untjim1995

If we win 6 games and that includes a season-ending win over K-State in the last game at Fouts, I will bet you anything that Dodge keeps his job. Do I think that is right--no, I don't. I thought he should have been fired after last season, but the AD told a local reporter that the "funds" just weren't there for us to buy him out for two years and that we have to raise funds to pay toward the stadium. As ArkStfan plainly said, going into the last year of a contract extension is most definitely brought up during recruiting--as it should. That would just be a killer for our program in recruiting to go into the the new stadium with a coach that could be let go of at the end of the season. The hope here is that this upcoming year just makes it obvious on which direction we need to go. I really hope it is that Dodge does get an extension because we will have had a break-through season. Its just that when you are the #117 team out of 120, most people realize that the chances of even 6 wins aren't probably too high, so in the end, you will probably see him get the ax. I hope not, but to go from 5 wins in three seasons to 6+ in the next season doesn't seem too realistic.

This is the year that Dodge's fate will get determined. Either he gets fired or he gets an extension. There is no way he will go into the last year of his current contract wihtout any assurances of an extra year or two. That would kill recruiting. Imagine going into a home this fall and spring telling recruits that you can come to UTEP, SMU or Ark State where we have stability at the top or you can go to UNT where their coach is in his last year. Who knows if he will get to stay and for how long, plus who is going to come in and coach and what kind of offense/defense will they introduce? Now, the bigger question is what will the requirement be to get that extension? My guess is that 6 wins will get him an extra year, even though RV said it would at least be 7 to keep his job. I think 7 years will get him 2 extra years, 8 wins would get him 3 years, etc..

Genius!!

Perhaps your best reply ever--Major Props for you!!

IMO, there are three scenarios that could play out over the course of the next 3 years that will affect UNT: 1.) Best Case: The Big XII takes BYU and Memphis, while the Big East adds ECU and UCF. The two best non-AQ leagues have openings and the MWC then invites Fresno State, Nevada, UTEP, and UH to become a 12 team league. CUSA now has five openings and it has left behind most of its eastern schools. Marshall decides that the MAC makes sense again, so they now have six openings. To fill that void, CUSA invites La Tech, UNT, MTSU, WKU, FAU, and Arkansas State to fill the void. UNT then has a division that is made up of us, SMU, Rice, La Tech, Tulsa, and Tulane and the other division is USM, UAB, MUTS, WKU, FAU, and ASU. 2.)Worst Case: The above scenario occurs, but we don't get the bid for the CUSA spot, due to politics and on-field performance, or some team don't leave CUSA (i.e.,Marshall). However, the other SBC schools mentioned above do leave. Then, we have an SBC that looks like this: FIU, Troy, ULL, ULM, us, South Alabama (who moves up in a few years), UTSA, Texas State, and possibly, NMSU. This is just about conference hell--our newer version of SLC I-AA purgatory. If this happens, then 28k seating for our next stadium is probably TOO BIG for decades to come. 3.)Realistic Case: Everything stays pretty much the way it has been for the last decade. We stay in the Belt with the teams we got because CUSA doesn't lose anyone, nor does any other league. ULM drops down because the price of poker gets too high and the SBC then adds La Tech eventually because they cannot afford the WAC and they cannot afford to be independent, as well as USA and the other schools looking to move up (TSU-SM and UTSA). We get 12 teams and set up East/West divisions. The division for UNT is then: us, UTSA, Texas State, ULL, La Tech, and Arkansas State. Not bad, but not what everyone dreams about for us, either.

This is for all of thosr posters out there that think that one university can't keep another one out (i.e. SMU vs. UNT) Membership has its privileges, but it works both ways. No matter what, TCU and Baylor won't be in the same conference anytime soon, unless this report is just pure speculation.

Great Post--LongJim +1 for you

You know, that is a very good point about our timing of all of these "improvements" over the course of the last 15 years. When we moved up to I-A in 1995, we didn't realize that our program was going to be so underfunded still. I figured that since the university wanted to move up so we would fund the program accordingly, but that didn't happen. Of course, we ended up in the SBC at the perfect time and we found immediate success on the field against our conference mates, but the facilities and the funding still were poor. By the time DD wore out his welcome and we created a buzz with the Dodge hire, the facilities still sucked and we went on to further damage our reputation by losing in such an uncompetitive manner. By the time the university finally decided to build a new stadium, it probably is too little, too late. My question is if this new realignment really does create a Super BCS 64 and no other conferences can get into the mix for a BCS game or playoff system, what happens to the rest of us? Do we create a playoff system? Do any of us ever play those Super 64 teams anymore since they can just keep whoever in their own system?

I really hope so. They got their panties in a wad over bowl placement and what they viewed as preferred treatment ot UT, OU, KU, and NU. Well, the reality is that they have historically been mediocre in both football and basketball. I believe that no school has made the NCAA Tournament without making it to a Final Four than Mizzou. They are the biggest university in a populous state with no other D-1 school, yet they couldn't do anything of note in the Big Eight/Big XII until Chase Daniel got there, which also coincided with Nebraska falling off the map. When they played a South school, they got hammered in football. Then the Big Ten makes overtures their way and they basically started all of this mess for the Big XII. I heard that if the Big XII could have still stayed together, the other schools were ready to kick them out. They have flaunted this Big Ten invite big time to the other Northern schools--especially the Kansas schools, but also Nebraska, but it now sounds like they are going to get left out. It would be sweet justice if Mizzou has to go to CUSA or the MWC, especially if the Kansas schools do go to the Big East and stay in an AQ league. At least KU and K-State have done something in the two main sports (National Championship in hopps, BCS bowl wins for both schools). Mizzou is the picture of underachievement--and the Big ten is realizing that now.

National Perception? Look it how much its helped with our STATE perception--this is a Houston paper, after all...

I think this is very possible. Our basketball program has done well recently, but it isn't well supported (less than 3K in avg. attendance). The new stadium will be nicer than anything we have ever had, but it still going to be the smallest in the state when it is built. I think that you are right that we will be left in the SBC unless the WAC really gets raided, but looking at the plans of the PAC-10 taking most of the Big XII away and the MWC staying fairly intact, I am not sure that the WAC will expand, unless they lose someone else.

. It is just amazing to look at what progress Tech has made. For most years, they were an SWC also-ran, but they had Bob Bullock in the legislature and he single-handedly got Tech included in the Big XII. Once they got in the Big XII, they really shot forward as a program because of great hires (Leach, Bob Knight) and really became very-well supported by their fans and alumni. Bill Powers, who is with University of Texas, was recently quoted as saying, "Wherever we end up, it will include both A&M and Tech." It seems that is how it will break down. The Oklahoma legislature, Kansas legislature, and Texas legislature all seem sold on their big BCS programs staying together. When you have the power of TV sets and money, as well as growing states in population, Texas and Oklahoma are in great shape and it will end up killing KU. Since they are stuck with K-State, a big conference can just go and say we want these schools, but not this one or that one, so how we can get the biggest bang for our bucks? Well, the conference can say that we want CU, Utah, KU, UT, OU, and A&M, but to get all of them, I have to find out to also take on BYU, K-state, Tech, and Okie Lite, so what mix works best here for our expansion? If Texas is the jewel, and A&M is pretty darn close, then taking Tech is a no-brainer if it delivers all three. Colorado represents a great market and fits in the footprint and they have no one else on the coattails, since no one apparently cares about Colorado State in their legislature, so that gets #4. The next question then comes down to whether I want a big-time basketball program or a big-time football program. Well football is the cash-cow, so that makes it fairly easy to say Oklahoma is the leader here, so we have to take OSU with them, but that gives us 16 and we are then done. The only way Kansas and Kansas State even survive as big-time programs is if the SEC says that we need more markets to the west and we need more big-time basketball in the league. Imagine KU-UK every year in basketball, that could be huge. But if football is the only driver, those schools are probably MWC bound, which would give that league 12 teams, but I believe that when this is all done, there will be 4 16-team leagues that will comprise the new BCS and that those 64 teams will form their own playoff system. I would imagine Baylor will immediately get picked up by CUSA and Iowa State will go to the MAC.

I believe that Nebraska will be in the new Big Ten with Missouri. If the scenario that Chip Brown is talking about does come to fruition, the only thing I could see happening there would be if the SEC added the Kansas schools (mainly for hoops, which needs some more big names). Its hard for me to see KU and K-State playing in the MWC, which would be a huge step-down for both of them, but then again, they may have no choice.

This. If he wins 6 or 7 wins, he will get a 2 year extension and a small raise. If he wins 8+, I think he will get a 3 year extesnion. That said, I doubt he gets to 5, so I think it will be moot. I just don't think we know how to win, and I believe that the odds are more in favor of 5 or less wins than anything else. I will admit that I still worry that 5 wins might get him his last year if finances are still tight.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you, but this attitude of being better than those other two schools is EXACTLY how the other Texas schools look at us.

. . . . . . . To me, the WAC looks good for UNT if the following occur with it: We move with another Texas school--preferably UTSA, but also would like to see ULL and Texas State move there, too. That would make the WAC look like this: W-WAC= Hawaii, SJSU, Fresno, Idaho, Utah State, Nevada E-WAC= NMSU, Texas State, UTSA, UNT, La Tech, and ULL This would be a good regional division for UNT with schools that are very similar to us and would provide great travel for fans. The games against the W-WAC wouldn't be too fun to travel for, but neither is traveling to eastern SBC cities. The biggest fear for me in this is if the MWC does take Boise, which is basically going to replace Utah going to the Pac-10. If this happened, the MWC would be back to 9 teams. You could see a scenario play out where they take three other teams from eiter the WAC or CUSA. Imagine that we join the WAC, then see the WAC lose Fresno and Nevada, and then CUSA loses SMU, UTEP, or UH to the MWC. All of a sudden, we are stuck in the WAC without any of the big names to the west, and then CUSA has a spot open up that La Tech fills up. That would stink, but I really do think that are best plan for now is to get into a conference with those two Texas starups and try to become a trio of programs that grow together and move together down the road.

I tend to agree with a lot of your points here, but there is almost zero chance that Boise State will stay in the WAC. The MWC only has 9 teams as it stands now and if Utah/BYU leave, Boise will be the first pick up. I even believe Boise will move to the MWC no matter what, but that will get sped forward if BSU is playing for the MNC this season, which is very possible. Just for argument's sake, if Boise, Fresno, and Nevada left to join a new MWC, the WAC would be left with Hawaii, San Jose State, Idaho, Utah State, New Mexico State, and La Tech, which is apparently a top target of CUSA's next expansion. I just can't tell what league would be better for us, a watered-down WAC that looks like the old Big West, or the SBC, which could very well lose MTSU, FAU, or WKU to another conference. I do know that am 100% convinced we won't be in CUSA as long as SMU is there. The other schools feel that the DFW market is covered with SMU. It is also why I can see UTSA eventually moving into CUSA down the road because that is a large TV market to sell to a network that is interested in gaining broadcast rights.

If Memphis, UCF, and ECU go to a revamped Big East, I would expect CUSA would immediately replace with MTSU, FAU, and La Tech. That gives them more TV markets to sell to a network and it gives them exposure in areas that they still want to be in. One thing that this could do, though, is if Boise State, Fresno State and La Tech leave the WAC, an Eastern move to the WAC with ULL and Ark State might still be available for us. That would give us this new conference lineup: UNT, ULL, ASU, NMSU, Hawaii, Utah State, SJSU, Idaho, Nevada That compares with an SBC that would look like this if MUTS and FAU leave: UNT, ASU, ULL, ULM, WKU, USA, FIU, and Troy Which of those two possibilities is better? Nevada and Hawaii have been good in the WAC, while Troy has been good in the SBC. All of those teams are far away, but I guess the SBC has the time zone advantage, but the WAC has the prestige advantage. I don't know which one looks better for UNT.

. . This link lets everyone know what we are dealing with here. You can blame ESPN for being lazy, but this only adds fuel to the fire, IMHO. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=5214108

. . . . . . . I agree with the post about needing to move up from the SBC, but my question goes back to this: if we can't move on to another conference, what is the long-term effect on our program? Can we continue making strides as a program in ten years if we don't share a conference with any Texas school? Or is the SBC capable of passing CUSA eventually as a better conference over a longer time frame?

. . . . . . . . . . . Reading over the various possibilities on this subject has been extremely interesting to say the least, but it also has me wondering what would happen if the next big expansions involve the BCS conferences capping at 64, thus the rest of Division 1-A being left to sort of be the "minors" of college athletics . If this happens, and we don't get into an improved conference setup (i.e. a new SWC/CUSA league with more regional teams located in Texas), what does UNT's future look like for the next 20 years or so? We have made up so much ground since we got out of 1-AA purgatory, but would this scenario send us back to that level again if we are still in the SBC? Personally, I like the SBC for us right now and have enjoyed it very much, because it has been a place for us to build something up from the ashes, but I also realize that our athletic future of moving upward really does involve being in a conference with better names than what we have now. But my question is if we are left behind in this all, what does that mean for us? Does that force us to go the WAC, even though Boise and Fresno are probably gone? That would basically be a return to the Big West days, which didn't seem to work for anyone east of the Rockies. Does it mean we just have to come to terms with being in the SBC with the current teams, minus a team or two to the east that could potentially get gobbled up (MTSU, FAU, or WKU) which get replaced by programs moving up like USA, UTSA, and Texas State? As a UNT alum and fan, it is just hard to figure out what our "worst-case" scenario would be and how it would affect our university's support for athletics. We have just made so much progress in the last 15 years and I don't want it to get wiped away again over the next 15 years.

I completely agree with you on this

If the SEC expands, it will be with big-time BCS programs. If they expanded, they would probably get current ACC teams or non-Texas Big XII teams. I don't believe that Texas or A&M will ever got to the SEC. The academics over there just don't match up, and the Big Ten and the Pac-10 would give them both excellent inroads both athletically and academically. Remember, especially in the Big Ten's case, the research funding dwarfs the money raised even by a huge TV contract. UT and A&M would fit perfectly in both cases. I would expect, however, to see the Okie schools to be on the SEC's radar, along with schools like Florida State, Miami, Clemson, or Georgia Tech. No matter what happens though with the Texas schools, I still don't see where the state would allow any other school to join a league that has equal or greater name value than the conference where UT sits. Back in the early 90s, the SEC wanted Texas, who quickly said no, so they decided to go after A&M and Houston. The Texas legislature though made it clear that the two big programs (UT and A&M) are stuck together like siamese twins. So where one goes, so goes the other. But what about UH? They were ready to go to the SEC, but nope, that ended quick. And, of course, the SWC broke up and UH got left behind just like Rice, TCU, and SMU. You see, it is all about power in the legislature--and that power is from UT and A&M predominantly (see PUF dollars)and they weren't going to let UH join a league that they could surpass the big two from. Imagine if UH had gotten into the SEC back then and were the only Texas school in that league--they would be at least better off than A&M and maybe even Texas today, with that rich SEC TV contract and all of the bowl money. I just don't see a scenario at play where another Texas school will get into this new Super BCS, except for Tech possibly, but even if they get protected again, it will be due to the fact that they will be in the same big conference as the other two. I just don't see any way that another Texas school will ever be allowed to join a league that could give them a chance to "surpass" the big guys. Just my $.02 but history is on my side on this one. I agree that TCU and UH will probably be in a league together again, but it won't be in a Super BCS-type conference. This separation of the Haves and Have-Nots looks like it will be swift and it will hurt some feelings again, just this time it will be others looking in from the outside (see Baylor, possibly Tech) who laughed at those who they left behind 15 years ago.

I think this is an interesting topic for many reasons. One, it really it hits home on the mountain that UNT faces with the other current Division-1 teams in Texas. The Big XII teams in Texas probably won't play here again, even with a new stadium, because of Jerry World and the Cotton Bowl aggressively hosting games for them. The non-AQ teams that have something, like TCU and UH, have no interest in playing us becasue the benefit just really isn't there for them if they win big versus the huge cost of a loss or close win. As a matter of fact, when we lost at TCU 16-10 back in 2002, their fans at Amon Carter were really bad-mouthing their AD for scheduling that game. But, with teams like Rice or SMU, which have been trying to gain traction and get butts in the seats, UNT has been a good team to schedule. UTEP could certainly fit in with them, too. To me, though, this is why I think extending a hand to UTSA or Texas State to get in the SBC would pay huge dividends for our future. We can get an in-state rivalry going finally and try and schedule OOC with other schools like NMSU, Tulsa, or LA Tech again to fill in the schedule. I also think that you could get a lower-tier Big Ten, PAC-10, ACC, or MWC team to come this way. If I were RV, I would also be on the horn with Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada today to schedule a series. These teams have solid name recognition, esepcially Boise, and those teams would love some Texas exposure. We have to get creative here, but it is going to be easier to draw quality OOC teams from outside of Texas with our new stadium. Looking at the WAC is great because they don't come to the Metroplex like CUSA or MWC teams already do. If we had an OOC schedule of SMU/Rice/UTEP, one of the other "local" non-AQ teams I mentioned earlier, one of those WAC teams or a BCS lower-tier team, and one money game, I think that would look pretty good to most of us.