untjim1995

The ACC is in deep trouble. The smoke that is coming from that conference will be a fire very soon. The southern schools will never get in the SEC and their football programs suffer for it, but their in-state rivals won't let them in the conference, even though they play them every year. So, I expect FSU, Clemson, Miami, Ga Tech, Louisville, and Pittsburgh to get named as Big XII members at some point this year. None of those schools would ever make it into the conferences that their in-state rivals play in, but they would play well in the Big XII. The B1G is also very interested in Ga Tech, but the main targets appear to be Virginia or North Carolina. They get Ga Tech and UVa or they get UNC and Duke, who are apparently tied at the hip. If the B1G got Ga Tech and UVa, the SEC probably goes after UNC and Duke. If the B1G got the UNC/Duke combo, the SEC would like to get NC State and VaTech, but those Virginia schools are apparently tied together like the Oklahoma schools are, so they may have to just take the Virginia schools together. What wouldn't surprise me at all is to see the Catholic 7 waiting to see if/when the ACC implodes from its current status. Then, they go back to UConn, Cincy, Boston College, Syracuse, Wake Forest, and NC State and get a new ACC going. They probably add South Florida and Temple to get 8, add Navy as football-only to get to 9, then add ND as a hoops program to get to 16 in basketball. That leaves your nBE without UConn and Cincy, which is expected, but it also takes away Navy, USF, and Temple. Where we go from there is beyond me, but I think it would still give the new ACC a seat in the AQ space at least for a while.

My Aggie friends will tell you that Texas has benefitted from this the most, which is what makes their current situation a very tough spot for Mack Brown. Every year, Texas gets these kids that are usually highly ranked, but they get highly ranked by Texas media members who want to make a buck on that program's fans subscribing to their newsletters. So when Texas gets top 5 recruiting classes but gets prison-raped by Oklahoma and Kansas State every year, it shows that something doesn't add up with this. Either Mack Brown can't coach or the players just aren't as good as advertised. You can say that it is more on Mack for not developing those kids, but it also is on the recruiting guru that offices in Austin and sends out newsletters to Texas alums and t-shirt fans claiming that a 3* kid that decommitted from TCU to go to Texas is really now a 4*. Or worse, the kid that is offered a scholarship as a junior gets to be an automatic 5* (think Garrett Gilbert) but then can't play, making Mack out to be the real problem when it may not be his entirely. I have learned to take this stuff with a grain of salt. Should a kid that goes to Texas be a better player than one that goes to Texas Tech or North Texas? Probably, just based off of pedigree, but that doesn't mean that the kid that goes to tech or UNT cannot be developed over time to be a better player. That's where coaching comes into play, which never gets factored in on recruiting. If for no other example, see Gary Patterson, who can turn a 2* running back into a 5* DLineman by the time he leaves TCU. That's why I give McCarney time here to get this done--he has proven to be able to do this over time at Iowa State, especially with linemen, which is where we need the most help and will need to develop raw talent.

We might be getting Stratford'd, but Berglund's resume and size are worth the shot. Berglund didn't play anywhere else because he couldn't play--it was because of off-the-field stuff. Maybe that makes him an even bigger risk, but Stratford couldn't play at OU and he couldn't play here either for the same reason--his hands were stone.

I think its funny that a UH fan comes on here to talk crap about us when we have done nothing but point out the huge questions about the new Big East and why CUSA's travel and regional advantages are still in place. UH and SMU may do great in the new Big East and make millions upon millions while playing in that new league. You both may be bowling at even higher levels, as well as seeing your hoops teams get a huge boost. But you know what? Maybe you won't either. No matter what happens, though, this stepup to CUSA, even without you, SMU, Tulane, or Tulsa, is still a nice stepup for us. And just like UH, we joined a conference that we thought would be even more attractive than it has turned out to be, but it doesn't mean it isn't the right one for both of us. At UNT, we are only pointing out that you and SMU aren't getting that great of a deal in your new Big East CUSA 3.0, not saying that it isn't as good as SBCUSA. We get that yall are still playing teams in your conference that have decent name recognition over ours--just not enough to really make the turnstiles break from over usage. And that's why we have to question why you guys refuse to get the qualities behind a regional conference that benefitted you both greatly over the years. I get that you guys were SWC royalty in this state. If Rice had done squat in football in the 60s or 70s, its probable that they would've blocked yall from joining the SWC, just like the Metroplex privates basically did to us in the late 70s, just to protect their market, but since they sucked big time, the rest of the SWC recognized that they needed better exposure in that market and that yall had great success in football and mens hoops. We werent as fortunate. But, since the SWC breakup and the moveup of UNT back to I-A in 1995, all of us that are not in the Big XII have had to watch us basically fall off the Texas Sports radar. Only TCU made their way back to relevance and that took unprecedented success as a non-AQ and the second biggest team in the state leaving to get them in the conference that really matters to fans and media around here. Not UH, not SMU, not Rice, not UTEP, not us...none of us. This is why you have heard little ol' North Texas blowing the horn on playing regional teams in OOC and to look at the benefits of adding another local team to your regional conference. This is our advantage over you all--we've never been allowed to sit at a conference table with local teams as a FBS team, until now. Our fans are going to love this, even if Tulsa and Tulane leave. And if we add in ULL--as I think we will--they are a better athletic department right now than Tulane, just as La Tech is a huge stepup over ULM. We get UTEP, UTSA, and Rice in state, meaning we have games in the biggest markets in the state every single year. Yall don't. Your fans still get games with SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, UCF, ECU, and Memphis, plus you'll get USF, Navy, and Temple, as well as Cincy and UConn until they leave eventually. Our fans would be ecstatic about that schedule, but it still doesn't solve the the problem of increased travel costs, media relevance, or being left on the outside of the AQ cartel. And, as we saw with Northern Illinois making the Orange Bowl, unless you are truly worthy of being a non-AQ in one of those bowl games by being an unbeaten team, all the media does is make fun of you for being given a bone and cries about how ridiculous it is for you to be in that game. So, as far as knowing your place, we certainly know what ours has been and what we would like it to be. You guys, on the other hand, just like SMU, have it much harder when it comes to knowing your place--its accepting a bitter pill of not being nearly as relevant as your older alumni and older media members want to remember. Look, I'd be pissed, too, if I got stuck with what yall have gotten for the last almost two decades. At one point, you were a top dog in the SWC. Later, as the SWC looks to be cracking, the SEC actually states that they want A&M and UH as possible candidates, only to see the Texas legislature knock that possibility down as soon as possible. Then, just a few years later, youre holding your SWC suitcase, wondering how the heck did this happen, that we are left behind. I wouldn't want to think about this cold hard reality any longer than I had to, if I were a UH alum or fan, but that's part of knowing your place. Youre no more better off in the new Big East than you were in the old CUSA, just like the rest of us non-AQs. You just think that you are. And if your measuring stick is being able to come on here and make fun of being way ahead of North Texas--man, congratulations on being Captain Obvious. That's no different than a Tech fan dogpiling on your school--you may think your better than them, both academically and athletically, but that Big XII sticker on their jerseys lets you know just how far away you are from your glory days in the SWC. And it reminds us that we have to continue to build up a program that can one day compete with yours and SMUs and the rest of the CUSA Texas schools year in and year out, if for nothing else but to keep playing in a conference with other Texas schools that are fans actually care about. That's knowing your place...

I look at this two ways: If Berglund is a good QB, then I see 7-5: HOME ROAD W--Idaho L--Ohio L--Ball State L--Georgia W--MUTS W--La Tech L--Rice W--Southern Miss W--UTEP W--Tulane W--UTSA L--Tulsa If Berglund is not good, and DT is the QB at the same level as last year, we go 4-8, with wins over Idaho, UTEP, UTSA, and Tulane. Berglund's potential is that big of a difference, IMO.

When Dodge got hired, it was because of his name recognition in the area as a great winner at HS and because he was affordable. Nothing else mattered, since we had just bought out Dickey's contract and had nowhere near enough money to pay Harbaugh, who was said to want double what we paid Dodge, as a starting point. Jimbo Fisher is the really interesting name here, since he probably was the other finalist to Dodge, but he didn't have the name cachet that Dodge had at the time. Just as he did with Benford, RV was trying to hit a home run by hiring Dodge. At first, with the media coverage, supposed recruiting pickup, and the attendance for that first spring game, it appeared that we were on our way. Then we played Oklahoma as if they were Colleyville Heritage and lost a heartbreaker 79-10. Of course, after this, we basically got mudholed further for the next three-plus years under Dodge. Fisher probably would've have been a coach in the same vein as Coach Mac today, so who knows if that would've worked out here, although recruiting to Fouts and playing in the SBC probably wouldn't have made us contenders. Harbaugh needed interview experience, which we gave him. He knew that he was going to have a MWC or Pac job waiting for him soon, just no one imagined it was going to be so soon at Stanford. Harbaugh is a great coach, no doubt, and he would have been awesome here, just because he is such a great QB developer and handler. But we couldn't/wouldn't pay for him. Ironically, just four years later, we tripled the salary to get a head coach here in McCarney. As usual, we are always late to the FBS party.

So, it looks like SBC 2.0 is now rebranded as CUSA, which also gives us a trade, at the least, of ULM for La Tech, which is an upgrade. But, playing home games down the road against Old Dominion and Charlotte, while playing against MUTS, FAU, FIU, and Marshall won't bring any more fans to Apogee than what we have been used to. UTSA will help, and if UTEP stays, as I think they will, along with Rice, we still have a better setup than before, even with Eastern based teams in CUSA that won't bring anyone here. Still, trading ULM, South Alabama, Troy, Arkansas State, ULL, and Western Kentucky for UTSA, Rice, UTEP, La Tech, Southern Miss, and UAB seems a little better for name recognition. Whether that moves the turnstiles or media coverage in a better way is yet to be seen, but I do think we have slightly bettered ourselves. I will say this, though. The real winner in this new CUSA, as it stands today, is UTSA. They are playing against Texas schools immediately as conference members. Even playing Old Dominion and Charlotte eventually will be a step up in competiton from the D-2 schools they have played in the last two years. It won't surprise me at all if they build up very fast down there. What I still think is most amazing to me is just how much these non-AQ schools with very low budgets, just refuse to accept the idea of a regional conference. The Big East, with the new schools from CUSA, is just ridiculous. I get that SMU doesn't want to play in a conference with us, but SMU playing Temple as conference mates is just as dumb as North Texas playing Florida International. No one in Houston is going to care one bit about a home conference game against UConn, who will probably be bolting for the ACC anytime soon, anyhow. It might just be all about TV deals these days, but the non-AQs are going to find out that ratings don't go up for games involving far-flung teams playing conference games. I like the upgrade for North Texas on the new CUSA-West--I'd trade ULL and Arky State for ODU and Charlotte right now to make it even better, but it is what it is for now, just because of TV. Its still better than what we had in the SBC, even if it looks like SBC 2.0.

We feel bad about the pecking order place we find ourselves at in this state, but I think about SMU and it really is a major fall. They went from playing in one of the premier conferences of college football, with a strong mix of very wealthy private schools and huge state schools, to getting its football program killed--rightfully so--by the NCAA, thus causing them to eventually lose their status as a major player in college football. Imagine being a SMU alum in 1984. You've seen your team almost win a national championship, compete for many SWC titles in the last 5 years, and you are getting to live in Dallas and watch your team play Texas, A&M, Tech, Arkansas, etc.. every year. Then, 10 years later in 1994, you don't get those guys anymore as conference mates, plus you lose Baylor, and eventually TCU as well. It takes you until 2009 to actually get back to being a winner again, while playing teams that most of your fanbase doesn't care about, even as you win again. Now, they try to move up to a new conference that would have benefitted its teams if the Big East had held form, but instead it falls backwards, in part because teams like SMU and Tulane got admitted based on history and location, neither of which compels most fans from caring one bit about going to watch those teams play other non-AQ teams. Here at UNT, we've never had anything like that. Sure, we dropped down to i-aa and it will probably prove to be too much to overcome, since it has set us so far back from a fanbase, media coverage, and conference affiliation standpoint. But we never even got one home game in Denton against those big SWC public schools (Texas, A&M, Tech, or Arkansas). Imagine how much disappointment you would feel if we went from playing annual home games against the Longhorns and Aggies to games at home against Tulane and Tulsa? That would suck, no matter how much you love your university.

We have not had a decent winner here since the 2002-2004 seasons as an FBS member. Going back to when we rose up from purgatory, in 1995, we are 70-142, or an average in those seasons of 4-8. Our average attendance is usually between 15k and 19k. The local media of the area don't give much attention this way. All of that combines to why we have been easy targets to be ignored, disregarded, or abandoned as conference mates. We think Tulsa and UTEP and Rice will look at us connections to DFW area alums and fans. We think that Tech and UH and SMU and TCU and Baylor will recognize us as potential rivals at some point in the future because of our size and location. We think that Abner Haynes and Mean Joe Greene and being the first SW based team to be integrated makes our history as a college football team seem close to our SWC brethren and way above some of the fellow Big West/SBCUSA members we play. In reality, and I hate it because I never really wanted to admit it, none of this is how others perceive us, which is why we are affiliated in conferences with schools that sound like airports or have hyphens in their name. Those higher than us on the Texas college ladder have never wanted (nor been given a reason) to want us in their conference. UTEP and Tulsa will bolt as soon as possible, just as Rice and La Tech would too if they could. We are no sleeping giant. We are a big, fat guy that has been in a coma, given just enough to survive on, but never given enough sustenance from anyone, including our own administrative family, to get up and get healthy. When the doctors (other schools higher up the food chain) and the hospital (conference) looks at us, all they see is an unhealthy patient. A lot of the family (administration, faculty, alumni, and local residents) would prefer us to just die so that they can collect the inheritance (no more $$$ to athletics), but a few family members know that we can get better if we got better medicine and eventually different doctors. But the doctors we want all seem to be connected to the HMO (SWC schools) that want as little done as possible for the patient. So, we drift along, believening, hopelessly, that our patient will wake up and become a champion because of his location, size, and age, not recgonizing that those around us don't look at any of those things when they see the patient. They see no sleeping giant. All they see is a big, fat guy that really doesn't appeal to them at all.

TFLF, again, speaks the truth...I have posted for a long time now that UTSA has the chance, if they really grab the bull by the horns here, to easily follow USF's path to a better footing in college football than we do. They are starting from the ground up in a big city that loves football and has no one else in their immedate city to compete with, just like USF had in Tampa. Sure, Texas and A&M will still get the majority of coverage in the media in SA, but just like USF, UTEP and TCU (to some degree) have seen, a big hometown newspaper and TV stations can really pump you up to your potential fanbase that wants to watch college sports at a decent level in your hometown. If they fall on their face and do nothing as a FBS program, then they will flop big time. But, should they beat teams that people have heard of and actually start winning and going to bowl games, they will be targets for the Big East and the MWC, the two leagues that I believe will survive as FBS leagues when the NCAA sickle finally starts to cut back on FBS membership. We watched UCF and USF both take advantage of being in large metropolitan cities in a state with lots of talent to move up the NCAA foodchain. It appears that UTSA COULD do the same thing if they can win in a similar fashion as UCF and USF did while starting up their programs. I do agree big time with the reality that Denton's reputation doesn't help UNT, as well as the fact that UTSA doesn't have to overcome severe apathy (yet) from its own fanbase, of whom have never witnessed a vote to drop football like we did in the early 70s or an actual dropping down of a program to a lower level, like we did between the early 80s. I figure that the i-AA years cost us at least two generations of fans, which is why we are building back up still from the jump into I-A ball in 1995. If UTSA did beat us next year, that would be my final proof that maybe FBS ball just ain't what North Texas needs to be a part of. There is no way that a school in their third year of having a program should be able to compete with, much less beat, a program with 80+ years of history and in the third year of the current head coach's tenure. To me, that game should be on par with us playing South Alabama or Texas Southern this past season, obvious wins, even if we just sleepwalk thru the game. A loss to UTSA in football at this juncture should really tell us all that football just isnt worth the hassle at this school. Ther really shouldn't be any excuse for losing to them next season, even if we play them down there. Absolutely no excuses...

The issues with conference alignment involve a lot of problems, but the biggest of them is really simple: perception. For decades, the university literally didn't care about athletics, the students and faculty followed suit, along with the locals. That mindset easily floated down to the Metroplex, whose media always cared about SWC schools, anyway, but the few times we mattered on the sports page, it was treated like an after thought. I-aa, as I have argued for so many years, was the real killer here. No matter what happened after the SWC said no to any overtures to admitting us in the late 70s and Fry leaving once the writing was on the wall, we should have never late i-aa happen. Sure, we had some great games and players back then, but it just killed the one thing that UNT did have on its side--history as a i-a school. Even with a poor following and non-existant administrative support, North Texas still played at the highest level of football--until 1982. After that, there was literally no way that any 1-a school was going to ever consider UNT as a potential conference mate if they were in this region of the country. Even after we moved up to i-a in 1995 and played in the Big West, no one cared at all. In 2001, the Sun Belt throws our program a literal lifeline, but again, it was the flimsiest of conferences, with all of its teams playing multiple bodybag games to SEC and Big XII powers most of the time. North Texas ran the damn conference as the king for four straight years, only to see the next conference up the foodcahin, CUSA, with all of its Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma ties, basically agree that we weren't really a good fit for them, even with a bigger enrollment and football success than SMU had at the time. Now, SMU had other private schools again, just like they did in the SWC days, to band together and sway their conference leadership. It still goes on today. It might be the sad flipside to being in the Metroplex that no one ever really brings up--that we really don't have any DFW sway in the local media, so all of these conference look the otehr way when considering possible schools for membership. Any other school, with the size of ours that was located anywhere else in the state, where they arent two other golden choldren from days gone by, would never have had to endure what we have had to. Much of that is on us, but much of it on the fact that we cannot use our location to our conference benefit. To most of us, that's the most frustrating reality that we probably know will always be in place, even if we somehow miraculously stay at the FBS level in the next decade.

I agree with you. They have a chance, but that is one injury--or arrest--away from dissolving quickly. It just feels like 1985 again in these parts. I could see this thing having legs for another decade ahead, like they did back when Texas fell back in the old SWC. OU was good for the latter parts of the 80s, but as soon as Switzer left, their run ended, too. Of course, those schools were in different leagues, and Arkansas left as the other SWC power, while Nebraska and Colorado quickly thumped Oklahoma back down the old Big Eight standings. Funny thing is, now all of those former Big Eight power schools are ALL in different leagues today. No matter what, Sumlin was smart enough to understand what Sherman had left him, he had an offense that was perfect for his Tazmanian Devil QB, and they really finished strong. With 8 games at Kyle Field in 2013, you could see a big chance at being #1 next year. We also have to remember, though, that A&M's history is full of falling short of expectations, too.

My two cents on this is that the Aggies used the LHN to get what they finally wanted. They've wanted in the SEC for over 2 decades so as to get out from underneath big brother's shadow, but the political pressure in Austin was not going to let that happen--until the LHN came around. The Aggies, without argument, could claim that this network was creating a huge stream of $$$ for Texas and a recruiting advantage by originally saying that Texas HS games would be aired. They could now say that they had to look out for their best interests, too. Plus, they would be leaving by themselves, so Baylor and Texas Tech still had UT to play in the Big XII with, and of course, they added TCU. I think DeLoss Dodds thought that the Big XII leftovers would be just fine with games on the LHN, since the conference would basically go under of they ever leave with Oklahoma. I think ESPN thought this, too. But when Tech put up a fit about playing a conference game on the LHN and the other Texas and Oklahoma teams all said they were against playing on it, too, that the next step was to buy a game on the LHN from one of the Big XII North teams. ESPN didn't pay 300 million dollars to just get Texas' games against ULM and NM State, plus a conference game against KU or ISU. As for A&M, they wanted to keep the series going, but Texas, rightfully so, told them no thanks, since A&M left on their own accord. Obviously, the other Big XII schools followed suit, just as they have done wth Mizzou, too. I think the folks who thought the Aggies were going to be Arkansas 2.0 were very short-sighted. No one in their right mind could have imagined this year would be A&M's jumpstart in the SEC, but I felt like this was very possible for A&M to achieve eventually in the SEC, just as long as the conference membership didn't include Texas or Oklahoma. A&M has the SEC advantage all to themselves in this state. You can play in that league and stay close to home. You can get a great education and play at a great stadium in a great league, one that is better than the one you left behind. Now, the college football gods work it out to have freaking Northern Illinois from the MAC take OU's place in a BCS bowl game, thus creating a matchup made in heaven for A&M. They got OU in Dallas, just as Texas always does, but instead of getting prison-raped like the Longhorns have done in the last few years against OU, the Aggies jumped all over the Sooners. Now, the recruiting spoils will be theirs. Texas, it would appear, will now have to fight for recruits in this state against a program that has passed them by and now they cannot beat them on the field to reverse course, like they did in the old SWC/Big XII. And, Oklahoma, while pasting Texas each fall, still cannot beat anyone in a big bowl game, and they lost a huge chance at increasing their recruiting in Texas by getting creamed in the Cotton Bowl. If Sumlin and Manziel win big in 2013, the Aggies have a real probability of becoming the top school to go to in the Southwest. Manziel doesn't appear to be an NFL-caliber QB yet, so the Aggies have that advantage, too, since he will be there for at least two more years. And they got the real advantage of Sherman recruiting guys that could become NFL ready, since he was a guru at recruiting and developing linemen, but couldn't close the deal as a head coach. Sumlin may falter eventually once this talent leaves CS, but if not, this could be a long run for the Aggies. The Longhorns and Sooners are gonna sell recruits on games at Iowa State, Kansas, K-State, O-State, TCU, Tech, and Baylor, while A&M sells games at LSU, Alabama, etc...if A&M can keep winning, this won't work out well for either Texas or Oklahoma for the long-term, recruiting-wise.

I still believe that the MWC will go to 14. Adding SDSU, UTEP, and UH would make for a nice conference. I think the nBE will add Rice to replace UH, as well as Tulsa and Southern Miss. Tulsa gets realigned with the other private schools they have been with for a while, SMU, Tulane, and Rice. CUSA adds Texas State, NM State, and Western Kentucky.

Actually, its home scheduling as 1a, then OOC $$$ bodybag scheduling as 1b. In a close second, the AD's track record of hiring head coaches for the money sports.

Thanks, RV...great hire you made here. I'm really looking forward to the next 3.5 years of this and seeing who you will hire after that with only a year left on his contract, severly handicapping what our poor athletic department can already spend on basketball. You're welcome, TCU, SMU, and UTA!! Enjoy the reality that North Texas will continue to be your best friend for media attention in the Metroplex!! And I guess should really congratulate the schools in the SBCUSA---since we won't even be competitive in this new league with all of our current conference mates, save for a few, including the team that just trucked us at our place. Again, nice job, RV!! Shanice Stephens thinks you're doing just great...

The MWC has Hawaii, SJSU, Fresno State, Nevada, UNLV, Boise State, Colorado State, Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, and Air Force. Soon, they will get San Diego State back. That gives them 12. I expect BYU to come back to them. That leaves three openings--UH and UTEP seem like no-brainers here, so that gets you to 15. I see SMU being next. If not them, Tulsa will go in a heartbeat, and may still go if BYU stays independent. The BECUSA will be Navy, Temple, Memphis, ECU, Tulane, UCF, and South Florida. I expect UConn and Cincy will soon be in the ACC. I'm sure that Tulsa (if available), Rice, Southern Miss, UAB, and Marshall will get included. That's 12. Of course, there are some MAC schools that might be interested, too, in joining, but I'm going on the assumption that the MAC schools are going to stay together. SBCUSA then replaces Tulsa, Rice, Southern Miss, UAB, and Marshall with these SBC schools: Western Kentucky (replaces Marshall), Troy (replaces UAB), Arkansas State (replaces Southern Miss), Texas State (replaces Rice), Louisiana-Lafayette (replaces Rice), and New Mexico State (replaces UTEP). There's no way La Tech lets ULM join. It would set up this conference: North Texas, Texas State, Texas-San Antonio, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, New Mexico State Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky, Florida International, Florida Atlantic, Troy, Charlotte, Old Dominion Not great, but names we know, with closer travel games than the current Sun Belt, and the added allure of finally have conference mates in state again, even if they are ones that no one cares about.

I'd consider my school a hoops school if I had the following history: Nolan Richardson--won the NIT at Tulsa when the NCAA Tournament had 32 teams. He left to go to Arky and won an NCAA title. Tubby Smith--took Tulsa to two straight Sweet Sixteens in the early 90s--ended up winning a NCAA Title at Kentucky Bill Self--took Tulsa to the Elite Eight--ended up winning a title at Kansas That's a very strong history, especially for such a small private school in the middle of nowhere (Tulsa, Oklahoma ain't exactly surrounded by lots of close metropolitan cities). I'd have a basketball-first mindset, too, if I were in their shoes. If Danny Manning can get them revived, they are going to right back to being the hot school to get your next coach from if you're a big school.

What we are saying is that this ain't the rosy picture you are painting around here, either. It ain't Trilli and Dodge levels, but McCarney and Benford aren't exactly making us feel a ton better. I am on record as saying that I'm a big Coach Mac fan and believe, like you, that he will turn it around this year, too. But, the fact remains that the $$$ sports at UNT are performing at a below acceptable level right now. The AD should have to answer for this. No one I have ever met nor any sane poster I have read on this forum believes we should be going to the Rose Bowl or to the Final Four ever. But we do expect that we SHOULD be able to compete with other SBC/CUSA schools in football and basketball. We SHOULD expect to have teams that compete for conference championships. I don't expect us to be close when we play at LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia, etc...in football. Similarly, I don't expect us to beat a Kansas-type team in basketball anytime soon, either. But to have the AD schedule the only home OOC game in football against Texas Southern and then struggle against them is not acceptable. Losing to a d-2 team in basketball is unacceptable, especially when you have your most talented team in school history. That is the point that is being made here, especially in light of the reality that our basketball program has sucked big time under this unproven coach. Donations and attendance are mandatory for any school to compete--there is no doubt. But getting on a school's internet forum and ALWAYS pumping sunshine is not any wiser than our resident internet idiot, GL2GreatnessCheckFacts, coming on here to run down everything about UNT. Every single Athletic Dept in America is dependent on donations and attendance, just as they are subject to criticism or complaints when those donors/butts-in-seats aren't satisifed with the products being shown on the field/court. Here at UNT, when you really look back at it, we have had two good years in football and two good years in basketball in the last 15 years. Our 2002 team won the NO Bowl over Cincy, and our 2003 team beat Baylor in OOC and lost to Memphis in that NO Bowl in a tough battle. The other bowl teams were not really that great, they just ran the table of a weak conference of fledgling programs only to get manhandled in those bowl games. In hoops, the 2007 basketball team caught fire at the end of the year and gave Memphis a game for about 3/4 of the game until they finished us off with a pretty good run. In 2010, we got wood-shedded by a great K-State team that we did not match up with at all, size-wise. I review this all because its totally understandable why the actual few people that do care about our teams would need to vent about the "progress" they've witnessed lately. The difference is that the other schools in our area of the country that have been playing FBS football and Division I hoops together for the last 15 years will never let their programs get as low as we have, but that's because they all have money and administrative support for their teams. We have never had the latter until getting some recently, and we have never had the former, so watching the AD make poor hires exacerbates the problem greatly. Because those fans that do care enough to come out and watch and donate to the program know full well that a bad hire in a $$$ sport not only cannot be fixed soon, in reality it just crushes the entire department for years to come. The alums we work with at those other schools just don't understand how different things operate in Denton. And I'm not talking about the Big XII/SEC alums. SMU, Rice, Tulane, and Tulsa all have lots of $$$ we will never have. UH and UTEP have administrations that won't tolerate losing or poor hires, in part because they have decent attendance in their big sports. We don't have either of those, which is why a poor hire--and that is what Benford is until he proves otherwise at this point--it causes us all to realize that we are just gonna have to bite down hard and deal with it, because we cannot afford to make a change that these other places would be able to do. So naturally, Vic Trilli and Todd Dodge get to coach an extra year or two beyond what any of these other places would allow.

I think that soccer, track, golf, volleyball, softball, etc...are all fine sports and all and I hope they always do well at UNT. But they produce nothing but a $$$ drag on the AD. The other three big $$$ sports are supposed to be money makers, especially football and mens basketball. When I look back at the two big programs since 1998, basically the last 15 years, football has won a bowl game, lost three bowl games, and managed to have 3 winning seasons. In just two of the losing seasons, did we manage to only be 2 games under .500. IOW, we have 5 seasons in 15, where we have won 5 games or more. In the same span, we lost 8 or more games in the other 10. Amtrak defines this is as a train wreck of colossal proportions. In men's hoops, in those 15 years, we saw a team that routinely won under ten games a year under YMCA Trilli, while getting blasted by some OOC competition that we ahd no business playing (Helwig's AD funding mechanisms). We then replaced him with JJ who eventually turned us into a solid program, which did lead to us getting two 15-seed NCAA berths, where we got pounded by double digits each time. Finally, when a UNT coach gets hired away for actually performing well here as a head coach, we hire an unproven assisitant who makes us all vividly remember Trilli-coached teams at UNT all over again, even losing to a D-2 team, all with the best NBA prospect to ever wear a UNT uniform. Amtrak hasn't called this a train wreck yet, since they had to repair the bridge from the Trilli train wreck so many years ago, but they can sense that the rebuilt bridge appears to be ready to crumble down again, causing an epic crash.

I think that OLinemen from conferences that run the ball are really at a premium in the NFL. The SEC, B1G and the MAC do very well here, as has the Pac-12. But the spread offenses are not helping prepare OLinemen for the NFL game at the same rate that the others have. I saw an article awhile back by Rick Gosselin about this a few years ago. The Big 12 was his main target because the OLinemen in that league played a whole different offensive system than the NFL demands. I suspect that the spread's influence in the SBC plays into this as well. Speaking of the spread, who remembers a few years ago when Troy was absolutely killing LSU by over 3 TDs late in the 3rd quarter, but they couldn't run the ball out of the spread and LSU finally wore them down and beat them because Troy couldn't run out the clock, giving LSU all the time in the world to come all the way back. To me, that's the spread's downside.

I would've taken a bet that we would've taken the next step this year if JJ was still here. This was his most talented team and he knew it. Damn you, LSU, with all your money and your advantages for JJ... In all honesty, though, I was thrilled that JJ got to go home to coach at his alma mater. Its one of the neatest things a coach could ever get the opportunity to do, even if it doesn't work out in the end. He deserves everything he's received.

It really is amazing in the size of this colossal mistake--I understood the gamble on Todd Dodge. Someone was going to hire him to be a head coach eventually because of the reasons we did. Plus, we had to pay off Dickey's remaining years and could pay Dodge basically the same amount of money. With Benford, we weren't paying off any remaining years for Johnny Jones, we had a top 10 pick in the making on our team, and we had some good names to choose from that have actually been a head coach. Instead, we give this unproven guy five years, knowing that if he did succeed, Tech was going to buy him away as soon as possible and we would be back in this search again. I've supported RV for years, but this is unacceptable. It should be a fireable offense, too. We are stuck with this for the next 5 years, whether Benford stays or not beyond the next three years. Benford's coaching is on par with Trilli's, for which it took us over 5 years to get over. Its why I expected it take McCarney a few years to build a winner here in football. You are literally trying to build up from below ground level.

Except that all the legislatures and their governing bodies are all connected to the universities with all the power. As Wardly brought up earlier, this has already happened once and it will happen again. The Big Powers will create their own NCAA before they share anymore than they have to with schools like ours. I am actually at a point where that great schism won't bother me--because those semi-pro programs should play each other and the others that are actually college teams should compete against each other. The best part will be watching the hangers-on, like SMU, Baylor, TCU, UH, Tulane, etc...will find out what its been like to be treated as the truest of rejects. Plus, I think that might be the only chance that we will ever have of being in a conference with any of these programs that have been looking down on us for decades. I'd still watch a UNT-SMU game even if it was a FCS-type game, versus what it is today, a faux FBS vs faux FBS game.

You forgot to mention that "Bob" couldn't ever get that new dealership approved, but one of the "customers" actually led a campaign to get it approved, only because they kept Bob as silent as possible and basically got it passed by keeping the election on the lowdown, knowing that most of the citizens of that locality would've done everything possible to vote for its approval. The citizenry likes music, arts, education, and nature, but has generally loathed athletics, particularly ones that require money. And, yet, somehow "Bob" got a job in this company and said to the few citizens that cared, "Let's actually cater to you, by letting you tailgate in the parking lot. I'll tell everyone that we are a sleeping giant!! I'll make you feel like you just bought a Mercedes instead of a lemon." The few that care are totally mesmerized by this, since they have been treated so poorly for decades. They think that he will bring in the best sales directors possible, since we are in a hotbed for trucks and SUVs. Nevermind that he only hires go-car salespeople. And, somehow, the Board of Directors, who actually love the arts, music, education, nature, etc...are thrilled by RV. He doesn't cost much, he talks up a good game, and doesn't get in the way of any of their beloved "interests". So, in the end, the dealer will continue to trump up its one great bit of recognition that it ever gets--the cost of the product is very affordable as compared to other dealers like ours. What a great "value"... We've been sold a bill of goods here. And there's nothing we can do about it, since the Better Business Bureau (local media) absolutely don't give two $hits about the dealer's cars or personnel.