clt ranks

Twitter followers < novelty plates

I think I need to go get myself an FAU plate.

(06-12-2019 08:08 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Yup. The hierarchy in Florida is shifting.

1. Florida ------ 93,051
2. Florida St --- 71,485
3. Miami ------- 25,985
4. UCF --------- 22,734
5. FAMU ------- 15,993
6. S. Florida --- 14,858
7. B-CU -------- 4,885
8. FIU ---------- 3,102
9. FAU --------- 2,492

UCF's year-over-year increase alone was 4,289.

Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:08 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Yup. The hierarchy in Florida is shifting.

1. Florida ------ 93,051
2. Florida St --- 71,485
3. Miami ------- 25,985
4. UCF --------- 22,734
5. FAMU ------- 15,993
6. S. Florida --- 14,858
7. B-CU -------- 4,885
8. FIU ---------- 3,102
9. FAU --------- 2,492

UCF's year-over-year increase alone was 4,289.

Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:08 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Yup. The hierarchy in Florida is shifting.

1. Florida ------ 93,051
2. Florida St --- 71,485
3. Miami ------- 25,985
4. UCF --------- 22,734
5. FAMU ------- 15,993
6. S. Florida --- 14,858
7. B-CU -------- 4,885
8. FIU ---------- 3,102
9. FAU --------- 2,492

UCF's year-over-year increase alone was 4,289.

Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

Do you consider UNT as one of those "well-run athletic departments"? To me winning has to play a large role in the "well run" part. Maybe your view is different if so what is more important? To myself athletic department means across the board....

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

With its new stadium, I could foresee UAB as a possibility for that.

(06-15-2019 08:03 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

With its new stadium, I could foresee UAB as a possibility for that.

I agree. UAB has the size, location, and hopefully now they have the resources to be one of the programs included. It all depends on if UAB can sustain a higher level of commitment over the next decade. Like many possible candidates, UAB needs to expand their athletic budget, grow their fan base, and continue winning on the field and courts.

(06-14-2019 11:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:08 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Yup. The hierarchy in Florida is shifting.

1. Florida ------ 93,051
2. Florida St --- 71,485
3. Miami ------- 25,985
4. UCF --------- 22,734
5. FAMU ------- 15,993
6. S. Florida --- 14,858
7. B-CU -------- 4,885
8. FIU ---------- 3,102
9. FAU --------- 2,492

UCF's year-over-year increase alone was 4,289.

Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

Do you consider UNT as one of those "well-run athletic departments"? To me winning has to play a large role in the "well run" part. Maybe your view is different if so what is more important? To myself athletic department means across the board....

Not right now. We are improving, but we are not one of the 12 best large public FBS programs right now. For North Texas to be considered, we would need to unequivocally be the G5 program of Dallas/Fort Worth, and SMU will not let that happen without a fight.

We have the facilities, location, and size, but for UNT to be a candidate for the move, we would need to win C-USA titles and finish in the top 25 at least a few times. North Texas also needs to expand their athletic budget. In the 2017 budget report, North Texas spent about $36 million on athletics, which is more than double what we spent just a decade earlier. UNT will need to double our athletic budget again over the next decade and spend in the neighborhood of about $70 million. The good news is that our AD is proving to be successful at generating new revenue streams, so we might be able to reach $70 million or at least get close.

I've said it before, we are in an arms race, and the successful large public universities in the AAC are setting the pace. We just have to watch and see which programs are going to try and become their peers. In C-USA, I think only UAB and North Texas have a chance. None of the others seem to have the right combination of size, location, resources, facilities, leadership, or will.

(06-15-2019 09:06 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:08 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Yup. The hierarchy in Florida is shifting.

1. Florida ------ 93,051
2. Florida St --- 71,485
3. Miami ------- 25,985
4. UCF --------- 22,734
5. FAMU ------- 15,993
6. S. Florida --- 14,858
7. B-CU -------- 4,885
8. FIU ---------- 3,102
9. FAU --------- 2,492

UCF's year-over-year increase alone was 4,289.

Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

Do you consider UNT as one of those "well-run athletic departments"? To me winning has to play a large role in the "well run" part. Maybe your view is different if so what is more important? To myself athletic department means across the board....

Not right now. We are improving, but we are not one of the 12 best large public FBS programs right now. For North Texas to be considered, we would need to unequivocally be the G5 program of Dallas/Fort Worth, and SMU will not let that happen without a fight.

We have the facilities, location, and size, but for UNT to be a candidate for the move, we would need to win C-USA titles and finish in the top 25 at least a few times. North Texas also needs to expand their athletic budget. In the 2017 budget report, North Texas spent about $36 million on athletics, which is more than double what we spent just a decade earlier. UNT will need to double our athletic budget again over the next decade and spend in the neighborhood of about $70 million. The good news is that our AD is proving to be successful at generating new revenue streams, so we might be able to reach $70 million or at least get close.

I've said it before, we are in an arms race, and the successful large public universities in the AAC are setting the pace. We just have to watch and see which programs are going to try and become their peers. In C-USA, I think only UAB and North Texas have a chance. None of the others seem to have the right combination of size, location, resources, facilities, leadership, or will.

Uh, pardon me, but:

Size - Charlotte
Location -Charlotte
Resources - Charlotte
Facilities- Charlotte (fb stadium is expandable)
Leadership - Charlotte (definitely moving in the right direction)
Will - Charlotte (by making the moves they have, they have the will)

Damn Joe, you’re making me side with Charlotte.

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

That’s true, but it was also true in 2012-2013 when SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa were invited to join the league that eventually became AAC. Indeed, Tulsa was the very last program invited to join, instead of UNT or whoever. So the other teams in AAC must think the smaller/private schools bring Something to the table. With that said, they probably don’t want any more from that category.

(06-15-2019 10:11 AM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:06 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

Do you consider UNT as one of those "well-run athletic departments"? To me winning has to play a large role in the "well run" part. Maybe your view is different if so what is more important? To myself athletic department means across the board....

Not right now. We are improving, but we are not one of the 12 best large public FBS programs right now. For North Texas to be considered, we would need to unequivocally be the G5 program of Dallas/Fort Worth, and SMU will not let that happen without a fight.

We have the facilities, location, and size, but for UNT to be a candidate for the move, we would need to win C-USA titles and finish in the top 25 at least a few times. North Texas also needs to expand their athletic budget. In the 2017 budget report, North Texas spent about $36 million on athletics, which is more than double what we spent just a decade earlier. UNT will need to double our athletic budget again over the next decade and spend in the neighborhood of about $70 million. The good news is that our AD is proving to be successful at generating new revenue streams, so we might be able to reach $70 million or at least get close.

I've said it before, we are in an arms race, and the successful large public universities in the AAC are setting the pace. We just have to watch and see which programs are going to try and become their peers. In C-USA, I think only UAB and North Texas have a chance. None of the others seem to have the right combination of size, location, resources, facilities, leadership, or will.

Uh, pardon me, but:

Size - Charlotte (29K)
Location -Charlotte (24th media market)
Resources - Charlotte ($33 million athletic budget)
Facilities- Charlotte (fb stadium 15,314 capacity/ 11,711 attendance)
Leadership - Charlotte (22-48 record .314 winning percentage)
Will - Charlotte ???

Damn Joe, you’re making me side with Charlotte.

Charlotte has some good qualities, but has quite a few areas to work on. See the bold statements.

(06-15-2019 10:13 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

That’s true, but it was also true in 2012-2013 when SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa were invited to join the league that eventually became AAC. Indeed, Tulsa was the very last program invited to join, instead of UNT or whoever. So the other teams in AAC must think the smaller/private schools bring Something to the table. With that said, they probably don’t want any more from that category.

Yup, And just look at the AAC right now. The teams who have risen to the top are the Big public schools in metro areas....UCF, Temple, Houston, Memphis, USF and Cincinnati. It may not have looked like it at the time but Boise and San Diego would have been great fits in this league.

I’m honestly worried Navy will have trouble keeping up as we get deeper and deeper into the AAC’s existence.

(06-15-2019 09:06 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 08:08 AM)St. H. Gink Wrote:  Yup. The hierarchy in Florida is shifting.

1. Florida ------ 93,051
2. Florida St --- 71,485
3. Miami ------- 25,985
4. UCF --------- 22,734
5. FAMU ------- 15,993
6. S. Florida --- 14,858
7. B-CU -------- 4,885
8. FIU ---------- 3,102
9. FAU --------- 2,492

UCF's year-over-year increase alone was 4,289.

Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

Do you consider UNT as one of those "well-run athletic departments"? To me winning has to play a large role in the "well run" part. Maybe your view is different if so what is more important? To myself athletic department means across the board....

Not right now. We are improving, but we are not one of the 12 best large public FBS programs right now. For North Texas to be considered, we would need to unequivocally be the G5 program of Dallas/Fort Worth, and SMU will not let that happen without a fight.

We have the facilities, location, and size, but for UNT to be a candidate for the move, we would need to win C-USA titles and finish in the top 25 at least a few times. North Texas also needs to expand their athletic budget. In the 2017 budget report, North Texas spent about $36 million on athletics, which is more than double what we spent just a decade earlier. UNT will need to double our athletic budget again over the next decade and spend in the neighborhood of about $70 million. The good news is that our AD is proving to be successful at generating new revenue streams, so we might be able to reach $70 million or at least get close.

I've said it before, we are in an arms race, and the successful large public universities in the AAC are setting the pace. We just have to watch and see which programs are going to try and become their peers. In C-USA, I think only UAB and North Texas have a chance. None of the others seem to have the right combination of size, location, resources, facilities, leadership, or will.

So when you say AD department you're talking dollars and football only? As for spending more than double than what was spent just a decade earlier. Most programs are doing that. As for facilities other than football...what has UNT done? When you walk into the pit it's like walking back into the 70s. As for leadership...a couple years doesnt make a "leader". UNT is a QB injury away from a losing record in the only sport they are completive in.

So I will ask you again when you say "well-run athletic departments" are you talking football only? I believe UNT only has 8 or 9 conference championships since moving to CUSA. More than half of those in Soccer.

So you must be talking football only? I believe it's going on 15 years since UNT won a conference championship in football? So when you are talking about "well-run athletic departments" you must be talking about the ability to get millions of dollars on student fees, or over paying a football coach?

No one in CUSA is going to out generate or spend FIU if they decide to increase student fees to the level of most CUSA schools.

FIU Undergraduate enrollment: 41,112 2017
UNT Undergraduate enrollment: 31,241 2017

FIU is projected to be over 50k in the next 10 years. While they are high on the list of AD department being supported by those students. FIU still has more room to increase student fees than most, if not all in CUSA. A $200 increase brings their budget up 8+ million.


EDIT: BTW the last year (2017) I can find for budgets...UNT was over 4 million in the red

revenues $32,150,203
expenses $36,363,381

So even with the student fee increases last year...UNT is maybe just back to break even? Like most schools

(06-15-2019 09:06 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  [quote='WKUYG' pid='16146395' dateline='1560573868']
[quote='Side Show Joe' pid='16146313' dateline='1560565752']
[quote='ESE84' pid='16143972' dateline='1560429191']
[quote='St. H. Gink' pid='16142623' dateline='1560344936']

In C-USA, I think only UAB and North Texas have a chance. None of the others seem to have the right combination of size, location, resources, facilities, leadership, or will.

With all do respect you probably don't know the intricate details of your conference mates to make that conclusion. A lot of us have a lot going on that could put us in position to be the next level. And as much as many of you don't want to admit the next level may be in CUSA. Based on your criteria:

SIZE: FAU(+30kstudents) FIU (+50K) UNC-C (+29K) UNT (+35K) UTSA (+30K) if not close to 30k I excluded.
LOCATION: FAU FIU South Florida area huge recruiting area; MTSU near Nashville; Charlotte major hub; UNT Dallas/Fort Worth; RICE Houston; All the TX schools are good location wise; UAB
RESOURCES: I have no knowledge to comment on, seems like many of us have some special things going on. We have a 70 million academic sports athletic center to completed by the end of the year. Just received a $3mill donation for basketball court naming rights. The new AD Brian White is making relations with our community which is an incredibly wealthy affluent group. UNTAPPED.
FACILITIES: Mentioned above you have no idea what other conferences have going on.
LEADERSHIP: Dr Kelly came from Clemson, driving reason we have Kiffin. He understands that a successful athletic program enhances the entire university. He meets with recruits and tells them why they should "Come to the FAU".
WILL: See Leadership.

I didn't exclude anyone above on purpose, I just don't know what you are doing and nor does SSJ. I like where we are heading. and I think if there is a re-alignment we will be positioned to take advantage of. But I think the next re-alignment will be geographically driven. Cutting cost will be the wave of the future.

(06-15-2019 12:05 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:06 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  [quote='WKUYG' pid='16146395' dateline='1560573868']
[quote='Side Show Joe' pid='16146313' dateline='1560565752']
[quote='ESE84' pid='16143972' dateline='1560429191']
[quote='St. H. Gink' pid='16142623' dateline='1560344936']

In C-USA, I think only UAB and North Texas have a chance. None of the others seem to have the right combination of size, location, resources, facilities, leadership, or will.

With all do respect you probably don't know the intricate details of your conference mates to make that conclusion. A lot of us have a lot going on that could put us in position to be the next level. And as much as many of you don't want to admit the next level may be in CUSA. Based on your criteria:

SIZE: FAU(+30kstudents) FIU (+50K) UNC-C (+29K) UNT (+35K) UTSA (+30K) if not close to 30k I excluded.
LOCATION: FAU FIU South Florida area huge recruiting area; MTSU near Nashville; Charlotte major hub; UNT Dallas/Fort Worth; RICE Houston; All the TX schools are good location wise; UAB
RESOURCES: I have no knowledge to comment on, seems like many of us have some special things going on. We have a 70 million academic sports athletic center to completed by the end of the year. Just received a $3mill donation for basketball court naming rights. The new AD Brian White is making relations with our community which is an incredibly wealthy affluent group. UNTAPPED.
FACILITIES: Mentioned above you have no idea what other conferences have going on.
LEADERSHIP: Dr Kelly came from Clemson, driving reason we have Kiffin. He understands that a successful athletic program enhances the entire university. He meets with recruits and tells them why they should "Come to the FAU".
WILL: See Leadership.

I didn't exclude anyone above on purpose, I just don't know what you are doing and nor does SSJ. I like where we are heading. and I think if there is a re-alignment we will be positioned to take advantage of. But I think the next re-alignment will be geographically driven. Cutting cost will be the wave of the future.

Honestly it seems like he went down this list (sorted by budgets) and picked out schools with a the largest budget and who won in FB over the last 2 years.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

The AAC is the flagship of the g5 conferences
“ who’s your daddy”, well that’s the American Athletic Conference “
Come on now, everybody stand up, clap your hands together and Sing along

The grass IS greener in the AAC and where the hell is Marshall located anyway ?

(06-15-2019 10:13 AM)Cardiff Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

That’s true, but it was also true in 2012-2013 when SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa were invited to join the league that eventually became AAC. Indeed, Tulsa was the very last program invited to join, instead of UNT or whoever. So the other teams in AAC must think the smaller/private schools bring Something to the table. With that said, they probably don’t want any more from that category.

I have a lot of posts to respond to, so this will be brief...

In 2012-13, the smaller private universities did offer more. There were fewer large public universities (especially in the eastern and central time zones) investing in their programs. UAB was getting hosed by Lil' Bear and UNT was still suffering under our old AD. Like the Navy fan stated, the AAC would have been better served by adding San Diego State and Boise St. If there is not P5 expansion, those large public universities in the AAC may finally unite with Boise, San Diego St, and a few others.

(06-15-2019 11:22 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:06 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 11:44 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:33 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  Large public universities with well-run athletic departments are moving past their smaller, private school counterparts. That's a double-edged sword for a conference carrying SMU, Tulane and Tulsa.

I've been trying to explain this for a while now. It is why I could see the larger most successful member of the AAC moving to form a new conference with some of the similarly successful large public universities from the other G5's. With no opportunities to move to a power conference, the odds of this occurring within the next 10 to 20 years will only increase.

Do you consider UNT as one of those "well-run athletic departments"? To me winning has to play a large role in the "well run" part. Maybe your view is different if so what is more important? To myself athletic department means across the board....

Not right now. We are improving, but we are not one of the 12 best large public FBS programs right now. For North Texas to be considered, we would need to unequivocally be the G5 program of Dallas/Fort Worth, and SMU will not let that happen without a fight.

We have the facilities, location, and size, but for UNT to be a candidate for the move, we would need to win C-USA titles and finish in the top 25 at least a few times. North Texas also needs to expand their athletic budget. In the 2017 budget report, North Texas spent about $36 million on athletics, which is more than double what we spent just a decade earlier. UNT will need to double our athletic budget again over the next decade and spend in the neighborhood of about $70 million. The good news is that our AD is proving to be successful at generating new revenue streams, so we might be able to reach $70 million or at least get close.

I've said it before, we are in an arms race, and the successful large public universities in the AAC are setting the pace. We just have to watch and see which programs are going to try and become their peers. In C-USA, I think only UAB and North Texas have a chance. None of the others seem to have the right combination of size, location, resources, facilities, leadership, or will.

So when you say AD department you're talking dollars and football only? As for spending more than double than what was spent just a decade earlier. Most programs are doing that. As for facilities other than football...what has UNT done? When you walk into the pit it's like walking back into the 70s. As for leadership...a couple years doesnt make a "leader". UNT is a QB injury away from a losing record in the only sport they are completive in.

So I will ask you again when you say "well-run athletic departments" are you talking football only? I believe UNT only has 8 or 9 conference championships since moving to CUSA. More than half of those in Soccer.

So you must be talking football only? I believe it's going on 15 years since UNT won a conference championship in football? So when you are talking about "well-run athletic departments" you must be talking about the ability to get millions of dollars on student fees, or over paying a football coach?

No one in CUSA is going to out generate or spend FIU if they decide to increase student fees to the level of most CUSA schools.

FIU Undergraduate enrollment: 41,112 2017
UNT Undergraduate enrollment: 31,241 2017

FIU is projected to be over 50k in the next 10 years. While they are high on the list of AD department being supported by those students. FIU still has more room to increase student fees than most, if not all in CUSA. A $200 increase brings their budget up 8+ million.


EDIT: BTW the last year (2017) I can find for budgets...UNT was over 4 million in the red

revenues $32,150,203
expenses $36,363,381

So even with the student fee increases last year...UNT is maybe just back to break even? Like most schools

No. It is not just about football, but football is the driving force in conference realignment. Any that thinks different are kidding themselves. By the way, this past season every North Texas program finished with a winning record, so it isn't like all we care about is football.

As for your FIU comparison... FIU has several of the qualities needed to be a candidate too. But, until they begin to actually get some fans into their stadium, I don't see them as a real option. The large AAC programs we are talking about regularly place 30 to 40 thousand in their stadiums for games. Yes UNT and UAB have some work to do in that column, but not as much as FIU or the other large public universities in C-USA. Since joining C-USA, FIU's attendance has been stagnant regardless of their success on the field.

FIU
2018 (9-4) 15,685
2017 (8-5) 14,286
2016 (4-8) 16,789
2015 (5-7) 15,381
2014 (4-8) 11,966
2013 (1-11) 15,452

(06-15-2019 02:13 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  The AAC is the flagship of the g5 conferences
“ who’s your daddy”, well that’s the American Athletic Conference “
Come on now, everybody stand up, clap your hands together and Sing along

The grass IS greener in the AAC and where the hell is Marshall located anyway ?

I would tread carefully if I were you. You are on our board contributing absolutely nothing except inflammatory drivel.

Ask Case Keenum if he knows where Marshall is.

(06-15-2019 12:05 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  

(06-15-2019 09:06 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  [quote='WKUYG' pid='16146395' dateline='1560573868']
[quote='Side Show Joe' pid='16146313' dateline='1560565752']
[quote='ESE84' pid='16143972' dateline='1560429191']
[quote='St. H. Gink' pid='16142623' dateline='1560344936']

In C-USA, I think only UAB and North Texas have a chance. None of the others seem to have the right combination of size, location, resources, facilities, leadership, or will.

With all do respect you probably don't know the intricate details of your conference mates to make that conclusion. A lot of us have a lot going on that could put us in position to be the next level. And as much as many of you don't want to admit the next level may be in CUSA. Based on your criteria:

SIZE: FAU(+30kstudents) FIU (+50K) UNC-C (+29K) UNT (+35K) UTSA (+30K) if not close to 30k I excluded.
LOCATION: FAU FIU South Florida area huge recruiting area; MTSU near Nashville; Charlotte major hub; UNT Dallas/Fort Worth; RICE Houston; All the TX schools are good location wise; UAB
RESOURCES: I have no knowledge to comment on, seems like many of us have some special things going on. We have a 70 million academic sports athletic center to completed by the end of the year. Just received a $3mill donation for basketball court naming rights. The new AD Brian White is making relations with our community which is an incredibly wealthy affluent group. UNTAPPED.
FACILITIES: Mentioned above you have no idea what other conferences have going on.
LEADERSHIP: Dr Kelly came from Clemson, driving reason we have Kiffin. He understands that a successful athletic program enhances the entire university. He meets with recruits and tells them why they should "Come to the FAU".
WILL: See Leadership.

I didn't exclude anyone above on purpose, I just don't know what you are doing and nor does SSJ. I like where we are heading. and I think if there is a re-alignment we will be positioned to take advantage of. But I think the next re-alignment will be geographically driven. Cutting cost will be the wave of the future.

Like FIU, FAU has a lot of great qualities, but they have the same glaring issue as FIU...

Attendance is bad and has been for years. Even with Kiffin generating national interest in the program, fans are not coming out.

FAU
2018 (5-7) 17,051
2017 (11-3) 18,948
2016 (3-9) 10,073
2015 (3-9) 17,617
2014 (3-9) 14,122
2013 (6-6) 14,552