<a href='http://www.tribalgrounds.com/cgi-bin/sunbelt/viewpost.cgi?thread_id=36047&message_id=36058' target='_blank'>http://www.tribalgrounds.com/cgi-bin/sunbe...essage_id=36058</a>

Good input from ArkStateFan as usual. I see no reason why any of the SBC football schools would want to join a WESTERN focused conference. It would be suicide!

badgerwolf Wrote:Good input from ArkStateFan as usual. I see no reason why any of the SBC football schools would want to join a WESTERN focused conference. It would be suicide!

ArkansasSTFan Provides a very logical thesis, but.....TCU joined the MWC. Anything can happen!

GHOST Wrote:

badgerwolf Wrote:Good input from ArkStateFan as usual.&nbsp; I see no reason why any of the SBC football schools would want to join a WESTERN focused conference.&nbsp; It would be suicide!

ArkansasSTFan Provides a very logical thesis, but.....TCU joined the MWC. Anything can happen!

Yep, California call fall off into the Pacific too, but that doesn't mean that it will. A pretty safe bet is that other than Idaho, no Sun Belt football schools will join the WAC.

There are other things to consider in this. First, this isn't it for realignment. We'll go through it again in 06-07 more than likely and if not then, soon after. We're just shuffling chairs now.

UNT's aspirations aren't the WAC, but they aren't the Sunbelt either. And the rest of the Sunbelt needs to understand this. UNT will do what best meets it's long term plan.

The question is what's the best way for UNT to ratchet up their entire program so they're closer to ready for CUSA next round so they can hang with the rest of the Texas teams?

The WAC definitely gives you a better shot at the 5th BCS bowl. Better hoops means more NCAA tourney money, Nevada last year overturns ArkSt Fan's opinion on that subject as well.

The WAC, while taking recent hits, hasn't lost one of it's 'top 4' programs and is recognized as a step above the Sunbelt. Perception still means alot.

The WAC makes no sense for UNT as a permanent home, how about a 2-4 year jumpstart?

SBC fans understand that a move to CUSA makes sense for our schools; a move out WEST does not make sense.

Roughrider Wrote:There are other things to consider in this. First, this isn't it for realignment. We'll go through it again in 06-07 more than likely and if not then, soon after. We're just shuffling chairs now.

UNT's aspirations aren't the WAC, but they aren't the Sunbelt either. And the rest of the Sunbelt needs to understand this. UNT will do what best meets it's long term plan.

The question is what's the best way for UNT to ratchet up their entire program so they're closer to ready for CUSA next round so they can hang with the rest of the Texas teams?

The WAC definitely gives you a better shot at the 5th BCS bowl. Better hoops means more NCAA tourney money, Nevada last year overturns ArkSt Fan's opinion on that subject as well.

The WAC, while taking recent hits, hasn't lost one of it's 'top 4' programs and is recognized as a step above the Sunbelt. Perception still means alot.

The WAC makes no sense for UNT as a permanent home, how about a 2-4 year jumpstart?

The interest of North Texas would be best served by remaining in the Sun Belt and continuing to improve our programs along with our facilities. Other conference members realize and accept North Texas' aspirations. There's really no good reason for North Texas to move to the WAC & won't.

GHOST Wrote:ArkansasSTFan Provides a very logical thesis, but.....TCU joined the MWC. Anything can happen!

Texas Christian also has an athletic budget that dwarfs all the Sun Belt schools and all the WAC schools for that matter. They could afford to do that.

Plus, UNT and UL-Lafayette don't have "SMU" types trying to chase them in their own conferences so much that they'd leave if just to get away from them.

BlueRaiderPride Wrote:

GHOST Wrote:ArkansasSTFan Provides a very logical thesis, but.....TCU joined the MWC.&nbsp; Anything can happen!

Texas Christian also has an athletic budget that dwarfs all the Sun Belt schools and all the WAC schools for that matter. They could afford to do that.

Plus, UNT and UL-Lafayette don't have "SMU" types trying to chase them in their own conferences so much that they'd leave if just to get away from them.

But UNT is surrounded by a lot of schools that should be d1aa!

Wondered why my server was showing hits coming from here.

Ghost, your comment about schools that should be I-AA demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what the NCAA has said about divisional membership. There is a move afoot to remove the attendance component and it will likely be successful for a few different reasons. SJSU is already threatening litigation and the MAC has counsel that has briefed the issue extensively and I have no reason to believe that the MAC will not jointly pursue a challenge. I've been told that it covers in great detail many things I had raised to our administration and they had forwarded that to the Sun Belt, where it was compared to the brief.

One of the pre-eminent anti-trust scholars in the nation is at Tulane and his prodding of Cowen was instrumental in formation of the anti-BCS coaltion. If you go back and look at the call for Coalition for Academic Reform there were three agenda items. 1) Reform the BCS, 2) Change the academic standards 3) Overhaul the new I-A standards. The first item got big play with a degree of success, the second has been progressing well but was done in a non-adversarial way. The third has included phasing in the 5 home game requirement and a simple statement that the Board of Directors will review the legislation at its next meeting.

The NCAA has a very bad track record in anti-trust litigation and any time you deny a member of a group continued access by changing the membership criteria the standard of scrutiny by the court is much stricter than if you change the standard for new admission. There is no rational basis for the attendance standard and there has never been a study or other research done that would support it.

The attendance standard is inconsistent with Division I Philosophy Statement which is supposed to be the guideline for all legislation. Departing from that Statement is a strong move that places the legislation under tight scrutiny.

More importantly any careful observer of the NCAA should be aware that the attendance component from a practical standpoint is not enforceable because there is no way to effectively audit actual attendance. Any school that can find boosters willing to purchase sufficient tickets will survive audit and in turn no school will be reclassified based on attendance.

The interest of North Texas would be best served by remaining in the Sun Belt and continuing to improve our programs along with our facilities. Other conference members realize and accept North Texas' aspirations. There's really no good reason for North Texas to move to the WAC & won't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Good buddy, there are other Sunbelt schools with aspirations similar to NT.

:saber:

bend over and cough....

UNT will not be asked to join CUSA right out of the Sun Belt. They will have to prove the worth of their programs by playing real competition and excel in doing so. Even if they could up their SOS, I don't think a bunch of private schools, namely Rice, SMU and Tulsa want to be with them in the same conference. If the Big East takes any of the current CUSA members, it certainly will not be any of the above. Would the current CUSA members want another school in the Dallas market? Why? UNT has yet to hit the national scene and the Sun Belt will not offer any national exposure for the near future, if ever. Whatever UNT decides, it will be stuck with the conference of choice for a long time.

It will be financial suicide if they join the WAC. It doesn't make any sence that they would have to travel from the south.

donkeyrider Wrote:. . .and the Sun Belt will not offer any national exposure for the near future, if ever.

And the same was said about Conference USA and the Mountain West when they first got started.

This talk of financial suicide is mostly hype. There's an interesting article, focused on LaTech, that posted on the Owlzone WAC forumn. This shows that LaTech's annual AD travel, while in the Sunbelt, cost them about $800k+ and it's about $100k more in the WAC. Revenue distributions, however, are over $500k per year higher in the WAC. Where's the disaster?

BlueRaiderPride Wrote:

donkeyrider Wrote:. . .and the&nbsp; Sun Belt will not offer any national exposure for the near future, if ever.

And the same was said about Conference USA and the Mountain West when they first got started.

Do some more homework. MWC got a lot of attention for among other reasons BYU. Who know about CUSA? I never pay attention unless they play a WAC or MWC team.

Its not a matter of if La tech and UNT will be in CUSA, just when.

Roughrider Wrote:This talk of financial suicide is mostly hype.&nbsp; There's an interesting article, focused on LaTech, that posted on the Owlzone WAC forumn. This shows that LaTech's annual AD travel, while in the Sunbelt, cost them about $800k+ and it's about $100k more in the WAC.&nbsp; Revenue distributions, however, are over $500k per year higher in the WAC. Where's the disaster?

Yeah. . .

with road games at Louisiana-Lafayette, LSU, and Tulsa.

Michigan State also on the road as well as conference games against Fresno and Nevada.

Had Miami of Florida in Shreveport.

Take away the $200,000 trip to Hawaii which they didn't make in football during that athletic season nor did they travel to Boise.

Now, take away UTEP, SMU, Rice, and Tulsa and add Utah State, New Mexico State and San Jose State on the yearly slate.

Oh, and go ahead and tack on Idaho and possibly even Denver, and then we will SEE just how La Tech does financially with travel!

I noticed they didn't mention any travel cost from the 2003-2004 season in which Oakes KNOWS his school has already spent far more than they did in 2002-2003 and the season isn't even over with yet!!

TopCoog Wrote:Its not a matter of if La tech and UNT will be in CUSA, just when.

TopCoog has some issues...let me explain.

1. CUSA has no reason to expand to 14 teams. It's just further dividing a pie that most of us recognize is going to get smaller pretty soon.

2. TopCoog believes that the Big East will not split...meaning that they will not need any additional teams.

3. If the Big East doesn't take any more teams (read: teams from CUSA), then CUSA has no spots to fill.

Here are some other thoughts on the issue.

La Tech was a knockout geographically, the fact that we didn't scoop them up says a thing or two. From reports and rumors, Memphis and several of the southeastern schools were dead-set against LT. Plus they would have had the smallest (I think) budget in CUSA...a whopping third of what the top schools spend.

UNT has some real and perceived issues with facilities and fan support. They're in the Dallas market, but they don't carry (or even come close to carrying) the Dallas market. I think a committment to upgrading their facilities and attendance would allow them to make the jump from the SBC to CUSA.

When the Big East splits and they come looking for a few more eastern teams, Brittan Banowsky will move closer to creating his dream of the new SWC.