untjim1995

Yes, Texas, OU, KU, and probably WVU are all parts the other power conferences will be interested in, particularly the first three. You have three kings of the revenue sports, two AAU members (UT, KU), OU has the whole most National merit Scholars thing for their academic asterisk, and all three have national followings and deliver good to great TV markets. My guess is that the Big XII will expand with BYU and Cincy--the northern schools want a solid market to get into for recruiting, while WVU needs a lifeline to the conference. BYU will bring in great football and basketball, along with a lot of eyeballs. UH should be doing all they can to get into the Pac or ACC, if possible. I just don't see how UH gets into the Big XII with the city they have already being covered by the conference. BYU and Cincy can be sold, fairly easily I might add, to the network executives. UH needs to try and use this time to get out west before Texas and OU decide to try again out there. They need to sell the Pac Network on Houston's TV market and Texas recruiting. I still think that is their best chance of being P5 one day.

This.

Believe it or not, it would probably serve our program more to be playing Texas State regularly, even with SMU on the schedule, too. I would rather be playing Texas State than the FCS schools, even if it meant playing 5 home games in the seasons we play at SMU. Texas State has a $hit ton of alumni and they would bring more fans to the games at Apogee than SMU ever will. Plus, we recruit heavily against Texas State across the state, more than we do against SMU, both right now and in previous seasons.

I hate that site--there are about 10 posters there, living in the pre-death penalty days. What drives me more crazy is how many local DFW media members think they should be right up there with TCU because of their history and location. Unfortunately, Dallas doesn't care anything for SMU like Ft. Worth does for TCU--never have, actually. Because of this, SMU will never move upward--as in never. They are as high as they can ever go. Granted, its higher than us, but that's our fault, not theirs. SMU fans bitch about their SWC days getting pulled out from underneath them, but that was going to happen because of the small size of that school and not being able to pull their weight with the public schools in the region. I always go back to the fact that SMU led the other privates to block us from the SWC--we still had a lot going for us and we should have called the old Big Eight to inquire about joining there. Instead, we dropped a nuclear bomb on the program--if we hadn't done this, we would be in the AAC, at least, today. Its very, very possible that we are in the Big XII right now--not even kidding, either. The Big 8 kept all of its members when they formed the big XII. Its very, very possible that UT, A&M, and Tech would have joined the big Eight if we were already there. BTW before you think this is an empty lament, you think about the late 70s and early 80s and how TV was about to get changed greatly with the NCAA. The Big Eight had no Texas TV sets to attract, except when Texas played OU. Imagine how much a team that had been ranked recently within the DFW market with a large enrollment could have swayed the folks in Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Iowa. Then think about what sport went thru the roof at the same time--college hoops. We had a facility that easily could have been among the top venues in the Big Eight at the top. Kansas, K-State, Iowa State, Mizzou, and OU spent most of the 70s and 80s being very, very good. How fun would it have been to have seen Waymon Tisdale, Danny Manning, Rolando Blackmon, and so many others of that time coming here to play conference games? Because it would have been a reality if the leadership of the university at the time didn't giddily give up. It has cost us so much with alumni and potential fans in the DFW area over the years because they just decided to follow the regional Big XII/SEC powers instead, even with degrees from here. To me, that is MUCH worse than SMU crying about their Death penalty program that earned that position from completely ignoring and hiding from the NCAA.

I grew up in Ft. Worth, following and loving SWC Football in the 70s and 80s. Trust me, TCU fans loathe SMU, even though they look down on them today. Trust me, when I was a kid, SMU was the exact opposite of TCU, hating them while dominating them. In this region of the country, you have several rivalries that have deep-seeded hate. It requires you to know college football beyond 200, though. Texas-OU Texas-A&M OU-OSU Tech-A&M (this used to be really ugly) TCU-SMU A&M-LSU (this is an old rivalry that has been rekindled by the SEC--they used to play each other to open the season pretty regularly in decades past) Texas-Arkansas--this was, by far, the best rivalry in the old SWC days--Arky HATES Texas Baylor--TCU--really heated up in the last few years, but it is deep-seeded in old SWC hatred. Rice-UH --Bayou Bucket Rivals UNT-SMU--its mostly one-sided, because we hate that they have had so much influence on keeping us down from a conference standpoint, but SMU hates us because they have fallen so much that they aren't rivals with Texas anymore, but North Texas instead. I don't blame them for feeling this way because: UNT-UTSA--they got a free rivalry with us because of CUSA membership built on being in a big city and being supported by that market. While we tripped all over ourselves for decades, when UTSA decided they wanted to be a player at this level, it went very smoothly, with no one there to block their progress. Meanwhile, we cannot believe that they are where we are after we have played football for 100 years and they have played it for about 5-6 years. I actually think its a solid rivalry to have for us, but I also believe that Texas State should be playing us and UTSA every year. When SMU drops us here in that series, Wren Baker should call Texas State immediately.

Denton loves SWC teams--we will get 24k

No post is worthless...unless it's from Ryan Munthe or CougarQueen

UH will always have large monies alums that give back to the athletic department because of the energy industry in Houston, as well as the medical profession they get to tap into in Houston. UH has alumni who have seen the Coogs win at a high level, from the 60s thru today in football and basketball. And their university puts revenue athletics on a pedestal for their window to the school. We don't have anything like that--never have...

I saw it and it was great. But I lived the SMU and SWC as a young guy. When SMU was at their height, back in the early 80s and having no idea they were paying players, I loved watching them run the option...McIlhenny may have been one the best option QBs I ever saw, although pitching to Dickerson and James was probably pretty easy. But the cheating was over the top and they got what they deserved. I just wish the NCAA didn't look at them as if they punished them too hard and still used the death penalty on other cheaters.

Everybody's coeds in the south look great in those outfits...

They provided the content for the best 30 for 30 I've ever seen...

Hence the reason I used "if" before that collection of words... I hope they lose every game, but I suspect that they are a 4 win team, with the talent they have and the coaching mindset that Morris is trying to instill in them. Either way, 2017 is his last year there--he's either moving on up or he's getting bought out by the smut cash.

The real travesty here is that the schedule is basically shot for years because of the stupid philosophy of matching a bodybag game up with a home game against a FCS bought opponent. So, looking out, we get these games in OOC: 2016: SMU, Butt Cookman, @ Florida, and @Army 2017 Lamar, @SMU, @ Iowa, Army 2018 SMU (if they haven't bought out the series) @Army, @ Arkansas, Incarnate Word 2019 Abilene Christian, @ SMU (assuming they haven't bought out the series), Army, @ Wisconsin 2020 SMU (assuming they haven't bought out the series), @ Texas A&M, Houston Baptist, @ Army It probably won't matter by then, as I suspect the P5s won't be playing anyone in the lower G5s or FCS by then, but these future schedules could have EASILY been played out decrepit Fouts. Seriously, Butt Cookman, Lamar, Incarnate Word, Abilene Christian, and Houston Baptist are just pathetic opponents to schedule. They give you absolutely nothing of value for your program. There are thousands of people who refuse to step into Apogee as long as the opponent is at this level. Apogee was sold to us as being a game-changer, that it would allow us to host bigger and better programs. Instead, all we have seen it do is host teams that Fouts could have easily hosted without any problem. It shouldn't have been this way...

If SMU is truly on the rise, the will win 4 or more games. I can see them winning against us, Liberty and Tulane, so they need to steal one more against the other teams on their schedule. They aren't anywhere near competing with Baylor, TCU, and UH on paper. So that leaves Temple, Memphis, USF, ECU, Navy, and Tulsa--if they win one or more of these, I'd expect that SMU will enter 2017 as a favorite in the AAC and will probably see Chad Morris coach his final year in Dallas before going upward to a P5 school.

Did you watch us play last year? Do you know how few scholarship players we have on the roster, compared to every other G5 team we play? Besides this, don't worry about wins/losses this year. Just watch the guys play and see how they compete while learning a brand new system, as well as how the coaches handle themselves since we have a brand new head coach and OC that have never held these positions before.

KSU had to start winning somewhere, but they also knew that they had the revenues from visits to Manhattan from Nebraska, Oklahoma, Okie State, Colorado, Kansas, Mizzou, and Iowa State to allow them to bring in 1-aa teams and the dregs of 1-A for home games every year. We don't have the luxury when you get the following teams to Denton in conference play: Rice, UTSA, UTEP, La Tech, Southern Miss, MUTS, Marshall, F_U, Charlotte, ODU, UAB, and WKU. And that's after we had ULM, ULL, NMSU, Arkansas State, Troy, Utah State, and Idaho as other conference mates in the last 15 years.

Then our current schedule is perfect for you. We will never play anyone in the next decade that will make us feel like its a neutral site game or worse. SMU has had that happen when they have hosted us, A&M, Tech, OSU, Baylor, and TCU over the years at Ford Stadium. I have said it before, but I would so be on the phone with T. Boone and looking at scheduling a series with OSU, playing here in the years that TCU plays in Stillwater. They are the only Texoma school that doesn't play a game in DFW every year, which I know they would be interested in doing. If you had a year where you played at bodybag, at SMU, home against OSU, and a road game at another G5, that would still be better for UNT than what we do now. Playing at SMU gives you the chance to improve the schedule and still give your fans a chance to watch a game in the Metroplex that is basically a home game still. If the UNT schedule has any FCS team on it, its just a waste. I'd love a schedule like this going forward, assuming that we have to continue getting whored out in a bodybag game: @bodybag home game against OSU, BYU, Mizzou, Colorado, KU, KSU, Boise State, Tulsa, UH, or Tulane @ SMU @ one of the opponents listed above Then, the following year: SMU @bodybag home game against one the teams listed above @ one of the teams listed above. If you feel that a home game against a FCS spare is better because you get 6 times to watch us play at Apogee every year, you are just being short-sighted. Those games don't do one thing good for the program in our current situation. Even if we beat Butt Cookman, nobody will care. But if we lose to them, its just a severe kick to the crotch, one tat is easy to use against us on the recruiting trail and with the media. Its just colossally bad that RV was allowed to schedule the way he did with these FCS games for years ahead. It is a price we will be paying for many years to come, both as a fanbase and as a team.

Baylor is the perfect school for the NCAA to come down hard upon. Small private school in the South, playing in a conference with big public giants, and an absolutely no-brainer of a case to punish them. Baylor is going to be a piñata for the NCAA...

That's a bit ambitious for the expectation for road wins, in my opinion. Most teams lose 3 or more games a year on the road. Assuming we always play 6 road games, 1 of which is a bodybag game, with 5 others against G5s, I'd like to see us get to a point where we win 2-3 road games a year. Combine that with losing only a game or two at home and you get to 6-8 wins fairly regularly. But, heck even the best NCAA teams lose a game or two on the road each year.

In Dodge's first two seasons, we couldn't beat anybody that had a modcum of talent/coaching at the FBS level. Then, in year 3, it looks like we have the makings of turnaround, except that we literally gave away games at the end against Ohio, Florida Atlantic, ULL, FIU, Army, and Arkansas State, all losses by a touchdown or less. It was then that I realized that a bad team doesn't have to always get crushed to be awful...that can literally take losses from the jaws of victory against anybody, road or home. I still cannot believe Dodge got that 4th season to come back, but I guess the money wasn't there or the university's leadership just refused to buy out an extra $300k to get rid of him. Thank goodness Dodge rewarded us with a 1-6 start in 2010 before getting finally fired.

And that is solid progress if we go 2-10. We should have been 0-12 last year with what we rolled out there and how they quit on the school. If UTSA's 4th string QB doesn't get hurt and the game isn't in Denton, they probably win. Butt Cookman is the only team we will be expected to beat on the entire schedule. It represents the only game that would cause we any disappointment in Seth Littrell if we lose, but even then, I'd understand it. 68 scholarship players, brand new offensive scheme that these players are still adapting to from the Buick Offense of McCarney, plus a defense that is still undersized and slow compared to other G5 teams...that doesn't equate to a hugely successful season on the scoreboard. If we win 0-2 games this season, but we see fight in the team for 60 minutes each game and we see a recruited class that ranks in the top third of G5s, instead of the bottom decile like we have endured for most of the last 5 seasons, then this year will be a nice starting point for moving upward. All I'm saying is that if Littrell posts a 5-7 year in his third season here, he isn't getting fired after it. He will get 4th season to go after a bowl bid. If he falls short in that 4th year, he will be gone then. Now, if we are looking at Dodge-esque levels of suck here and he has won 5 games total in his first three seasons, then I agree, he will be gone--the university and the UNT 17 have made that refreshingly clear after the McCarney firing in mid season last year.

4, actually, but your point remains...

Its ok to recognize that we have very little developed talent here. You cannot rank dead-ass last in recruiting within the last few seasons, as well as have 68 scholarships and not think its not going to hurt when playing other programs at the G5 level. Right now, exactly one team on our schedule has less overall talent than us--Butt Cookman. Everyone else has more recruited/scholarship players than we have, including UTSA. Nobody says are guys are weak or slow. They are saying we don't have enough guys here to make up the difference between the 10 G5 teams on our schedule having 80-85 scholarship players. SMU has better players than us right now. So does Army. So do UTSA and UTEP. But its not always gonna be this way if Littrell and company can recruit successfully here in Texas and create the right mindset within the locker room. If they do that, we will look back on 2016 as the point where the bottoming out had ended and we began to rebound, The only way we aren't officially at the bottom yet is if we go 0-12. And I don't think we will do that...

This. And if we accomplish this, it will be progress from last year's debacle. If it weren't for miraculous circumstances, we would've finished 0-12 last year instead of 1-11. This year, going 1-11 or 2-10 will represent progress when you factor in that we have 68 scholarship players on the team before the season starts, a brand new QB, and an entirely new coaching staff, which includes a head coach who has never been a head coach before (ever)... But if we go 0-12, 1-11, or 2-10, while actually picking up some Tx HS recruits that other FBS teams want, then the season will just be looked at as a step in the right direction. Littrell and company get to take advantage of this season in this weird way--the on-field results matter a heckuva lot less than the off-the-field results, both in recruiting and in establishing a mindset within the locker room to become a winner. For the fans, don't get lost in the weeds this year when we have blowout losses--we are playing a lot of teams that have just been built in a better fashion for 2016 than what we have now. Except for Butt Cookman, Army, and UTSA, the teams on our schedule (even SMU) are just in better shape than we are right now, both from a talent and experienced coaching staff standpoint. You cannot go into a season with 68 scholarship guys from the worst team in the country and a brand new coach and expect for it to go real well in that first year. But Todd Monken saw that a short term rebuild would turn into huge rewards in a few years at USM, which was exactly where we are now back in 2013. They won one game that year, 3 the next, and then won CUSA West last year. That's what Littrell needs to try and mimic. Folks, 0-12 this year really doesn't give us one hint about Littrell being a bad head coach. We are that far down right now. Just give it time and be patient.

The thing about a coaching change is that it typically brings excitement and positivity, usually because you've replaced a coach who has been fired. A lot of people, especially media and fans, want to be able to say that they believed in the new hire from Day One. However, the reality that you deal with is that you usually see a new coach take over kids that aren't a good fit for their schemes. Dodge and his spread offense took over Dickey's Buick offense. It never really worked. Then, McCarney's offensive scheme was Buick II, taking over from Dodge's SLC offense, but it took a while to see it work out, but when those Dodge recruits graduated, we replaced them with very little talent, built for an offensive scheme that Knute Rockne felt was boring. Now, Littrell's high-octane offensive strategy has to put these Buick II parts and put them into his gameplan, realizing that he just needs to get competition and a new mindset going in the right direction. My guess is that the only way this works for Littrell here is if he can get HS recruits here to come in and fill in the holes in the years ahead. I'll say it again, but Seth Littrell is coaching here for 3-4 years, max. He either pulls off the rebuild and gets hired away, or he doesn't, like Dodge didn't, and he gets let go of with a year left on his contract. If the latter occurs, it would be so helpful for the next regime if they aren't having to take over a roster that is at a FCS level, both in numbers and talent, which is what Mac left Littrell and company.