untjim1995

Looks like Keith Frazier, highly regarded stud from Kimball, signed today with... SMU and Larry Brown Tech firing Chris Walker apparently changed his mind from Lubbock to the Hilltop

"UNT named its football practice fields, the Darrell R. Dickey Practice Facility at the request of Jim McIngvale a few years ago. Now UNT has the Ernie Kuehne Basketball Practice Facility." Let's just pray that Mattress Mac doesn't make us name this facility after Tony Benford down the road... just kidding...I think?

Well, its no WAC, that's for sure.

Well, the step up in competition is why I think 6 wins is about as high as I can go. But I think we beat Idaho, Tulane, UTEP, and UTSA. If we win 1-2 others out of Ball State, MUTS, La Tech, and Southern Miss, then that is where get to 5-7 or 6-6. I don't see us beating Ohio, Rice, or Tulsa, but none of those are completely out of the question, unlike the Georgia game, which is only successful if we don't get anyone hurt badly and their check doesn't bounce after the game.

If you're correct, then the magazine that predicts us to go 2-10 will be spot on. That dude cannot play QB at this level as a starter. He doesn't have an accurate arm. He's a really nice backup, but that's about it.The two games you mentioned that he played ok in are nullified by the dozen other games that were avearage to bad. Troy in 2012 was one of the worst games I've ever seen a UNT QB play...and that is saying something. If Berglund isn't the guy here in 2013, then we are staring down the barrel of a 2 win season, in my opinion. If Brock can play at QB anywhere near what his talent suggests (and what Chico and Coach Mac believe) we will win 5-6 this year.

95-21

Wow, there is some serious bleeding going on in this thread...I hope that you all have plenty of WKU rags around the house to help some of you stay clean.

I think the MWC will come this way again--but they will wait to see if a western CUSA school in Texas will do well enough to consider coming back this way. Wouldn't surprise me to see the MWC ask UTEP and UTSA to join if the Roadrunners get off to a good start in CUSA in the first 3-5 years. They get two great TV markets, two bowl cities for tie-ins, and more Texas exposure for recruiting. The Pac-12 will never take any of those schools from the MWC. They'll go after the Big XII when it falls apart down the road. They will love the additions of some combo of Texas, Tech, OU, OSU, KU, and KSU to join Colorado and Utah in a Pac 12 Eastern Division.

I don't like Charlotte or ODU as full members because they shouldn't go straight up to CUSA from FCS--that is what the SBC is for. They are only here because East Carolina made it clear that they wanted closer schools in the league. They then promptly left, leaving us to hold the bag on two programs that are great for basketball, but not for football. Seriously, I would MUCH rather have ULL and Arky State than those two schools.

The thing is that we are just a different animal than the other schools near here and those that we watch on a regular basis. Texas, A&M, OU, and LSU are national brand powers that are easy to follow as T-shirt fans. You know that those schools have lots of alumni in families that breed fans from birth, even if they don't go there. Next, you have schools like Arkansas, OSU, Tech, and other schools that are in the big conferences that include Texas and A&M, that have decent alumni bases here in the area. They have major influence on the media coverage that doesn't already go to Texas, A&M, OU, and LSU. Third, you have schools like ND, USC, Ohio State, Florida State, Michigan, etc...that recruit heavily down here because they are on tv every week. Fourth, you then have Baylor, TCU, SMU, and UH in this state that are former SWC royalty that have had some modicum of success (big or little) afterwards, whether it has been recent or not is not really that big of a deal to fans of today. 5th, you have teams like Tulsa and La Tech that have been able to build ranked programs with small budgets and small student bodies. Every school that I just listed, not even counting any other current SBCUSA teams, put a much greater focus on athletics (football) than we do. It doesn't mean we have to quit and fold up the program or do anything crazy like that, but it does show you just how much other interests matter here. I am really now coming to the belief that putting any more emphasis on athletics here might cause more folks within the university's "family" to lash out against that decision. Because to me, at this point, its the only thing that makes sense. As you mentioned, the athletics fee goes away when the stadium is funded, even though schools like UTSA and Texas State have one in place forever. It seems like that was the only way this one got approved--that the fee had to go away at some point to keep the "family" happy. IOW, to keep the university as a value to those interested in lower cost for their higher education. It doesn't mean that it is wrong, just deosn't blend well with athletic spending.

I just don't like Charlotte or ODU as full members...

I think that the experience coach has realized that this school's reputation is so poor amongst its own, as well as those in coaching and those that we are recruiting, that even a nice new stadium and great facilities just aren't enough. You are competing for kids in Texas that see SMU with a similar stadium, TCU with a brand new stadium, UH planning a new stadium, Texas State building a new facility, Baylor building a brand new stadium, and UTSA playing in a big dome--that is some of major competition for recruits we are looking at. I think we were all so beaten by the toilet that Fouts was that we figured everyone would love Apogee, especially recruits. Well, recruits look up here and see a great stadium, but it is home to a losing program with almost zero media coverage in the area (much less the state), games against teams they have rarely (or never) heard of, and crowds that really aren't that great. And, of course, the greatest of reasons, in my mind, will ALWAYS be the drop down to 1-aa and staying down for so long. We told everyone, both within the university and outside of the university, that football just didn't matter here enough to even try to compete at the highest level of play. Literally, there is not one of those other schools that have ever told their alumni and community and state that they just didn't want to bother with paying for a decent program. Now, you have DFW media who still don't care about us, as well as thousands upon thousands of alumni and citizens who literally quit following the program and decided that not following it was completely justified. How many UT fans, A&M fans, OU fans, Tech fans, etc...have UNT degrees? A lot...when you ask why, it almost always goes back to UNT not caring about our program enough to get their interest. This isn't a new problem from the last 8 years, folks. This goes back to the student body voting to end the program in the early 70s. It goes back to the administration finally defeating Fry and his desire to increase support for his winning program in the late 70s. And it basically died in the early 80s with the move down to i-aa. It could've been corrected early enough in the mid or late 80s to get our program back to a healthy state, but we literally let it become so disabled, that today, we are just a shell of what we could have been. If Coach Mac cannot do it here, at least in my opininon, I don't know that it can ever get turned around. In the last 40 years, we have had Fry with a great 4 years and Dickey with a good three year run. Everything else has pretty much been either poor, bad, or really just average. Thats a tough legacy for anyone to build out of--and no other team in Texas has to do that. But we do--and we ahve no one to blame but ourselves.

I think his question deals more with why Metroplex kids leave this area to go play at some of the other schools in the SBCUSA. There is no doubt that we have alot of kids from the area, but that goes for SMU and TCU, as well. The difference seems to be that TCU and now SMU aren't losing kids to ULM or Arkansas State on a regular basis, nor are they recruiting against UTSA, Texas State, or other SLC schools. Since we have been such a loser for the last few years, not only are we not in on kids who want to go to the schools higher than us on the foodchain, we have let other SBCUSA schools come in and get kids that would have never considered outposts such as Jonesboro, AK or Murfreesboro, TN. But Arky State and MUTS have fielded some damn good teams in the last 5 years and these kids in this area like the idea of being on a winner and getting playing time. We have lots of playing time available, but the winning part has been gone for some time now.

In many respects, we gave up a long time ago on athletics...

I've said this before, but I do expect that a Power 4 conference setup will produce a 64-80 type coalition of schools that will stay as the current FBS. What interests me now is what happens to that next level, the current non-AQs and FCS schools that are interested in moving up, like Appy State and Ga Southern are doing. It seems like you would see a level of competition that would be made up of about 70-80 schools. Could schools like SMU, Tulane, Rice, and others like them endure such a thing? I really wonder. Would a conference game involving UNT and SMU in a lower level, as I mentioned before, even possible? It would seem like you could still make money at a level like this, if the travel was controlled better, as well as if a playoff format was implemented that didn't compete with the FBS bowls/playoff. I just wonder if we would support UNT playing at a lower level, but with bigger names than we have played with before. Imagine a FCS-type conference with SMU, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, ULL, ULM, UNT, UTSA, Texas State, La Tech, UTEP, and NMSU---would UNT fans be as interested as they are now in following their teams or would it increase because of more familiar names and possible rivals in the league? Would it decrease just because it is not the highest level of play? What if it included teams like Baylor,TCU, and Houston, too--teams that could get left behind if realignment went the wrong way? I know, at least for me, if we were in a conference with those institutions, even if it were lower than a Power 4 League, I'd be interested still and would love attending those games. It would be very different from playing the SFAs of the world when we were the only Texas school that got dropped down to 1-aa in the early 80s while the SWC was still rolling along strong. But I just don't know how most fans here would support us if that scenario took place. And I really wonder if any of those other current Big East schools or other schools like them would support their teams anymore either. Maybe they would--maybe SMU would draw the same amount of people for a home game against TCU as a FCS-type conference game as they currently do, I just don't know. But something tells me that within the next 5-10 years, if not sooner, we are all gonna find out.

They kind of did care about South Florida. They were always a basketball member of CUSA and the Metro Conference with Louisville, Memphis, Cincy, and others. They were going to have their members' support, just as UConn got from their Big East brethren. USF, just as they got going, they started off as a winner in CUSA. The Big East wanted to keep a TV presence in Florida after Miami left, so they picked up a winning program that all of their fellow transplant to the Big East from CUSA fully supported. In other words, they all knew USF existed. USF didn't have any schools in its market to fight against, unlike a certain school just north of two SWC schools. If UTSA can duplicate this same kind of success, you bet your ass that they will have many suitors coming around, for the TV market, bowl game possible connection, and the destination trip for their other conference mates. They may not be able to do it, but they have a lot of advantages to build off of then a lot of schools. They have no history of losing to keep apathetic alumni or local fans from getting interested, like another school we know. They have a media market that wants to cover them as the home town team. UTSA could easily be the next USF if they get things going in CUSA.

I've spoken to parents of kids in the Metroplex who chose Arkansas State, La Tech, and Tulsa over UNT in the last decade. What was interesting was that each one was a different story. The Arky State parents said they like that the school was the recent winning and that they liked the small town in a beautiful state for their son. The La Tech parents--about 5 years ago--like their winning, but also liked that La Tech wasn't here. Their son was from the DFW area and he wanted to go away from home for a more traditional college experience than going 30 minutes up the road. The Tulsa family, from about 8 years ago, just liked that the school was private, small, and not too far from here. When I asked about UNT, they usually said, we didn't hear from their staff much (dickey days), the university was too close to home and they weren't interested in having their son play at Fouts, and the other explicitly pointed to the losing that we had endured and the fact that they thought we were just a commuter school that played the big boys for cash. All were interesting takes, but in the end, it probably gives some insight as to why some like Monroe, LA or Jonesboro, AK or some other college town over Denton. What was really interesting was the fact that none of those parents knew about Denton's reputation for being ecletic and not exactly loving UNT Football. They all thought it was a nice town, but they didn't know anything about the town's lack of support for UNT. As a matter of fact, two of them knew all about Denton's support of their high school teams and figured we didn't draw well because we were a losing program, but would draw well if we ever started winning. I explained to them that Fry dealt with this problem, even as a winner, as did Dickey in the few years we did well in the SBC. None of them knew about that stuff, even though we all slap our heads over how to make Dentonites care about their hometown college team. Its interesteing that Denton's reputation from our fans seems different from the citizens of other cities in the area and, presumably, the state.

UNT90 is just passionate about UNT--we sorely lack this from an athletic standpoint from almost every angle possible. He wants us to be the best we can be in an area he cares about. He's a man--over forty--and he likes sports. Most guys do. He sees his other buddies and colleagues that went to colleges across the state and region always talking about their teams performances over the last decade and he asks why is it that I can't ever brag about anything that happened the weekend before. Then he realizes that Rice, SMU, TCU, Texas, Tech, A&M, Baylor, UH, OU, OSU, Tulsa, La Tech, ULL, ULM, LSU,etc..have all done MUCH better on the field than we have over the last 8 years. Its tough when you are talking about 5-7 as your best year in the eight years and prognosticators are suggesting that we are going to win around 2 games this upcoming year. And its embarrassing. I hate it --and I know you all do, too--when I hear some TCU fan in FW talking about winning the Rose Bowl over Wisconsin or some SMU fan talking about their bowl wins over the last 4 years and then they laugh at you because you went to North Texas and they ask you how it felt to lose to Florida International Airport or Western Kentucky this past weekend. I've read FFR post on here before about getting constantly razzed about our poor performance all the time at work. It gets you down. A lot of negativity tends to come out when this stuff seems to never end. I've been right with UNT90 and his posts recently--and I'm sorry for that negative tone. I get down, too. I shouldn't, but I do, because I want for us to be the best we can be. And I know that yall do too. Sometimes we all let our frustrations out in such a negative way, though, that it loses its message because it comes off as griping and moaning. Its tough when you see the university make poor hires and get stuck with it for years on end, but in the end, we just have to accept that it is how it is here. Maybe the "value" approach here is the best thing for the university and it doesn't merit complaints about it because they know its what the university's core wants. I will say this, though, about our football future--I trust Coach Mac and I truly believe he knows what he's doing in building us up from the ashes. I think this program has a better chance of becoming a winner under him than it did under anyone we've had since Fry as a FBS school. We won under Corky as a 1-aa program with absolutely no care at all to athletics. We had some years of success under Dickey, three to really be exact, but he wasn't the answer for a program like ours that needs fans. Obviously, Dodge was in waaaayyyy over his head from the start. I think Coach Mac knows what needs to be done and he's trying to do it the right way. And I think we will win 5 or more games this year because of the steady improvement. He got here and had no lines or a QB. Last year, the line play improved, but the QB play didn't. Hopefully, he gets more line improvement and the QB can make an impact that will propel us toward a competitive season. The biggest reason I want to see this thing take off is because I believe that if Mac does fail here, we aren't going to put a decent salary out there again for a coach and his staff. And at a school like ours, if we've learned anything in the last 35 years, its that an unknown coordinator or high school coach cannot build a successful winner here. Just as Fry did after his only losing season here, his plan finally started working and he left us with a ranked program for the only time in our history. I believe McCarney can do that, too. But this is the year that he has to start showing us that he can do it here.

A year late and $1 million short...

I am 100% certain that those schools will eventually get a tournament setup that doesn't involve any little guys, either.

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.