untjim1995

Just an FYI, but I believe Tulsa may be the smallest or close to smallest FBS school in the country. I think their enrollment is only like 4500 undergraduates.

TCU ain't joining the SEC. They would love to, but the invite will never be coming. Tthe SEC already has Vandy, who was grandfathered in. They don't need another small private school.

Here's the deal. Coach Mac told all of us during the ofseason just how woeful we were on the lines, both sides. We all knew that our QB situation of being inexperienced was completely true. We lost one of the very few playmakers on the whole team just before summer camp began. We also all knew that the Todd Dodge years had absolutely no physicality in practices at all. Throw in the lack of discipline in the classroom and weight room during those years, with a lot of new coaches, this should have been expected. None of us want to accept the reality that this year could just be a throw away year, that 0-12 is possible, but a lack of size and speed are killers to a team trying to compete in any league, but especially against southern teams with great athletes. This ain't the MAC, folks. We aren't dealing with Rust Belt teams here. The silver lining is one that Tasty brought up the other day that was probably the best outlook we could look toward. Mario Cristobal lost his first 11 games at FIU, but he created a new mindset and attitude for their athletes. They beat Todd Dodge's UNT team in his first year, too. By the time the next few seasons rolled around, FIU's teams became tough in the SBC, then tough against OOC teams (even gave A&M a scare and made Bama work for a win), and now they are a legitimate threat to become the SBC's first ranked team and to go undefeated. In my mind, McCarney has an even better resume than Cristobal had when he got to FIU, since he already has proven to be able to rebuild against MUCH tougher competition at Iowa State. This team continues to get better, both attitude-wise and understanding their playbook. They just don't have enough experienced size and speed to make a difference this year. I said at the beginning of the year that we should win 3-4 games this year, but I realize now that even if we go winless or win one game, the future here is awfully bright. Both FIU and UCF (O'Leary went 0-12 in his first year there) are great examples of why we just need to attend the games and stay positive. Dodge literally lowered this place down to a level that I am not sure we could beat South Alabama this year, much less play with Alabama. But its gonna get better, it really will. I still think our year is 2013 to get back to a level that we can compete for the title.

I tend to agree here. I got to thinking some more about all of this over the weekend and wondered if we get effectively dropped back down to FCS, what will all of these conference affiliationa look like then? If there are 64 teams that will be in AQ-BCS conferences (and Notre Dame), who will be left behind, because there are 68 teams playing AQ football right now (not TCU yet). Assuming this 64 number in 4 superconferences is set, who will get knocked back? Some are obvious: Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas State seem SOL. Missouri, West Virginia, Rutgers, UConn and Louisville seem to be the schools that will find homes in the superconferences pretty quick. Two schools that went to BCS Bowls look to be the most in limbo, Kansas and Cincinnati, along with South Florida. If the ACC gets UConn and Rutgers as curently being mentioned, theya re set at 16. The Pac-16 looks to be set now. So that leaves the SEC with three spots available and the Big Ten with 4 open. It would seem that the SEC will add West Virginia to get to 14. So, after this, there are 6 spots left. Funny thing is that Kentucky wants nothing to do with Louisville being in the SEC, nor does Florida want another in-state conference bunkmate (USF). This could mean Kansas and Mizzou are the new SEC schools. What about the Big Ten? Their academics are supposed to be superior, but the only school left in the group available with solid academics is Iowa State, who brings almost nothing to their table, which means they could be fighting over the KU/MU duo with the SEC. K-State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, South Florida, Baylor, and TCU are going to have find new homes somewhere different from what they have been used to or planning for. All of this leads to the next level of play. Assuming we see a new separation that is even more clear than today, the teams that will have the FCS-type label will be the MWC, CUSA, MAC, WAC, and Sun Belt, plus, BYU, Army, Navy, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, K-State, Cincy, and South Florida. That totals 61 schools when you factor in South Alabama, Texas State, and UTSA. Of course, there will probably be some more current FCS schools that can now move upward to compete at this level, as well. What does that mean for the schools at this level? Expenses will really matter now. I can see a few schools leaving the college football business altogether, schools like Tulane, ULM, and San Jose State all come to mind. This could potentially be the final nail in the coffin for the old mindset of "We won't ever be associated with you in a conference." SMU and UNT, UTEP and NMSU, La Tech and anyone else in Louisiana, etc...maybe this ends it. I guess the unanserwable question is what kind of support would schools at this level get in attendance and TV. Would a game between SMU and UNT still motivate you to attend, even if it is a FCS-level game? How about SMU-TCU in the Iron Skillet game, could their fans still get fired up about playing them to create a decent crowd if they are now at the FCS level? Maybe it still would, but knowing how fickle the sports fan of the Metroplex is, I doubt it. Who knows, though, maybe this level would do better than we think? At UNT, we might get better conference opponents, even if it meant less media coverage, which could boost our revenues. This is just crazy that this stuff got here so fast. It seems like it wasn't that long ago that the SWC ruled the roost around here. We barely even got to know the Big XII, in comparative terms. Now, we will truly get the NFL's almost official minor league.

I appreciate the views. It just seems to me that a college football playoff and the OOC games that could then be scheduled would look drastically different from today. Oklahoma could play Alabama in a non-conference game early on if a loss didn't keep OU from going to a playoff, unlike today, which actually encourages Alabama to buy off a win with North Texas. I can't see how this all doesn't end up going this route, unless of course, it turns into 4 18 or 20 team conferences. That's could be a possibility that could open the door a bit more, but even that may be worse for us. Imagine if 80 teams got into 4 superconferences. The you have the entire AQ-BCS + BYU = 70 and then see the top ten current non-AQs get added (UH, UCF, Boise St., Fresno State, etc..). Imagine if that somehow included SMU, TCU, and UH? THe worst nightmare for our AD and BOR has to be this when it comes to our athletic future.

Why do you think that it won't? Its already starting and the Superconference model is what everyone is planning for.

If the NCAA loses those schools, we will surely be in a version of the NCAA Tournament, I just can see it being a version that is covered about as well as the current NIT. That proposed superconference league will have all of the media and limelight, no matter what the sport.

The more I read about this super conference realignment, the sicker it makes me. Not just for UNT, but for college athletics. I was reading an article about Kansas and K-State and how they probably will get left behind, just like Baylor and Iowa State, most likely and it just made me realize how disgusting this is truly going to be. All because their football teams and their TV markets aren't attractive enough--never mind those great TV markets of Starkville, MS and Pullman, WA or those football powerhouses at Duke and Vanderbilt. Basically, we will get 64 teams who will form the NFL's unofficial minor leagues (Alabama will be Atlanta's AAA team, Georgia Tech will be AA, etc..) and eventually separate from the NCAA. Its just amazing in its audacity--and there is almost nothing that can be done about it. I anticipate ESPN and other outlets basically paying out to these big schools to get them as their own. That wonderful NCAA Tournament that everyone loves? How about the BCS Tournament--because that's the plan. That beautiful College World Series? How about the BCS World Series--just awful. Here is what bothers me most about this all for our alma mater. I have said it before and I will say it again. The beautiful Apogee Stadium saved our football program here, but playing in a level of sports below the highest level really makes me worry about the backlash the anti-athletics folks are going to spew at our leaders for building this stadium, if we are not at the FBS level. God help us if we are still playing SBC-type teams as conference mates in the future in this scenario. Maybe the silver lining in all of this would be that this would be the final push that would convince the leftover Texas schools to reduce costs and increase attendance. But if this finally happened, because we are all now in a new I-AA, would a game between UNT and SMU still get attended and covered well? Would TCU-SMU still get attended/covered well? I know that we are all already after-thoughts as compared to the current Big XII schools, but imagine how it will be if the superconfernces get put into place? How many of these left-over schools might just give it up because they don't want to participate at a level below the Superconferneces? Again, it just sickens me that this is the direction that we are headed. You can say that Texas, OU, USC, Ohio State, ND, etc...all developed their fanbases and followings to substantiate this superconference thing, while the rest of us didn't, but it doesn't make it right for what is happening now--not in the least.

Just out of curiosity, you seem to know a little bit more about the Mean Green than I would assume any fan, much less a Crimson Tide fan, would typically know, especially the part about JJ Johnson being hurt. Do you follow the Mean Green normally or are you living near a SBC school and know about us a bit more because of that? Normaly, an AQ school wouldn't even know who Lance Dunbar is, much less an injured center!!

Ummm....I'm gonna go ahead and say that its out of the realm of possibility. For this game to even be within 2 TDs is out of the realm of possibility. That Bama team that lost to ULM won 6 games in Saban's first season. This Bama team could be their best in decades, including the one that won the title two years ago. The only thing we have going for us is that USUALLY Saban doesn't run up the score. I doubt it will get to 77-0, although it easily could if they kept after it for 4 quarters. Just make sure that funds get wired to the right account and that it gets there in good standing. Praying for no injuries...

A few things: 1.) K-State had the ability to dumb-down their OOC schedules for years because they had the luxury of playing home games each year against Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa State. Some of those teasm were national champions, finished in the top ten regularly, or were bitter rivals that were close to Manhattan. If we tried to dumb-down our schedule in OOC for us to win, it would be horrendous to our athletic department, just because our SBC brethren literally bring nothing to our gate. The games against UH, Tulsa, SMU, La Tech, Rice, and the academies are perfect for OOC but even those games don't pay for women's soccer and golf the way one of these bodybag games do, which leads to point #2... 2.) Our OOC bodybag games have been scheduled incorrectly. We should never play an SEC powerhouse because they literally are the best that college football has to offer. Arky State figured this out--they have played tough games at Iowa and Illinois over the last few years and got paid. When they have played Auburn, they get blown out and crushed and paid, too. The Big Ten, Big East, Pac-12, and ACC are full of teams that will pay us to come there and play, but they at least give yourself a chance to compete, unlike this week's game. Basically I would ignore playing any big-time SEC school (everyone but Kentucky, Vandy, and the Mississippi schools), as well Oklahoma and Florida State from outside of the SEC. Obviously, the other big dogs in the Big Ten, Pac-12, etc..could easily put a huge beatdown on us (especially now), too, but watching MTSU barely lose at Purdue, Arky State giving Illinois a decent game, having seen Arky State almost beat Iowa a few years back, Troy giving Ohio State a game a few years back and remembering the great Appy State win over Michigan just makes me realize how much better your chances are of competing with those Rust Belt teams that are less athletic than the teams from the South. 3.) Boise State used their location and their city to build up a winner. They literally have no competition for their product. If you look at their scheduling, it was easy to do because their support and attendance was strong from the start. The closest NFL/MLB town is Seattle, the closest NBA town is Portland, and the closest AQ teams were in Washington and Oregon, and they scheduled--and beat--each of those teams in that region.

Yeah, but UCF had some success before they joined the conference with Daunte Culpepper as their QB, and they delivered a pretty good-sized TV market in Orlando without sharing it with another private school already in the league. If you just take SMU away from CUSA, then it really is closely comparable between UCF and us. Unfortunately...

BTW, just finished listening to The Hardline on KTCk 1310 discussing college football. Had great things to say about TCU's win over AFA--after Big XII and other AQ talk. Had great things to say about SMU's win over UTEP and how they are openly pulling for SMU and June Jones to make it happen in Dallas, even though it will probably not happen because Dallas is a Cowboys town. Then they teased the next segment about the Cowboys fan being in New York that was involved in the taser gun fiasco. Now its possible--remotely--that they led their college football segment with the UNT-UH game at the new stadium and I missed it. But assuming that we weren't even worthy of a mention to the leading sportstalk station in the area, WHILE TALKING ABOUT COLLEGE FOOTBALL AND AFTER WE OPENED UP A FREAKING NEW STADIUM, then there is just nothing else I can offer to any of you about the media situation we are dealing with here. When UH plays SMU, it gets covered, why not when the same ol' SWC darling comes to play in Denton with a team that looks like it could very well be there best team in a long time and the stadium is brand new? It will take more than just winning to change this mindset in the local area, because when we were winning SBC titles, that just got ignored (mostly) by the local media, or it got dismissed becasue it was the Sun Belt. Our coverage back then certainly didn't compare to the coverage SMU got for just winning their CUSA division last year. I really don't see how this will ever change, either. It just bothers me so much, but I just don't think we will be able to move upward in conference affiliation to ever influence these "outlets" anytime soon to change their views of our university.

North Texas non-revenue sports---$$$$$$$$$$$$$ North Texas football--cool story to tell grandkids Alabama football--nice win while moving up to #1 on Sunday Alabama--52 UNT--7

There will never be a time when UTA joins SMU or TCU as DFW media darlings. The other two are SWC royalty--until that mindset dies out, we have no chance, nor does UTA, of even getting a smidge of coverage. The DMN and FWST are full of resepctive alums from both of the DFW private schools and they play teams that fans and alums have heard of, while we don't. For proof of this, think about the past few years when UNT and UTA have played each other in basketball. Wihtout a doubt, both are much better at hoops than either SMU or TCU right now. Yet when we play, our games don't even get any video highlights, and usually don't even get the score mentioned on local TV. Meanwhile, on the same night, SMU's home game against some Prairie View-like team gets video coverage and interviews with Doherty. Its just the mountain that we have to climb, due to our location, apathy, and lack of administrative support for athletics.

Very impressive, sir!!

Maybe someone can ask him why he said North Texas was such a bad job when McCarney got hired. If he can remember back that far...

I love North Texas. I graduated in 1995 with a degree in finance that I use to this day and has helped me and my family to have a better lifestyle than I ever dreamed of. That said, if I want to realistically look at North Texas football since I graduated, it isn't anything positive--as a matter of fact, it is very negative. Our record since coming back to 1-A is 61 and 128, so basically we lose 2 of every 3 games we play. In those 61 that we have won, we have beaten 5 AQs (Oregon State, Texas Tech twice, Baylor, and Cincninati (non-AQ at the time)). We also beat Boise State three times, but it was before they got really big time (96,97, and 99). So, realistically, we have trained our fanbase to expect losses and for the wins to be against teams that most of them just don't care a lot about. Of the 128 losses, sure, some of them have been tough losses and to some good teams, but the vast majority have looked like the previous FIU game--uninspired, physically-dominated losses to teams few people know about or care abuot that make folks question their fandom--or more importantly, whether to become a fan. Most fans want to get behind a winner, but it has to be a winner at something that has value, which is why the SBC Championship teams of the early 00s never got much attendance or attention. This next game is one that can get attention. We play a name school that folks around here know and they are very good right now. If there was a way to have our best game in a decade, it would be now. Because, realistically, if we get blown out, those folks who are just coming to the game because of the new stadium or because UNT is playing someone at home that they have heard of are gonna go right back to being "negative", as you put it. Those of us who are realistic about Coach Mac's first year understand that if we only win 3 games or less this year, we still have a lot to realistically hope for, as well. But I will never understand how believing that we aren't that great right now (very generous here) is being negative, esepcially when we have gone 13-59 since 2005. Almost everyone can argue that this view is grounded in nothing but reality.

I agree with you about the SBC thing, but that's comparing a limping dog with a dog that is blind in one-eye--both are gonna fall short against healthy competition. Neither of these examples is worth a hill of beans nationally because no one cares about them, nor have they given anyone a reason to care about them in a national sense. Seeing ESPN effectively give Wright Waters a watermelon and some coffee as the new TV contract for the next NINE years basically confirms this. But, the idea of a new Texas conference, to me, would do worse than the SBC because the the Texas schools that would be in it are less relevant than the SBC schools are today. I guess the all-Texas could get the LHN to televise the conference games so that it would have additional programming--imagine how fun that would be if we start helping UT get more money by playing on their network without actually playing them...

Bowl-bound Tulsa beat us 54-2 in the first game of a series back in 2005 to score big in regional recruiting. Bowl-bound Rice beat us 77-20 in 2008 in the first game of a series to score big in regional recruiting. In 2011, we play Houston in the first game of a series, who is most certainly going to be bowl-bound... Just enjoy the wonderful new Apogee Stadium, folks. It will be gorgeous on Saturday and the sound will be awesome. You will forget about Fouts and the sightlines and the track and the bad coaching over the years. Just soak it in--don't worry about what the scoreboard says. Remember that we finally have built a stadium that others want to watch a game at and that it won't sound like a funeral gathering. We don't have a HS coaching staff anymore because we finally decided to pay for an experienced staff. Look for the positives.

I couldn't let this little gem pass without comment. No offense, but this couldn't be more wrong. If you believe this is true, then why would they have publically lobbied for freaking Louisiana Tech to join CUSA instead of UNT? Those folks on the Hilltop have absolutely no interest in ever being associated with us, except when it is necessary. As for an all-Texas conference, it has been tried and worked aweseomely until this little thing called television really got going. It would really fail, on a national scale, today. But, if you want to try and build another all-Texas conference, our old SLC mates will gladly jump in. I mean we can get the gang back together and join SFA, SHSU, Texas State, UTSA, Lamar, and UTA in the Texas Conference. Because SMU, Houston, Rice, Baylor, and UTEP won't have even an iota of interest in joining that lineup.

Its also going to be our home for a loooooonnng time in the future...

Adler is quite the prognosticator. What are your thoughts on the upcoming game?

Exactly--I laugh every time I read that we are losing because of anything other than the fact that our lines cannot block, tackle, rush the passer, or keep themselves healthy. If "coaching them up" involves recruiting and strength and conditioning, then I agree, we need to "coach" them up. But when you read the stats that you posted above about this last game against--gasp, an SBC team!!--, the point gets made fairly clearly that we have nothing there yet, that it will take a few years to get there. It befuddles me how some read Coach Mac's comments when he got here in the spring and all during the summer on how bad of the shape the lines were in, yet all we read on this board was that this was just "coachspeak" and that if you bought that, then you are just missing the boat. This isn't even talking about having an inexperienced QB and the loss of one of the few playmakers on the whole team. But, again, the biggest reason we are losing is because of coaching, you know, since this is the SBC, not the SEC...

I am coming to grips with the reality that we won't be leaving the Sun Belt anytime soon and that it will probably add a few more FCS programs in the next 2-3 years to make up for a few defections. I am dreading the possibility of dropping down to a new i-aa very soon, even with the new stadium, but the new stadium probably ensures we will have some level of football at UNT for decades to come. I truly believe that if we had not gotten the yes votes to build the new stadium, ol' Fouts would have killed the program for good. I refuse to allow myself to believe that UTSA and/or Texas State will zoom by us, even if they develop a rivalry that people care about in that neck of the woods, while we have a big matchup with South Alabama or Georgia State in the SBC. I just won't go there... So, in closing, I would like to thank in no particular order, the following for allowing UNT to find ourselves at this place in time: Apogee, RV, Todd Dodge, Darrell Dickey, Mattress Mac, Craig Helwig, Al Hurley, Theron J. Fouts, Hayden Fry, Texas, SMU, all SWC/CUSA schools, all SLC schools, Southlake Carroll, the Sun Belt Conference, the failed Big West conference, Dr. Pohl, Dr. Bataille, Lee Jackson, gmg.com, our geography and location, Nathan Tune's lost dog (Ray), the passion of Dentonites and Denia Park, Jitter Nolan, Corky Nelson, Steve Sloan, Dennis Parker, Matt Simon, Bob Tyler, Dr. Rawlins, and Gene Stallings. Thanks for all of your contributions, because North Texas (State) would definitely not be where it is without each of your efforts (or lack there of). I almost forgot to mention scrappy/eppy, as well. My sincerest apologies sir/ma'am...