troy.

First of all, I did not put "blah, blah, blah" in my posts as it may seem.

Second of all, most any thread discussion on GMG.com is ((IMO) tantamount to the kind of discussions we all might very get involved with at a sports bar, so I rarely take anything posted on this board (including my own long-winded epistles) anymore serious than I would with a sports bar jury of the opinionated of which once we finish at given watering hole, most of us would shake hands and part friends, especially if we had the common thread of being NT Exes and/or Mean Green fans.

Yes, I did mention that Cincy' was now part of the Big East ie, one of the 6 BCS (as we used to call it) conferences but there is a point to be made even with that, CMJ, and it is that they now have a bloc of voters that are going to take care of them poll-wise (so to speak) when they have a quality football product and that is what I have been saying about what the WAC seems to have, ie, a bloc of voters who are not shy to vote WAC members (with quality football programs) into a Top 25 poll.

As a concerned alum and Mean Green fan for a higher profile athletic future (which everyone on this board would most certainly also meet such a criteria) if we could only get the crystal ball out and know that this fledgling league of ours had a realistic chance to have voters to put our best team in the Top 25, this thread on the WAC would never have existed.

Unfortunately for all of us Sun Belters, past trends of even SBC schools getting a few poll votes (even keeping in mind our 4 bowl teams) tells me the SBC will have problems developing such a bloc of voters (which is what it will take) to get any of our schools in the Top 25 anytime soon (5-10 years?) and seeing that the first time we stumble against a high profile school, we don't get voted out of a Top 25 poll. I know, lots of "what if's with all this, but we need to always be trying to improve our athletic neighborhood and I most certainly believe our AD, one Mr. Rick Villarreal is also a mega-progressive type and visionary (a la Hayden Fry) and wants to do the same for this athletic program.

I love the SBC! It served a purpose when we needed it, it still serves a purpose as it gives us a conference home, but all I am saying is: If we have a chance to better ourselves and move up the conference food chain, should UNT officials consider such? The WAC as shown interest in us and CUSA (IMO) made a token visit to our campus with no known majority votes to get us in if our name had come up for a vote. Politics tells some of us old fart alums that nothing has

[CMJ]

The reason Belt teams are having problems getting ranked is our losses. There hasn't been a CUSA squad getting ranked since Lousville was invited to the Big East. Most of that is because they are losing too many games. Didn't UCF play a top 20 Texas close? The Horns were on the ropes in that game.

Now UCF is leading that league, with only one loss not to a "respected" opponent(curent "others recieving votes" South Florida beat UCF decisively - only "bad" loss would be East Carolina). How's their ranking?

Edited November 23, 2007 by CMJ

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

One of my favorite topics...the merits and demerits of changing conferences.

Interesting tidbits about the WAC. I like it as a 12-team conference but wouldn't care for it with any less teams. I still think that Benson should have gone for that to protect himself and the WAC against future raiding.

My favorite reorganization would be to split CUSA and the SBC mostly along geographical lines with Marshall, East Carolina, Central Florida, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, UAB, Troy, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, Memphis, Southern Miss and ULM forming an eastern conference (12 teams) and Arkansas State, Louisiana (ULL), Tulane, Rice, Houston, SMU, North Texas, Tulsa, Tulane, and UTEP forming a western conference (9 teams). The two conferences would be fairly equal when averaging attendance, power ratings, athletic budgets and stadium size. The exclusion of ULM in the west would immediately draw Louisiana Tech's application for membership.

The WAC is a better conference than the SBC. It costs more to join and the return is also greater. Travel expenses would be several hundred thousand more for a ten team conference without divisions. That could be reduced substantially with a 12-team conference composed of two divisions. I don't think that it would be worth it to be in a 10-team WAC even though it would have some extraneous benefits such as aid in recruiting, more prestige, etc. but that would be marginal.

Now if you're advocating a 12-team conference along the lines posted by Cajun Nation, then I'd be all for it. The problem is how would the conference Big 3 (Hawaii, Boise, Fresno) feel about it? They dominate attendance and power ratings. I'm sure that Benson counts their input double that of the other members. My gut feeling is that we missed that boat and it might possibly happen only if there were indications that the conference would be reduced to eight teams.

So preach on brutha, I'm all for advancing North Texas and it could be that CUSA is no closer to having a Top 25 team than the SBC.

Having said that, I seem to recall an old adage from a good friend of mine....grow where you're planted. We may have to do a lot of growing where we are before we can be considered for a better conference. That starts tomorrow because you are going to see a bona fide challenger for Top Dog in Western Kentucky. They excel in every sport undertaken and football will be no exception. I think that they are a budding South Florida.

[PlummMeanGreen]

One of my favorite topics...the merits and demerits of changing conferences.

Interesting tidbits about the WAC. I like it as a 12-team conference but wouldn't care for it with any less teams. I still think that Benson should have gone for that to protect himself and the WAC against future raiding.

My favorite reorganization would be to split CUSA and the SBC mostly along geographical lines with Marshall, East Carolina, Central Florida, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, UAB, Troy, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, Memphis, Southern Miss and ULM forming an eastern conference (12 teams) and Arkansas State, Louisiana (ULL), Tulane, Rice, Houston, SMU, North Texas, Tulsa, Tulane, and UTEP forming a western conference (9 teams). The two conferences would be fairly equal when averaging attendance, power ratings, athletic budgets and stadium size. The exclusion of ULM in the west would immediately draw Louisiana Tech's application for membership.

The WAC is a better conference than the SBC. It costs more to join and the return is also greater. Travel expenses would be several hundred thousand more for a ten team conference without divisions. That could be reduced substantially with a 12-team conference composed of two divisions. I don't think that it would be worth it to be in a 10-team WAC even though it would have some extraneous benefits such as aid in recruiting, more prestige, etc. but that would be marginal.

Now if you're advocating a 12-team conference along the lines posted by Cajun Nation, then I'd be all for it. The problem is how would the conference Big 3 (Hawaii, Boise, Fresno) feel about it? They dominate attendance and power ratings. I'm sure that Benson counts their input double that of the other members. My gut feeling is that we missed that boat and it might possibly happen only if there were indications that the conference would be reduced to eight teams.

So preach on brutha, I'm all for advancing North Texas and it could be that CUSA is no closer to having a Top 25 team than the SBC.

Having said that, I seem to recall an old adage from a good friend of mine....grow where you're planted. We may have to do a lot of growing where we are before we can be considered for a better conference. That starts tomorrow because you are going to see a bona fide challenger for Top Dog in Western Kentucky. They excel in every sport undertaken and football will be no exception. I think that they are a budding South Florida.

Jack, I think that good friend might have actually said, "bloom where planted" but I'm sure he would say you were more than close enough.

FWIW..........I do listen to our elder UNT statesmen on this board, ie, you, Huff (who finally convinced me Band Days could not happen in this era and he did convince me), ArlingtonMeanGreen, Old Timer, MeanGreen61, etc, etc, etc, and I value each of your knowledge and experience from each of your respective eras.

AND............you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head with your posts on UNT and the WAC. And I also agree with you that CUSA may not be any closer to Top 25 than the SBC of today, but somehow/someway we need to find a way to get in that group because I know anyone on this board would agree that if Boise State can do what they've done with their annual Top 25 rankings the last 6 or 7 years, that it should be attainable and do-able for North Texas.

Peace to all...

Edited November 23, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[flyeater]

Did I miss something? Was that some kind of uber-sarcasm, so difficult to detect that it flies over the most nuanced posters? You questioned TCU's decision to "leave" the WAC, and all I did was explain in painstaking detail that they did not leave, and that the WAC's former makeup is irrelevant to its current success.

You, though, chose to go the smug, childish sight-gag route to apparently CYA unless, again, I missed something. Care to explain yourself in a mature manner?

[CajunNation]

Jack, I think that good friend might have actually said, "bloom where planted" but I'm sure he would say you were more than close enough.

FWIW..........I do listen to our elder UNT statesmen on this board, ie, you, Huff (who finally convinced me Band Days could not happen in this era and he did convince me), ArlingtonMeanGreen, Old Timer, MeanGreen61, etc, etc, etc, and I value each of your knowledge and experience from each of your respective eras.

AND............you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head with your posts on UNT and the WAC. And I also agree with you that CUSA may not be any closer to Top 25 than the SBC of today, but somehow/someway we need to find a way to get in that group because I know anyone on this board would agree that if Boise State can do what they've done with their annual Top 25 rankings the last 6 or 7 years, that it should be attainable and do-able for North Texas.

Peace to all...

The reason Boise State has crashed the BCS, and the reason Boise State and Hawaii are flirting with it this year while Troy languishes at #38 is SCHEDULING.

Since '03, Boise State has played regular season games against teams from BCS conferences 6 times.

Since '03, Troy has played regular season games against teams from BCS conferences 16 times.

Both schools have 2 BCS regular season wins in this time frame.

Obviously, the new policy adopted by the SBC that restricts each school to no more than 2 money games a year is a sound one. We will have more bowl eligible teams, and we will have a better chance of getting a team in the BCS.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Any Louisiana Tech Bulldogs reading any of this?

If so---what is your take on all this?

PS: Sounds like Vince Dooley's son is building you all a fine football program.

Edited November 24, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[RETSO]

why are we so obsessed with pissing in someone elses pool when we can not even hit our own toilet here in the Sun Belt.

Dominate the Belt first then maybe when our aim is better we can move to bigger things, unless the Sun Belt con't to improve and surpasses CUSA, MAC, and WAC.

1-9 is like pissing in the sink!

1-11 will be like taking a dump in the tub!

Lets focus on winning more than one game first.

Edited November 24, 2007 by RETSO

[PlummMeanGreen]

1-9 is like pissing in the sink!

1-11 will be like taking a dump in the tub!

Lets focus on winning more than one game first.

It's still not always about what you do in one season. I don't know why this one losing season (we've had others) has become such a benchmark. We will have winning seasons in the future--we always do. Some say these things come in cycles and since 1973 that is what I've observed with Mean Green football.

SMU had a 2 decade losing streak plus a Death Penalty working for them when they received a CUSA invite (no matter who they coat-tailed into that league with), so if its about winning the "losing" Ponies came out smelling like a rose while 4 bowl games in a row didn't seem to improve our conference offers.

It will be about what you bring to the table with TV market, potential (since that is all SMU brought to the CUSA table) longterm upside (which I will say UNT will have over SMU till the cows come home and that even while they have their Ford & we wait for our consortium of donors to be formed which will ultimately get our stadium jump-started).

Should we have closed our doors and expected long-term doom for Mean Green football after the 1972 season when Rod Rust's last team won one game? Of course not...good times are ahead as things go in college football in Denton, Texas, America.

Edited November 24, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[PlummMeanGreen]

Any Louisiana Tech Bulldogs reading any of this?

If so---what is your take on all this?

PS: Sounds like Vince Dooley's son is building you all a fine football program.

Bump...

ADDENDUM:

ESPN 2

WAC Championship Game

#15 Hawaii

versus

#19 Boise State

50,000 fans in Aloha Stadium? What A Spectacle! Hmmm?

Edited November 24, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[fastball]

1-9 is like pissing in the sink!

1-11 will be like taking a dump in the tub!

Lets focus on winning more than one game first.

Underrated post, and the cold, hard truth.

[PerryG2480]

Hawaii football IS the only sport on that island. They've always had good attendance regardless of which conference foes they were playing.

[TIgreen01]

The reason Boise State has crashed the BCS, and the reason Boise State and Hawaii are flirting with it this year while Troy languishes at #38 is SCHEDULING.

Since '03, Boise State has played regular season games against teams from BCS conferences 6 times.

Since '03, Troy has played regular season games against teams from BCS conferences 16 times.

Both schools have 2 BCS regular season wins in this time frame.

Obviously, the new policy adopted by the SBC that restricts each school to no more than 2 money games a year is a sound one. We will have more bowl eligible teams, and we will have a better chance of getting a team in the BCS.

A four page thread and only 1 post that actually gets it. For those that watched the BSU-Hawaii game last Friday, ESPN showed THE STAT that solves the conference question for us all. BSU had the 118th ranked strength of schedule, while Hawaii had the 119th. That's right, the TWO easiest schedules in the COUNTRY. Here they are:

BSU

Date Opponent Result/Time Record/Tickets

August 30 Weber State W 56-7 1-0 (0-0)

September 8 at Washington L 24-10 1-1 (0-0)

September 15 Wyoming W 24-14 2-1 (0-0)

September 27 Southern Miss W 38-16 3-1 (0-0)

October 7 New Mexico State W 58-0 4-1 (1-0)

October 14 Nevada W 69-67 5-1 (2-0)

October 20 at Louisiana Tech W 45-31 6-1 (3-0)

October 26 at Fresno State W 34-21 7-1 (4-0)

November 3 San Jose State W 42-7 8-1 (5-0)

November 10 at Utah State W 52-0 9-1 (6-0)

November 17 Idaho W 58-14 10-1 (7-0)

November 23 at No. 15 Hawaii L 39-27 10-2 (7-1)

Hawaii

Date Opponent Result/Time Record/Tickets TV

September 2 Northern Colorado W 63-6 1-0 (0-0)

September 8 at Louisiana Tech W 45-44 2-0 (1-0)

September 15 at UNLV W 49-14 3-0 (1-0)

September 23 Charleston Southern W 66-10 4-0 (1-0)

September 29 at Idaho W 48-20 5-0 (2-0)

October 7 Utah State W 52-37 6-0 (3-0)

October 12 at San Jose State W 42-35 7-0 (4-0)

October 28 New Mexico State W 50-13 8-0 (5-0)

November 10 Fresno State W 37-30 9-0 (6-0)

November 16 at Nevada W 28-26 10-0 (7-0)

November 23 No. 19 Boise State W 39-27 11-0 (8-0)

December 1 Washington 11:30 PM ET Tickets

Notice how the only body bag game on either schedule is Washington---which is about as much of a body bag game as us playing Texas Tech....and neither team opens with a guaranteed loss. When RV first took the job he understood(at least publicly) that this kind of scheduling was critical to building a winning tradition and said he was going to work on it. Where are we now? Opening every year with a rotation of OU, UT, and LSU. Awesome.

WE HAVE TO STOP DOING THIS. Plain and simple.

Most on this board will call this line of scheduling chicken, and will claim that we'll get no respect playing a schedule like the ones shown above. My response is to go lookup BSU's schedules for the last 5 years. BSU wasn't selling out games in the late 90's when we used to play them....it took YEARS of rolling up fat winning percentages to get them there. If we do what BSU is doing (scheduling ONE body bag game per year--and usually a weak one), playing in the Sun Belt shouldn't hurt our cause...

Edited November 26, 2007 by TIgreen01

[VideoEagle]

If we do what BSU is doing (scheduling ONE body bag game per year--and usually a weak one), playing in the Sun Belt shouldn't hurt our cause...

And the new SBC scheduling rules/strong suggestion from the league call for just that!

[ArlingtonMeanGreen]

I had rather see Boise, Fresno, Hawaii, NMSU, La Tech, Idaho, Utah St, San Jose State come to Fouts every other year than FAU, FIU, Middle Tenn, La Monroe, LLa, Troy. My take

Who said "Go West Young Man, Go West"