Eagle1855

Agreed. The part in bold especially resonates with me: I think guys in the HOF should be slam-dunks. Jamario/Cobbs had rushing titles -- very specific accolades against peers, doing things that were noteworthy in the context of the game. Scott Hall won conference championships and had a couple huge plays (HOF moments) that made them possible. Kennedy was one of the best defensive players in college football at the time. I don't see anything like that in Thompson's career -- which was a good career from a person who is, by all accounts, a great guy and terrific asset to the program.

The overall tone of these posts seems to be "win at all and you're in the HOF at UNT." I think that's a sad statement about our program. Winning 9 games in 1978 (or even 1992) was more difficult than in 2013 because there were fewer opportunities. Throwing a ball 300 yards in a game was less common because the game was different. Winning a bowl game was decidedly more difficult because there were far fewer bowl games. So I don't know that you can compare one era to another. We accept what a player did as HOF work for a given time period/era in the context of the program's history. I tend to compare today's players to today's game and see how it fits. In my opinion, it's a nice career -- and that's it. But again, this is my opinion, which is far from gospel.

So which other year besides 2013 is it that you think was HOF-worthy? The one where we won five games or the one where we won four? You seem to be grading his entire career on a Dan McCarney curve. I don't think that's how it works. That would be like saying the only reason Manziel won 11 games and a Heisman was because of Kevin Sumlin. He had good numbers and a good season that probably should have resulted in a conference championship -- but didn't. Can't it just be that?

Since 2009 -- Thompson's first season -- UH, UT, A&M, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, and Rice have all won 9 games or more in a season. And UTSA might have in 2012 had they been able to go to a bowl game (which is how we got to nine wins in 2013). In other words, more FBS teams have won 9 games (or more) than not, in the State of Texas, since 2009. It was a good season. And it was a lot of fun standing in the midst of a sea of green to watch that ninth win. But I still maintain the 2013 team would have won 11 games had it not been for complete ineptitude on offense in a handful of games. If the QB gets the glory in the wins, doesn't he also shoulder the blame in the losses? I don't think that's "UT" standards, but I do tend to err on the side of expecting more out of people, programs, life.

Is "abortion of an offense" an official statistic? If so, Scott Hall's a regular Tommy Frazier.

UNT: Win a bowl game and we'll put you in the HOF.

Did you not watch the final weeks leading up to the college playoff selection? Few thought Ohio State/the B1G belonged and fewer still thought Ohio State had a chance to actually win the entire thing. In real life, they're far from an "underdog", as you noted. But in the context of the college football playoff, they were certainly the dark horse -- and they rode that status to another National Championship.

This is what Ive wanted all along. It makes too much sense.

Context.

I would think that would largely depend on the price of a ticket.

This. As to the topic at hand, Texas athletics still wins in actual real revenue dollars -- and unlike Wisconsin and Alabama (#2 and #3), their number doesn't include any subsidy from the university.

He should just go pro. His stock won't ever be higher. Then he doesn't have to worry about classes. He's got great pro size and seems to be a gamer.

Maybe. They're a good team. And if they'd held onto a 20-something point 4th-quarter lead at Baylor, they might have been able to find out. But I've no sympathy for any team with a loss. Once you lose, the chips fall where they may.

I hate the idea of having a bye to open the season. Not that my opinion on the subject matters a whole hell of a lot. But it's another thing to add to my list.

I agree, completely. But perception = reality. And we aren't perceived to be in the same class as the aforementioned. Our pithy endowment, by comparison, supports that. So UH, UTD, and Tech have the inside track. Let's hope they make the jump swiftly and that we're in a place to follow suit shortly thereafter.

That font is maddening.

Was referring to the athletic depart, related to "wealth" as compared to UT and A&M, historically. I suppose I should have clarified. UNT's endowment is pathetic and embarrassing.

I never really thought of TCU as "the rich," only an example of what's possible if you devise a good plan and stick to it with a coach who's on board and committed to the program for the long haul. I guess I've just thought of TCU as everything I ever wanted for UNT. They're kind of an against-all-odds program.

I'm sure there's one of him hoisting a National Title trophy, somewhere.

Has McDonald's closing held you back personally?

How will college students without cars eat McDonald's?

Isn't it possible people are over-selling his role in that and undervaluing that of Charlie Strong? Yeah, he coached them. But how many of those players on the national championship team did he recruit?

Did he play? Stats?

I doubt we win many recruiting battles with UH and SMU, this year. Or even La Tech and Rice, for that matter. Down year, while others have a lot of excitement around their new beginnings. Not much has changed for us, except we fell of the planet, in terms of wins, and hired a defensive coordinator -- which may end up being a good hire, but certainly isn't a game-changer. I'm glad to see we went through the JUCO ranks to shore up need positions. Put a winner back on the field in 2015, strengthen our recruitment position in 2015/2016.

For what it's worth, I had the same thought.