UNTcrazy727

Our all black unis are great. I just can't stand when they try to wear wear combos like the one shown in the poll. Big difference between UNT and SMU is UNT has been using black as a secondary/accent color for years. Especially, for athletics. SMU never uses black.

Sucks they used one of our lesser combos

If the Stars are having college nights and UNT isn’t one of them, then it was probably UNT’s decision to not participate.

I would argue women's basketball matters just as much as baseball. Its just hard for us to realize that since our women's basketball team hasn't had any success in decades.

Can't wait to see those 15K crowds when the Pac-12 forces y'all to kick at 11 am all the time.

I'm not really concerned with football attendance. History has shown if we're winning the crowds will follow. Basketball on the other hand is extremely concerning. There's no reason attendance should be as low as it is considering the success we've had on the court. I think the AD has to reach out to the Denton community more to help. We can't depend on our DFW alumni base to drive to Denton in rush hour traffic to make week night games.

Is there a poll that is the standard bearer? I would guess its the USA Today Coaches Poll, but I'm no softball expert.

They’ll say what’s up to Air Force and Colorado State. Doubt the AAC has much interest in anyone else.

There’s more smoke now than ever. Especially with only conference champions getting byes in the expanded playoff.

Whenever Notre Dame finally decides to join the Big 10, Oregon and UW will be added as well. Which will allow the Big 12 to absorb whatever leftovers they want. But you’re right, those years of P5 cash will be nice.

Y’all have been claiming insider knowledge of imminent moves to the Big 12, ACC, and now PAC 12. Looks like you finally found a P5 desperate enough to take you. One that will fall apart once the Big 10 decides they want Oregon and Washington.

Congrats on the potential move despite doing nothing on the field to deserve it. That takes a lot of money.

His rankings are based on how each school's class compared to their 5 year average. Our grade is so low because Craven wrote the article when our class was ranked 111. He should have waited a couple days because everyone knew the class rankings were going to change once all the recruits were given grades. Our grade would probably be a B- with out current rank of 97. Our 5 year average is 91. His entire grading system if flawed though. He doesn't even take into account the level each school has been recruiting at the past 5 years. SMU has been one of the best G5s in recruiting the past 5 years and that was no different this year. But since this year's class (70) finished 2 spots behind the 5 year average (68), he gives them a B-. Meanwhile, TXST who has been one of the worst in the country the last 5 years (125) gets a B grade because this year's class (106) was less awful.

We play this style because we're not a good offensive team. We only have one consistent threat.

That’s normal for a satin jacket. A lot even go for over $100.

Does it matter? Most people know him as Mean Joe, not Big Joe. The article doesn't say we got the nickname from him. That's all we should worry about.

I thought that as well. He must really be considered a young and bright defensive mind in a lot of coaching circles to command that salary.

No, we just copied a trend that's been going on for about a decade.

They've been wearing it the past year or so. Don't expect it to be available to us anytime soon.

Don't forget Rice and Texas State!

But it’s hard to claim the Texas silhouette when countless high schools and colleges have already done it. Not unique or creative.

I agree with you on preferring "North Texas" and "Mean Green". That's why I'm such an advocate for the interlocking "NT" and strongly dislike the subtle, yet noticeable shift we've been taking towards "UNT".

Even if you think UCF's Black Knight logos are just "okay" its still better than what we have. And you can't compare UNT to 3 of the most recognizable NFL teams that have had the same logos almost their entire existence. That's apples and oranges. But even if you do, I'd argue the Cowboys have a more in-depth active roster of logos than UNT. They have the star, the capital D, throwback Cowboy (riding horse), throwback star logo...while we just have the SOW, Flying Worm, and generic word/letter marks. You're right, we don't need a new eagle every 10 years. At this point, I think the SOW has been around long enough that it needs to be the focal point of our brand. It should be to us what the Longhorn and Mustang logos are to UT and SMU. That's why I dislike the push that's been going on recently of including the university letter mark with the SOW. To improve our branding I don't think we need brand new logos. All we have to do is look to our past for inspiration while using what we currently have... 1. Keep the SOW as the focal point. It should have a presence on every field, uniform, broadcast, etc. 2. Greatly reduce the use of the UNT letter mark for athletics and bring back the interlocking "NT". And to stay in line with university branding keep the current font of the UNT letter mark. Small adjustments would be needed on the width and length of the letters. This would give us a secondary logo that pays homage to multiple eras of UNT athletics. And as we saw with the Mean Joe Greene throwbacks, the "NT" looks great on helmets. 3. Take a page out of Tulane's and Buffalo's playbook and bring back a beloved logo/character that gives a face to your brand. My choice would be this sweet bastard. Since the SOW is the main logo, I'd mostly limit this guy to merch like hoodies and tshirts and as an alternate helmet decal like Buffalo did.

That's my whole point. The vast majority of university letter marks are painfully generic. That's why most universities, like UCF, allow their athletics department to have their own dynamic branding.

Let me rephrase, UTSA is loaded with super seniors and expecting to compete for a conference title. We are not.