(12-31-2009 11:08 AM)T_Won1 Wrote: (12-31-2009 10:57 AM)theATLDawg Wrote: (12-31-2009 10:35 AM)T_Won1 Wrote: I only read the WAC / La Tech threads. I could care less about the Sun Belt. Same with CUSA, MAC, MWC, SEC, etc.... It they are talking Tech, I'm interested. If not, who cares.
I think the belt is better than the MAC, although on the field competition hasn't always suggested so.
I've never thought about it.
Looking at Sagarin Ratings, it appears that CMU is the best of both conferences by far (#38 in the nation).
Then it looks like:
- Troy (#69) and Temple (#66) are about the same.
- Ohio (#77) and MTSU (#73) are about the same.
- Bowling Green and Northern Illinois are better than the rest of the SBC and they also match up well with Troy and MTSU.
The rest of the conference matches up about the same.
I would give a slight advantage to the MAC, because they have 5 teams in the Top 100 and the SBC only has 2 in the Top 100.
But I think it is clear that the SBC teams are improving and the MAC teams are staying the same. It probably won't be long before the SBC passes the MAC.
Or could it be that the MAC has double the amount of teams in the top 100 because they have... double the amount of teams? How many teams do they have now, like 15? (kidding). The MAC is a weird conference... but if you look over the past 5 years, the Belt has owned the MAC. Maybe it was good scheduling, but we have had a winning record against the MAC for the last 4 or 5 years running now. I think that we have a winning record against CUSA as well, but there are some crap wins in there.
I get what you guys are saying, you set the bar high in Ruston. Wins in the Belt as like IAA wins for you and would not be challenging enough for a team of Tech's caliber. We just disagree. The same way that you probably think that Boise is much better than the rankings and argue that the WAC schedule isn't so bad that it drags them down (because they beat everyone by 30 points). What these Sun Belt fans are asking for is a little bit of give that the Belt is much improved from the fledgling, far flung, piece of crap conference that it was in 2001. I would say that it is much better - and that for the most part, teams have been building for the future with facilities and budget improvements.
By the end of the year, North Texas will have a $25 million dollar a year athletic budget. By the end of next year, it will be close to $30 million a year. We will have a new stadium and will be starting our baseball team back up. All of these things were accomplished because we play in the Belt. This makes us a more attractive program for either...A)Another Conference or...B)To Build the Belt. Tech just now built a jumbotron. Most Belt schools have had those for a 5 or 6 years now. The stadium is falling down. Most Belt schools have built new stadiums, completely rebuilt old ones, or are building new ones within the next year. Yes, the BCS money is going to help this year, I will give you that - but it was a gamble. When CUSA does have an invitation to give, they are going to look at your athletic budget. Their bylaws require a $20 million dollar a year athletic budget. Tech cannot hit this. They will look at facilities, Tech has outdated facilities. They will look at success on the court and on the field - Tech has done much better and is having a good year in hoops. They will look at tv market potential... although I think that this is always blown WAY out of proportion because none of us can deliver a significant market at this point. Even SMU hasn't delivered the "Dallas" market but TCU has delivered several "Texas" markets because fans in Texas respect TCU. And they will look at attendance - Tech is about on par with North Texas, MTSU, Troy, Arkie State, and UL as far as attendance. But let's go back to the conference bylaw requiring a $20 million dollar a year athletic budget - Tech is a good $7 million away from that.
I say that NT, year in and year out - is in better shape being in a semi-regional conference such as the Belt (a cheap one) than a conference like the WAC because we have the same goals as many of the Belt schools. Idaho was able to rebuild thier program because they are finally in a true Western conference. Good for them! I hope that USU and NMSU can finally get it done someday. Nothing but love for those schools.
Conferences are here to offer us pretty much three things.
First, they fill out our schedules. While you will argue that a WAC schedule at home is more attractive for attendance than a Belt schedule - I would disagree. We get more people out for our Belt games than we ever did for our WAC (aka Big West) games (and we suck right now - we have sucked for 5 years now). Our fans come to see North Texas, and could care less whether the opponent is San Jose State or Arkansas State. Do you really think that they differentiate between New Mexico State and Louisiana? FAU is a hot team right now - they have just as much credibility in Denton as Fresno State. And honestly - I don't even think that Boise coming to town would get Denton all excited - they are ignorant to the football world in Denton and would probably show up about the same as they would for Middle Tennessee. Looking at your attendance - I think that your attednance would actually go UP in the Belt. Tech has some drawing problems at the gate as well.
Second thing that a conference offers - bowl exposure. The WAC has three but two of them are in Boise and Hawaii. The only legitimate, fan friendly bowl is New Mexico. The Belt has two now - New Orleans and GMAC. This leaves us open for some at large invites (of which we have gotten one during 3 of the last 4 seasons). Those at large invites can be negotiated and are smart business. While the WAC is making more money in the BCS system, they are spending it on bowl guarantees to keep the conference "looking" more powerful. Those bids are not free my friend. The Belt has held off on buying any open bowl on the market - we could have easily bought our way into the Human Bowl (a couple of times) over the last decade. With the MWC pulling out, it will be WAC vs MAC again (just like it was in the Big West days). My argument is that the WAC does not provide an advantage in the bowl season, in fact - I would say that the Belt has a better bowl set up (as long as the ink gets put to paper with GMAC).
Finally, a conference provides TV exposure. But at what cost? The WAC has been able to get a lot of ESPN and ESPN2 games because they are the MAC of the West. The Pac 10 isn't going to play in the middle of the week and the MWC plays on a non-ESPN network. That leaves ESPN with one conference to schedule out all their mid-week games. These games hurt the gate, the fans, and the schools that participate in them (according to Pat Hill). Do they get the conference exposure? Sure... but at what cost? An occasional Thursday game is alright but look at the MAC - they play on every day BUT Saturday. I swear, there was a week this season - about mid season, where the MAC played on Monday, Tuesday, two games on Wednesday, two on Thursday - and they literally had ONE game on freaking Saturday! And people wonder why the MAC schools have the worst attendance in Div I. Again, the Belt has made smart BUSINESS moves that get the schools exposure by setting up regional TV deals instead of bowing to ESPN. Those regional deals get picked up by local stations and are also available on ESPN 360 due to our exclusive ESPN contract. As bad as North Texas was this year, I was able to watch our team on actual TV - 4 times - and on a simulcast another 4 times. The other 4 games, I was at the stadium - but those games were available online or on the tube in some way or another. Again, this is not as fancy as being a genuine ESPN broadcast - but our attendance is better because we are not bowing to ESPN and thier need for Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday games. Go back and look at the MAC's schedule from this year, you will not believe how bad ESPN treated them with those weekday games - and those games just KILL any chance of building a fan base at a school. When do fans tailgate? How does the school build a true following that way?
So those are my three requirements for a competent conference. The Belt doesn't do everything the best, but they fulfill the requirements for all of us. We could take our BCS money and buy another bid to some crappy bowl that nobody else wanted - but I like to think that our conference is smarter than that - it just isn't worth it. Maybe the reason that yor payout isn't as much as you think it is - paying for invites to Hawaii and Boise and New Mexico. New Mexico is worth the bid money. The other two bowls should be paying the WAC for providing a team, not vice versa. It's all a big game, a conference pays for a bowl bid and then the bowl pays it right back to the conference when they invite them. Such a silly game. Why not just keep it real and keep that money with the schools that earned it? Conferences should not here to subsidize, far flung bowl games.