ADLER

Yes, I know that I am sometimes portayed as the eternal optimist, but that may be the reason why I have never given up hope for North Texas to be able to accomplish something more than it has; to become something better than it is. But I like to think of myself as more of a realist. The method to success is so clearly mapped out by the other large state schools which have already made the move and those that are soon planning to. Why can't the same thing happen for North Texas?

I too don't think Texas State has any problems with North Texas althouth I do believe they use UNT as a model of ineptitude. It's not changing at Texas State by sheer luck, an aggressive agenda from the very top is making change happen. I wish the same could be said for North Texas. Here is a link to the Texas State University: Poised For Greatness The Rising Star of Texas Bobcat Club fundraising video.

You know, people often ask how things got so bad at North Texas. They want to know what method these formerly unknown newcomers used to pass North Texas so quickly. But then people stick their heads in the sand when concrete evidence is being shown as to exactly what method these schools are using to pass North Texas. Whooosh! Whooosh! Whooosh! Well there goes Eastern Carolina, South Florida, and Central Florida all disappearing out in front. Florida Atlantic and Florida International have just recently passed, and Texas State and UTSA are closing quickly from behind with full intents to blow the doors off 'wallowing' North Texas.

No, what I am saying is that there are students that are not interested in what benefits North Texas. They would oppose anything that benefits the university, and many would inflict harm on it if given the opportunity. They do exist and they will be vocal when a referendum is proposed. That is why North Texas needs strong vocal leadership from it's University President, Student Government Association leaders, and the leaders of campus organizations; dorms, Greek organizations etc.

You can mock their commitment to improve themselves. But many people did the same to Florida State, Eastern Carolina, Central Florida, and South Florida who did the same thing. Where has North Texas gotten by not making a commitment? Are North Texas graduates that much wealthier because they didn't pay a competitive athletics fee?

There are times when it's easy to define who cares about the well-being of the university, and who does not.

Unfortunately the hole in the ship needs to be fixed first. For decades North Texas has seen very few bail water and the overwhelming majority bail out. Asking what few remain to bail faster hasn't made any progress. Hopefully. This year a wake-up coffee was served when the Dallas Morning News ran the story that North Texas had a total of ZERO points in this years Director's Cup standings which compares how well all 300 Division 1 schools compete on a national level. And if that didn't get her attention, then certainly the cold herring with which Texas State just slapped her should have done the trick. But even if built by 2010 a new stadium is not the panacea, it's just masking a symptom of a much larger problem. Has the "Fabulous' Super Pit been able to keep North Texas Basketball from only having 5 seasons of winning records against Division 1 teams in the last 25 years? There has to be a real commitment along with the facility improvements. Otherwise you're just flushing the money away. Oh, and then North Texas can blame the 'bad' alumni, the 'bad' fans, and the 'bad' community support.

I think the message certainly becomes clearer when excerpts from the two articles are placed together. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Does somebody need to drive up from San Marcos and start slapping Gretchen Bataille, Rick Villarreal, and Jeff Kline with a cold fish before they will accept the challenge?

That is exactly what I have been trying to illustrate for people. But they keep telling me that "We're going to keep the athletics fee incredibly low, but we intend to scrape enough together to start paying for a stadium". Meanwhile Athletic Directors at other schools are talking about their intentions to "kick your ass and then leave you behind". Sure that's paraphrasing, but's it's exactly what he meant by not wanting to be like the those perpetually "wallowing in the cellar." OK, North Texas is THE example of "wallowing in the cellar". The example of what NOT to do. Who is prepared to meet this challenge? Does the Student Government at North Texas enjoy "wallowing"? With what is that word usually associated?

On the Road to Success College Athletics By Tyler Mayforth San Marcos Daily Record Sports San Marcos — If you walk through the Darren B. Casey Athletic Administration Complex, you will get the feeling something big is about to happen. There’s a certain excitement flowing through the air. Boxes are piled high with packets containing information about “The Drive” and 2,600 more are scheduled to be mailed next week. Smiles grace the employees’ faces like laughing gas is pumped through the air-conditioning ducts. The talk is palpable to a university seeped in tradition, ready for another winning year. The fervor is high because there is a feeling of anticipation. It’s centered around one two-syllable word, not before uttered within the athletic department until Dr. Larry Teis took over in 2004 — progress. Before Teis gained control, even though the End Zone Complex was built, it was one step forward, two steps back. Athletically, the programs were advancing, but academically, Texas State was collected numerous violations. While the football team emerged on to the national radar with its 2005 season, the men’s basketball team crumpled while Greg LaFluer was in charge. Former head coach Dennis Nutt drove the program into the ground. The Bobcats’ wins dropped, as did their grades. So Teis came in and immediately went to work. He allowed Nutt one more season, then went on the prowl for a new coach. He hired Doug Davalos and said the two saw eye-to-eye at the start. Both knew what needed to be done. “We let the men's basketball team slide too far,” Teis said. “When I hired Coach Davalos, we had a mutual understanding of had to be changed. We’ve quadrupled our win total, but most importantly, we cleaned up the academics.” As he cleaned up the academic mess, Teis looked toward the future like a progressive visionary. He knew the department need more money to do what they wanted, so he teamed with Denise M. Trauth, university president, to push the issue. Slowly, the operating budget for the athletic department rose. In 2004, Teis’ first year as Director of Athletics, the budget was $8.3 million. The next year, they had $8.7 million, the following, $9.9 million and in 2007, $10.4 million. The budget for 2008 is $11.2 million. “We’ve been able to add $5 million to the budget since I arrived, so we are making things happen,” Teis said. “We are looking at a projected budget of $13 million in 2009. We know what we need to do to make the next move and we’re putting the pieces in order.” The pieces are beginning to fall in place for the next move — a trip into the Football Bowl Subdivision. Texas State added brand new scoreboards to the baseball, football and softball fields, as well as a jumbotron inside Strahan Coliseum. If the school is to move into the FBS, other improvements need to be made and Teis is working toward rectifying those issues. Demolition of the baseball and softball complexes begins in August and by February, the fields should be presentable to the public and playable. Should Texas State move up in five years, it needs a collective idea of where it wants to go. Not necessarily the conference in which it ends up, but from what team to model its move. For every Marshall, there is a Louisiana-Monroe and North Texas, wallowing in the cellar. “You need to pick out things you see with every team you want to follow,” Teis said. “But, I really don’t know if we want to model ourselves after somebody from the past, since times have changed. We just want to get ourselves in a position to look like a University of Houston, a UTEP. I say look like because they are state schools and that's what our budgets will look like. We want to be able to compete in that arena.” Under his watch, not only have budgets increased, but so have charitable donations. Most recently, Jerry and Linda Field gave Texas State $100,000 to go toward “The Drive.” Only three months removed from the single-largest donation in the history of the athletic department, Darren B. Casey’s $1 million gift. Teis knows the importance of collecting these donations as Texas State needs as much help as it can get with the upcoming move. He’s not a stranger to success, as he was named 2005-06 General Sports TURF Systems AD of the Year Division I-AA West Region winner. “We are going to do our part,” Teis said. “We need others to help us do the same. Us doing our part is winning and getting people in the stands and letting others see it. We need people to come at the start and help us move to that level. There are schools right now that don’t win, but still sell out their stadium. We just need a passion and a belief in it to keep moving forward.” Teis believes in progress, do you? Click HERE for story - San Marcos Record-Sentinel

Has that been the case with our basketball team that plays in a very nice 10,000 seat arena? Or have our two most successful teams in the last quarter of a century both lost to UTA which recruits players to a stage at Texas Hall? North Texas does need facilities, that's a given. But the inability to adequately fund the teams that play in those facilities will insure that people will continue to not want to watch them. Please do whatever you can to get the athletics fee raised $2 per hour for the next 7 years. It's a relatively painless increase for current students, and future students will be aware of the fees before enrolling. Increased athletic success will enhance their college experience and the value of their education. The costs of the UNT education will still be a bargain, but the school will have a winning image. 2008-2009...$6 per credit hour 2009-2010...$8 per credit hour 2010-2011...$10 per credit hour 2011-2012...$12 per credit hour 2012-2013...$14 per credit hour 2013-2014...$16 per credit hour 2014-2015...$18 per credit hour 2015-2016...$20 per credit hour That way North Texas will have eventually caught up to contribution levels that UTSA and Texas State students had been giving since 2012. In 2015-2016 North Texas students will still be contributing less per semester than other Sun Bely students already pay.

I hate to say this but uninformed customers are always going to choose the least expensive option. Did you explain that $4 an hour means that North Texas may get a stadium built, but that the home team that plays in it will still be getting it's ass kicked almost every weekend, and North Texas will have to continue to sell 'bodybag games' just to make budget. What a bargain! But at a moderate increase, which over a very extended time will eventually equal per-student contributions at the other emerging universities in Texas will guarantee that North Texas has the financial ability to be successful. The time has come for North Texas to start dominating all those public schools that are half it's size and all the tiny privates. It is time to start kicking ass. That is what's expected every year at other schools but absolute athletic insignificance has been tolerated at North Texas for far too long. Only then will fans and alumni support the program. (What has attendance been like for the past 25 years in the Fabulous Super Pit?)

I hate to say this, but later may not be an option. North Texas is already poised to be left standing in the next round of conference musical chairs. Now the stage is being set for the letdown in the next round after that. And on the fee amount, why are schools of comparable enrollment size, that already have stadiums, raising their fees to $20 per student hour if a $15 fee is enough? They want to win at this level, not just participate.

In the mid 1980's UTA raised student fees just enough to get a football stadium built but there was not a sufficient increase for the athletic programs. How did that work out?

Is Jeff capable of doing what the Student Presidents at Texas State and Texas-San Antonio have acheived? Those schools already have stadiums (although Texas State will have to expand theirs), and their student contributions are going to be capped at $300.00 and $240.00 per student per semester respectively. That's more than three times what the current contribution is at North Texas. Considering that those schools also have enrollments in the 30,000 range, their budgets are going to be much larger than North Texas. Those schools are planning for success. Stretch the increase increments out as far as necessary, but set them to eventually match the per student contribution of our competition. If the other schools are planning $20 per credit hour by 2013, try to have the same advantage for North Texas by 2016.

We sure spend a lot of time complaining about and pointing fingers about symptoms of a much larger problem. Read HERE how to fix the problem.

Thank you for pointing that out. It's a clear illustration of schools that actually build a successful athletic program do not remain dependant on student fees indefinitely. Other sources; donations, sponsorships, concessions, suite revenue, and especially revenue from increased demand for tickets can make the university totally independent of student fees. At most schools with successful athletic programs, the students are eventually offered an optional athletics package and the mandatory fee disappears. All of the schools listed above have athletic programs that not only generate huge amounts of alumni involvement for their respective universities, but those athletic programs are also able to contribute large sums of money to the general scholarship funds. Being in the position of those schools is the ultimate goal. North Texas played Florida State 30 years ago in what was then considered a 'big' game for Florida State. Florida State coach Bobby Bowden, then in only his third season, dug out a small piece of the turf at Fouts Field and brought it back to Tallahassee to commemorate the important victory as a 'turf game'. Florida State then made the necessary commitments to athletics while North Texas did not. North Texas played South Florida 7 years ago in what was then considered a 'big' game for South Florida. It was the first victory ever for South Florida over a Division 1-A team. South Florida then made the necessary commitments to athletics while North Texas did not. Now we are watching as one of North Texas' current contemporaries, Florida International who most have described recently as laughable, is making the commitment. And to take a brief look into the future, please read this article about Texas State University who is also making the necessary commitment. Click HERE and read this article

And they are trying to use their large enrollment to their advantage, just as South Florida and Central Florida have, UTSA and Texas State plan to, and what I have been requesting so many at North Texas to do. There are costs involved, but the costs of not doing it are much higher. And Jeff Kline, if you read this, you know what needs to be done, and it's not the proposed token increase.

Exactly!!! (and those figures were from 2004-2005, before the recent success at each school) The athletic budget at each of those schools will probably be in excess of 30 million by 2012. Ticket sales have increased significantly for each school during the last decade, enrollment is up, alumni donations are way up, corporate donations are way up, research grants are way up, both schools have become more selective on admissions, and the value of a degree from each school has risen to unforseen levels. And to think, ten years ago they were just regarded by almost everyone as 'insignificant commuter colleges". Nobody had even heard of South Florida when North Texas first played them in 2001. How times have changed for them.

Yes, and like I've stated, and the purpose of this thread, those were 2004-2005 figures. ALL THOSE SCHOOLS ARE RADICALLY CHANGING THOSE FUNDING FIGURES. North Texas hasn't changed jack squat and is now thinking of the base increase which can possibly fund a new stadium. They are making real investments while North Texas contemplates digging through the sofa for loose change. And we sit and wonder why North Texas doesn't have a loyal customer base. The North Texas budget will be dwarfed by the commitment at several of those schools.

Yes, and FIU has the highest paid coaches in the league and is completing a new on -campus stadium. People probably laughed at South Florida and Central Florida back when they made similar commitments. Can you name the first home game that South Florida ever won against a Division 1A team? It was 2001 against North Texas. Since that point North Texas has struggled at times against Sun Belt competition and been clearly dominated outside it's league. South Florida has gained admission to the league we currently can only dream about joining, and has then left it for a BCS confernce. Oh, and by the way, South Florida was ranked as high as number 3 in the nation at one point this past season. Central Florida has made a similar commitment and is starting to show similar results. These are large schools that are very similar to North Texas in many aspects. They made an investment while North Texas selected the 'cheap' route.

The following is from the 2004-2005 school year; several years after the Title IX adjustments were included in the student fees. The $4,315,679.00 in student fees is roughly $126.93 per student for the whole year, or around $60 per semester plus a small amount for summer classes. NCAA Financial Reports Database University of North Texas Ticket Sales $420,729.00 Student Fees $4,315,679.00 Guarantees $1,241,400.00 Contributions $2,610,062.00 Government Support $0.00 Direct Institutional Support $0.00 Indirect Institutional Support $0.00 NCAA/Conference Distributions $1,190,727.00 Concessions, Programs, Parking $214,476.00 Advertisements & Sponsorship $346,491.00 Sports Camps $260,870.00 Other $42,814.00 Total $10,643,248.00 DEFINITION OF REVENUE FIELDS Ticket Sales Student Fees Fees that specifically fund the athletic department. In some cases these come with something in return, like tickets to games. Guarantees Money received from participation in away games. Contributions Donations to athletic department, including amount paid in excess of a ticket Direct State or Other Government Support Any government money specifically for the athletic department that the university has no option to use elsewhere. Direct Institutional Support Includes unrestricted funds allocated to the athletic department by the university. For example, state funds and tuition waivers. Indirect Facilities and Administrative Support Examples: Use of university attorney, facility maintenance, grounds and field maintenance, security, risk management, utilities, and debt service. NCAA/Conference Distributions including all tournament revenues Bowl games, tournaments and NCAA distributions. Broadcast, Television, Radio, and Internet Rights Money from contracts negotiated directly by the university (not the conference or NCAA) for radio and television broadcasts, Internet and ecommerce rights. Program Sales, Concessions, Novelty Sales, and Parking Royalties, Advertisements and Sponsorships Money from corporate sponsorships, ads and royalties. The value of products or services provided as part of a sponsorship equipment, apparel, sport drinks, etc. are included. Sports Camp Revenues Sports camps and clinics. ABOUT THE DATABASE This is the most detailed, publicly available database of college athletic department financial information ever assembled. It came from forms required by the NCAA for the 2004-05 school year. While the NCAA reports such information only in aggregate, the data is presented here by individual school --- with the ability for users to sort by category and conference, and to compare two schools. The Star obtained the forms through freedom of information requests to the 215 public schools that compete in Division I. There were 164 responses, 76 percent. (Requests also were sent to Division I's 112 private schools, which had no obligation to release the information. None did. In addition, state law in Pennsylvania and Delaware does not require its public schools to comply.) The numbers are presented here as they were reported to the NCAA. No attempt was made to change or research anomalies. The NCAA does that. Despite improvements in accounting procedures, schools still differ in how they report certain information. For example, some placed all contributions in the "non-program specific" category, while others broke them down by football, men's basketball, etc. NCAA Reports Database

Flyer, your calculations are way off. You are comparing the per semester contributions at the other schools with per year contributions at North Texas. Double each of the other schools Total revenue from fees for more accurate figures.

The amount referred to was the total $4,200,000 that athletics currently receives from the student fees. Divide that figure by the 34,000 enrollment and it's $123 per student per year. It's not the exact figure for every student but it is the average.

University of South Alabama ...... $253.00 per student per semester South Alabama Tuition and Fee schedule South Alabama increased the athletic fee effective this year with intents to participate in Sun Belt football in 2012. Florida International University......$227.65 per student per semester Florida International Fee Schedule The fee is based on $14.51 per credit hour (at 15 hours) plus a per semester $10 Intercollegiate Athletics Fee. There is a currently a proposal being reviewed by the FIU Board of Regents that would raise the fee $1.46 per credit hour which would raise the athletic fee to $15.97 per credit hour ($249.55 per student per semester) Florida Atlantic University.....$206.25 per student per semester FAU Fee Increase In 2005 Florida Atlantic Trustees saw the need to raise the athletics fee from $11.75 to $13.75 per credit after a student referendum failed that would have made FAU's athletics fee higher than several other Florida university's. After 3 years in the Sun Belt and the subsequent success of the athletic programs, there is a likelihood that an additional increase will soon be passed. Louisiana Lafayette.....$208.00 per student per semester Louisiana Monroe.....$208.00 per student per semester The colleges of the University of Louisiana System do not charge a 'set athletics fee'. Instead the state sets an amount that all state colleges (other than LSU) can direct from tuition and service fees towards athletics. The total amount is based on enrollment and division level. In June 2007 the Lousiana State Legislature passed the measure which would direct an estimated $6.5 to $6.7 million per year from fees towards the University of Louisiana Sysytem's largest college, Louisiana-Lafayette. ($6,500,000.00 divided by 14,500 enrollment over 2 semesters). Louisiana Tech uses the quarters system instead of semesters but the student contribution is still the same. In addition, the state of Louisiana covers much of the cost of capital improvements (stadiums, basketball arenas). University of Texas-San Antonio.....$240.00 per student per semester UTSA Today on Athletics Fee increase The students at UTSA passed a referendum in September 2007 that will raise the athletics fee from $10 to $20 per credit hour for up to 12 hours (capped at a maximum $240 per semester). The increase has since been approved by the University of Texas regents. The increase is designed to enable UTSA to not only start football, but to field a competitive team. Texas State University.....$300.00 per student per semester by 2012 Athletics Fee Increase of February 2008 The Texas State fee is being raised to $20 per credit hour over the next 5 years. (the $300 figure shown above is based on 15 hour courseload) North Texas......less than $60 per student per semester Students at North Texas contribute only $123.00 each per year to athletics; that's less than $60 per semester when summer sessions are considered. It's a recipe' for failure. A tiny increase of a dollar or two per semester may assist with getting a stadium built, but it will do nothing to address the real problem. Many of these schools listed above have enrollments in the 30,000 range or higher. Some, like FAU are planning further increases. With their set student contributions, it will nearly be impossible for North Texas to be competitive, and the reputation of the entire university will continue to suffer.