untjim1995

I think the next President will like athletics--just not as much as music, arts, education, science, etc...

FIFY

Great post, TFLF. We did miss the boat, but to be honest, no one on the cruise really wanted us on there to begin with. All the former CUSA teams that have alternatives have run away from us like the plague. Being in a conference with other Texas schools is still better than being in the SBC as the only Texas school, so CUSA is better, if only for that. But I'm right there with you on being in a league with UTSA, Rice, Texas State, La Tech, ULM, ULL, Arky State, UTEP, and NMSU. Add UTA and UALR for hoops, too. I know that La Tech hates ULM and UTEP hates NMSU, so maybe those two teams may be out. But I just think that playing a game against Marshall or UAB won't be one bit different, both in cost and in revenue, than it has been to play Western Kentucky or Troy. Sure, Southern Miss has a much better history than South Alabama, but I just don't see any thousands more flocking to Denton to see USM over USA. I'd rather play USM, UAB, and Marshall than the other three SBC teams I mentioned, but its not like tis gonna make our athletic department swim in tons of more revenue. I would also guess that our administration would like the reduced costs of traveling only to Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas (with Las Cruces being an hour outside of El Paso). You could basically do this Pac-12 style, with basketball games being with travel partners (UNT-UTA, UTEP-NMSU, La Tech-ULM, ULL-Rice, UTSA-Texas State, and Arky State-UALR). There's just not much you can do when the other schools in the state that everybody knows and has followed for decades want very little to do with you as a conference mate. And if history is any lesson, the SWC schools have made it perfectly clear that they won't want us to be associated with them anytime soon. When they have all the power in their conferences, they can get the votes to block you from ever moving upward. Winning would seem to be the cure to a lot of this, but even that has never opened up any doors for us before. The only reason we are in CUSA is solely due to the fact that SMU left. If the Big East had taken UH and say USM, instead of SMU, Tulane and Tulsa would have never left, even if Memphis, ECU, and UCF left. They would have added MTSU, FIU, Western Kentucky, and probably UTSA to replace the four that left. Then we would really be screwed--because the SBC probably would have replaced the eastern schools with Georgia State, ODU, and Charlotte. How fun would that be? The current conference we have is fine, especially when you look at it from this perspective. But a more regional conference of current Texas, LA, and Arkansas schools would be cheaper than traveling to Old Dominion, Marshall, Charlotte, MTSU, WKU, FIU, FAU, USM, or UAB. Your farthest trips would be Las Cruces, Jonesboro, and Lafayette. It would be a poor man's version of the old SWC.

I agree with your thoughts on a lot of levels. I still believe that the smartest thing for both the ACC and Big XII to do is to form an alliance, for the money sports. UNC-Kansas, Texas-Miami, and Oklahoma-Florida State would be huge draws. Have a championship game between those two leagues and a conference tournament involving those two. And if you lose a couple of teams in realignment, then you can go and get UConn and Cincinnati to take their place. The one thing that is complicating things for the Big 12 and, for sure, Texas, is that they are going to have some major problems to deal with in the LHN. No one wants to sign off on that, unless you are already in the Big XII and are afraid it will be gone if Texas leaves (it would). No one in the Pac, B1G, or ACC will sign off on that, as it currently stands. Whenever the LHN gets pulled off the table, then the fun really starts. Texas (sans LHN) may be the crown jewel (along with Notre Dame) for conference membership, but Notre Dame doesn't carry the barnacles that Texas does. And if Baylor, Tech, or TCU don't get included in anything with Texas, the lawsuits are going to fly fast than internet posts. The chief barnacle will always be Baylor--their lawyers and legislative weight is still strong. The day Baylor issues bonds for their new stadium will almost assuredly weld Baylor to Texas even more than they are already. Problem is that no one wants Baylor--or Tech--for that matter. The Pac schools don't want a strict religious school that doesn't jive with West Coast politics and doesn't have a nationwide pull, like BYU or ND. The B1G only wants TV sets and AAU institutions. SEC seems only interested in TV markets now, too. Baylor, Tech, and TCU can point to lots of success in different sports over the last 10 years, but their games are only watched at a high level on TV when they play a big name school like Texas or Oklahoma. Look at the attendance of games involving those three schools when they don't involve a big name. The attendance is not bad, but its not great, either, nor are the ratings. The other conferences know this. The Pac knows that they are somewhat limited on the schools they can pull west. The best options will remain as Texas and Oklahoma. They like Kansas, too. It wouldn't surprise me to see a Pac-16 one day--one that wanted Texas, but couldn't get them because of lots of obstacles that caused it to be too big of a problem, so instead they take on both the Oklahoma and Kansas schools. That wouldn't surprise me at all. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that LHN will be the thing that knocked Texas backwards for a long time. They lost A&M (and Mizzou) over it, their conference is not nearly as strong as it once was in either football or basketball, and no other conference or potential conference mate that is worth anything will sign off on it. When its all said and done, either Texas or ESPN will pull out of that deal--and then the real fireworks will begin!!

I'm amazed at their talent. FGCU looks like they could easily play in any AQ league with that length and athletic ability. Brown, Comer, Fieler, etc...they look just as talented as anyone else. Interested to see if they come back to earth before Friday's game in Arlington. Playing Florida in a game like this would be like us playing Texas in the Sweet 16 when we were both actually good. UF has beaten everyone by double digits, but lost to everyone that has kept the game in single digits. IF FGCU can play them close, who knows, maybe they can advance?!! I find it amazing that a school in its second year of eligibilty as a Division 1 team can do this, but it really says a lot about this tournament, more than it does about comparing schools. I think anyone in any league can do this if they get the right draw and have the hot hand. It just happened to be the 15 seed this time, instead of a 13 or 14 seed has done in years past.

I think most people are just hoping to see Berglund play at a level that is higher than we have seen since Hall was at QB here. I kind of feel like Vito is being negative here, which is fine, but I feel like he could just as easily write a blog that is exactly the opposite, too. Of course, if I had to watch and report on what we have all seen over the last 8 years, writing for a paper in a town that doesn't really like its own hometown football team, then I'd probably come off as negative, too.

I think it mattered to the fans at Hofheinz Pavilion on Wednesday night...you know, the people who support that program and loved seeing an old rival have to come back to town and play them at a place they wouldn't dare play at again anytime soon. They seemed to have a pretty good time--seemed like money well spent to me. Never mind--lets just keep doing what we're doing here in Denton. Things look bright!!

We have seen this horror movie before--it sounds like we are in sequel 3. "Trilli has lots of enthusiasm and cares so much about the kids--way more than Jankovich ever did." "Dodge wants to make these men better husbands and fathers. Look, he doesn't even allow cussing on the sidelines." "Benford actually cares for these guys--he often asks us "Who is gonna feed your babies?" He wants us to be responsible..." Combined records of these three: 38 wins, 144 losses, winning percentage of .208 Combined records of their predecessors: (Jankovich, Dickey, and Johnny Jones) 285 wins, 267 losses, winning percentage of .516 Record for producing good citizens, husbands, and fathers from these three: 100% Record for the above stat from the predecessors: apparently much worse...

If the Learfield Director's Cup contains records from sports that don't bring in any revenue and most people don't care about, then it really isn't what I would look at. The money sports ar football and men's hoops at those 124 schools. Maybe some get $$ from womens hoops or baseball, but the 124 schools is a pretty good measure to look at for where we stand. The last 8 years have been atrocious for UNT football. The basketball team had been solid, but looks to be back on the Trilli Express to failure. To be below 100 on that list really says something. I'd venture to say that we are the biggest school on that list. We just don't care enough about athletics here--because the university's circle (administration, BOR, students, faculty, alumni, citizens of the city) don't want us to spend on it. No other school in our circle would accept what we have from our football team in the last 8 years. The AD at these other schools would have been fired long ago for one bad hire in foootball, much less the worst hire in school history--and that's not even counting the worst hire in womens' hoops and what could easiily become the worst hire in mens hoops history if the trend continues. It is what it is. We want to be a "value" for cost of a degree. We want to continue to be known for our fine arts programs. We want to continue to be a great educator school, so as to produce a lot more teachers, which is what we have always been. Those are very noble causes and ventures--no doubt that they benefit society at a very high level. But they don't relate well at all to athletic spending.You cannot spend the money needed to really compete on athletics when the rest of the university doesn't want it. I just wish that someone in our leadership would admit to it, instead of having some NT Daily spare write about it in some column every month or so. Just tell us that it doesn't matter that much. Maybe you will get more donations from the rest of your alumni and Denton citizens for standing up for their views...I doubt it, but maybe you all know something about our alumni that other schools in Texas and the region don't have to deal with. We will never know just how much $$$ we have left on the table by not spending on athletics at a decent level over all these years, but, again, maybe at UNT and in Denton, our leaders know that it wouldn't have made us any money at all. Maybe we are just that different from the other universities in this region. Again, I doubt it, but nothing else makes any sense to me at this point, in regards to how little we care to spend on $$$ sports here. Any thoughts?

I really think Tulane made the right decision for their university. They are still playing most of the schools they have played with for most of the last two decades, plus they get the advantage of still playing with SMU and probably Tulsa. Their travel won't be all that different from the past, especially if UConn and Cincy leave soon, as expected. They will add Temple, another inner city private school, to their conference slate, but UCF, USF, Memphis, UH, SMU, ECU, and Cincy are all teams they have shared a conference with in the past. Assuming Tulsa heads that way, while having added in the Naval Academy, seems like a good move for Tulane. I think CUSA is a nice step up for us. We get UTEP, La Tech, Rice, and UTSA as close conference mates. Assuming Southern Miss and UAB don't get poached away, it is an improvement over the SBC in any way you look at it. But I bet a lot of folks from Arky State, ULL, ULM, and WKU probably think that we aren't making a good move for going to CUSA 2.0, since it is more travel and a lot of startups in Charlotte, ODU, and UTSA. What's been good for us has been good for SMU and Tulane, as well.

Be careful, CBL. That is a very negative post regarding the University of North Texas. That is just not acceptable to some people on here.

Good take, but I will say, at least for myself, that I was very happy for JJ that the LSU job came available at a point where he could get hired by them. My disappointment in Benford, again for myself, wasn't from JJ leaving--at all. It was partly due to the fact that we could have gotten a more experienced coach, particularly one in Fraschilla that I believe would have been a great hire. It was also due to the fact that his team looked apathetic on the court, in part, because he implemented the line change on the court that the Dallas Stars would envy. I didn't like his dodging of the media after early season losses, either. Tony Mitchell regressed badly, but it was obvious that he had no respect for Benford's coaching style. Maybe you can put blame on Mitchell for that solely, but he is a young man that still needs solid leadership. When he had that, under JJ, he was a looming lottery pick. Now, he MIGHT go in the first round of the draft. I suspect that he will tell his side of the story very soon about all of this and there will be many folks around here who will get mad that he is airing his dirty laundry, but he's gonna need to do that to improve his draft stock again. Be prepared for this, gmg.com.

I think this, too. I think we will be better than anything we have seen here in Denton since 2004. I truly believe that we will go 6-6. I think Berglund will be the main difference.

Good Lord...if UTSA can come in and make an impact like this, then CUSA is in very bad shape. No way that a school playing its third year of ball should "make an impact" unless the league just stinks...

We are talking about previous teams under JJ. No one wants to see a Benford team play again...for some of us, that means forever.

It is rather apparent that Jerry Moore has found his perfect place to coach. He is a great FCS coach. His record as a FBS coach wasn't very good, which I know he admits. But Jerry Moore didn't ruin North Texas Football. That was accomplished by the university's leadership when they let us go down to 1-aa in the early 80s. That ruined the program.

Such a terrific post. I am really coming back around to the line of thinking that the AD is bad because the university just doesn't want to pay any more money to it than they have to. Denton likes music and arts. The university's students and alumni mostly leave Denton on the weekends to go back to the Metroplex. The faculty and administration want the school to focus on education and keeping tuition and fees low so that we can still be a "value". I thought for a long time that we had put that line of thinking behind us, especially with the new stadium and hiring McCarney as the football coach with a decent contract. But the stadium HAD to be built. Otherwise, we would have probably had to drop football in the next decade because of the decrepit state of Fouts Field. We paid McCarney the going rate for non-AQ coaches at this level that had experience. Now that we have done both, it seems like the BOR and the university's leadership feel like they have done their jobs. Maybe they have, too. Maybe they are really just doing what they know everyone around the unviersity wants, knowing that going in the other direction in funding athletics may cause a riot in Denton. Honestly, I think RV should be fired for this mess. But I'm also certain any other AD in his office would be handcuffed with the same mindset that has caused this mess to be accepted by the university.

I agree with you about this year's team, for sure. But we are talking about the teams from the previous 5-6 years that didn't make the NCAAs, but were still very good teams for these other tournaments.

If nobody cares about them, why would anyone pay to get into them? Why would the media even mention them, because they do, even if it is in a small way. You make it seem like we are the smartest school in the state by NOT doing what everyone else has done. Even UH is in the CIT and gets to play UT at home. In Houston, that will get covered. That's UTEP, SMU, UH, and UTA that have decided it was worth it to their programs to gain a spot in one of those two tournaments. But, not us, by golly--we are the prudent ones!! All of those schools should learn from us!!

I'm excited, too, but it does worry me that we are being predicted to finish 2-10 in some publication. That tells me that others who are looking at us from the outside just don't see much. I trust Coach Mac, though. I think we will surprise a lot of people and win 5-6 games. But for those who think McCarney is on the hot seat this year, we would have to win 2 or less games for that to even be a consideration, and even that probably wouldn't do it, considering Dodge came back after winning two games in his third year here. The key number for McCarney this year isn't wins and losses, its his buyout. The university has already shown that it cannot afford to buy out more than two years of a contract when they finally canned Dickey and had to hire a high school coach to come here, just to be able to pay the bills. Paying off two years of the highest contract UNT has ever handed out doesn't seem very realistic, if you go by the history of this university when it comes to athletics. McCarney's seat may be a bit warmer, but its not uncomfortable. His 4th year will be the hot seat if we don't perform well this year. The 4th year of a 5 year contract is do-or-die in college sports. You cannot let a coach recruit when he only has the year ahead left on his contract. Our recruiting sucks enough as it is. If we haven't figured out if McCarney is the right guy by the end of his 4th year, our recruiting would drop to a level that SFA or SHSU would be looking down at us. No one would select to go to a university to play for a program that doesn't have a coach set for the next few years ahead. That would be suicide.

Exactly...UTEP and SMU paid those fees. Now UTA is paying it. And we couldn't or wouldn't.

So what do we do about this? Do we just accept it and move forward? Do we accept it and move on? How do you make a university care about athletics when they obviously never have and their alums and the citizens around the unviersity make it very clear that they want little-to-no energy or funding to be spent on athletics? You will have the usual suspects saying, "Look we just built a stadium and we are paying more for our coaches than we ever have--what more proof do you need that we care about athletics?" But my answer to that is that we had to build a new stadium or our football program's future--Fouts couldn't function anymore, with all of the generators needed to even get the stadium up and functioning. And even that new stadium doesn't ensure our place at the FBS table in the years ahead. With our hires of McCarney and Benford, we simply paid what the market asks for at the time, so that doesn't really show me that much. You will never convince me that another FBS school that plays football would keep their AD if he had made hires like Todd Dodge, Shanice Stephens, and Tony Benford during his tenure. And even though it makes me frustrated with RV, I still wonder if this is because its really all the BOR will let him do--and the BOR does it because it knows that is what the majority of the administration, faculty, alumni, students, and citizenry of the town want. In the last few years, we have seen SMU and UTEP buy into conference tournaments. We are now watching freaking UTA do the same thing. Is there any doubt that Rice or UH would do the same thing? Why do those schools care about athletic spending, even in the sport that isn't the number one money maker to the AD, but we don't? Seriously, how can anyone expect for our programs to even compete with CUSA teams if we don't have (or much worse, won't spend) more money on athletics? If we can't--or won't--spend enough to compete with the CUSA schools, at the bare minimum, there is no way you can expect for your teams to do anything positive, record-wise. If all we want is to just spend on education, music, arts, and other ventures, that's fine. But tell us that--and get our teams in a conference that we can compete with. I think it is beyond embarrasing that a university of our size doesn't want to be the best they could be in athletics, but they make the decisions. It embarrassed me that we felt that the SBC was a solid barometer of who we could compete with, even though we are as big as we are. It would embarrass me if we had to play against Southland-type schools again, in part because our leadership funded the program that way, but at least it would tell the few fans around here that still do care that we have decided to play in a league with other schools that fund their program at a similar fashion. Right now, we are telling our fanbase that we are moving up in conference affiliation by going to CUSA. But our approach to athletics is telling us all that we our setting ourselves up for more poor performances on the football field and on the basketball court because we can't--or won't--support athletics like ALL of the other Texas schools do. Sadly, that list now includes a basketball-only school in the middle of the Metroplex, UTA. I realize that is their main $$$ sport, but seriously, if we cannot afford to support our basketball program at a similar level as freakin' UTA, why bother having a program here? Just be the best music and arts school in the country if that's what you want. But just tell us...for me, I'm giving this place 5 years to get this right. If this place doesn't care about sports, which means so much to me, then I need to give my fandom to other ventures that want it. It amazes me that there are some folks out there who have put up with this lack of support for athletics for 30 or more years. I've given this place 22+ years of following it, as a student and as an alum. If we don't see major changes in performance AND funding, there is just no way I can stick with this.

This is the truest difference between a university with money and one without it. Now, whether we have the funds or not is up to debate, but this is the reason I didn't like the Benford hire. Who here doesn't think that if he could've done the job like we expected instead of being outcoached by your below-level YMCA coach, that Tech wouldn't have easily hired him away? This hire was suspect at the beginning, but now it has proven to be disastrous. And there is absolutely nothing that we, as fans, can do about it. We will see Benford coaching here for at least two more years, maybe even three. Maybe we will see him turn into a great coach, like Andrew tells us he will be, but that would be a miracluous turnaround if that occurred. We have seen this horror movie before--it was the Trilli Years. Everything points to us seeing a sequel.

That worked out great...but, you know, when you have to open up against a team like Alabama-Huntsville on a neutral court, you really cannot expect too much...

Here's the thing that bothers me the most, but is absolutely par for the course when it comes to UNT athletics. If we had performed up to expectations at the beginning of the year, could you imagine how much love we would get right now from all over the state for being the ONLY team in Texas to be going to the NCAAs, especailly with the potential draft lottery pick, Tony Mitchell? If you even win one game in the tournament, you become a darling in this state. Oh well, dreams are great, but reality often disappoints--in our case, for a suffering fanbase that rarely gets any attention in a state full of Longhorns, Aggies, Red Raiders, etc..., we blew our chance to finally show off one of our ATHLETIC teams to the rest of the state. Hell, even if had made the NIT, which would have been a disappointment to think about at the beginning of the year, we still would be playing in a tournament with Baylor and SFA...instead, I see where UTA is involved in a postseason tournament today. We have had teams in the apst that easily could've been in the CBI or CIT, but we never agreed to pay to get in. Now, we see UTA doing what SMU has done, pay to get their team a chance to win a few postseason games and maybe garner some more attention. Again, it just seems so typical to see this happen, both on our side of the aisle and the Metroplex's other schoolss.