untjim1995

I suspect that Rice gets on the schedule because: A:) Brings a game to Houston every other year--nice thing to do for all of the UT alums down there with all that MONEY B:) Easy Win in OOC C:) Name recognition to the old-time SWC fans (I'm included in this group) OU plays Tulsa for similar reasons, as does LSU with Tulane. If I remember correctly, A&M is supposed to play SMUt in Dallas down the road. These teams have large alumni bases in these cities to satisfy and a non-BCS private school fits that bill perfectly.

BTW, yesterday you had a post about Baylor. I went over to their website to see what many of their fans felt about this upcoming year with their new coach. Even the biggest of homer fans felt it would take them awhile to win. As a matter of fact, some outpost (maybe CFN) predicts them to go 2-10 next year--with a win against ISU I believe in conference. Again, not trying to bash here because if they do win big this year and beyond, then we non-BCS AQs are going to be screwed--especailly the TCUs and the Houstons of the area. I just think that SMU's relatively weaker schedule could make June Jones look like a savior very fast--maybe even at the end of this football season. Your point of this needing to be a big year for Dodge will definitely be true if either of those 2 schools starts making noise this year and we don't. I still see us being 4-8, though.

I agree to some extent with Baylor, but I will believe that they will go to a bowl game when I see them get an invite. Them getting to 6 wins with who they play every year would be just a great accomplishment. They rarely beat anyone in the Big XII South--maybe one win every 2-3 years. The have beaten a north team here and there, but they usually lose most of their non-conference games. If they start scheduling very weakly (i.e, SBC/MAC schools in Waco only, a FCS school, and maybe a rotation of Rice and SMU every year) then they may get to 6--maybe. My worry really is more with June Jones and SMU. They have pretty much sucked for decades now. If they start winning, the local media will pay big-time attention to what they have overcome and how great Jones is as a rebuilder. And in CUSA, it is very feasible to see them get to bowl eligible very soon. CUSA has spots available for bowls, has very mediocre teams, and SMU has the name to recruit to in Texas. That, to me, is where we could be in trouble. If I were recruiting against Dodge and UNT, I would focus on two things about Dodge--if he loses badly again this year and next year, will they be able to recruit against these teams mentioned above--especially if we are still in Fouts? If Dodge does what we think he will, though, and turns it around over the next two years and we get back to New Orleans, there are going to be some big-time programs ready to scoop him up. Will UNT be able to pay up then? If you are Patterson at TCU or Jones at SMU, you can actually say with much confidence that my salary and my facilites make this the place to put down my roots for a long time. Since I don't think either of these teams will play us again anytime in the next decade, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what is already being told to recruits. Of course, if Dodge does start winning soon and we do build a new stadium soon, then UNT would be extremely wise to extend his contract for many years with a hefty buyout. And we do have the advantage of Riley being here for him to coach until he graduates, even though he left him behind when he came to UNT from SLC. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

I see us at 4-8 with wins over FIU, ULL, @ WKU, and ASU at home in front of 4000 Close losses to Rice, ULM, FAU, and MTSU. Not close (more than 2 TDs difference)= KSU, Tulsa, FAU, Troy. The rebuilding is still going to be a slow progress--but we should double our performance from last year, which would be a nice advancement from where we were in Dickey's last 2 years and Dodge's first (and Mendoza's last) year. I just doubt that many folks will look at it this way. TD needs time--just like Fry needed time and Dickey needed time. Turning it around quickly in our situation is not easy--believe me, I wish it was, but it isn't. I think that next year is when we can begin competing with the top SBC teams again and maybe contend for the title. Our lines are going to need to be deeper and more experienced than they are this year to really make a huge push. Unless, of course, DeLoach really is a miracle worker!!

I am of the belief that the BOR should impose a fee to go directly to athletics and that if the students don't like it, then they should go to UTD or UTA. I also believe that we need to get away from this "We are the Best Value University for your money in the world!" message that we like to portray. So, with that being said, does anyone else think that if a student body doesn't want to fund a stadium or doesn't want to really attend athletic events, then maybe that tells us more about what we should be preparing ourselves to deal with concerning our overall athletic department and the future of specifically football? Maybe a better way to put it is like this: If we have to depend on a vote and the students continue to vote it down, how much longer can we stay afloat in Division I-A (FBS) if we continue to play at Fouts in the SBC? I am of the belief that if we don't have a new stadium by 2013, we will no longer be able to compete with the other D-1A schools and will either drop back down to FCS (kiss of death) or have the program fold away (instant death) at some point over the next decade or so. But if it what the overwhelming number of students/alumni/Denton residents want, then I don't know if this is a winnable proposition. All said, I hope that I never see the day that we don't have an FBS team again.

Personal Attack??

There is no rift in the Big XII because there is a quid pro quo relationship betewwn Baylor (who gets the great majority of their revenue from the large public schools who fill up their stadium each year and give them all of the bowl revenue that their program hasn't added to since the Clinton administration) and the Big XII gets a team that gives the other teams a win toward becoming bowl-eligible. Of course, it helps that Baylor also has good academics to make the conference look better, too. The MWC needed a new market to tap into with TCU, who has a program that fit their league well and also knew that TCU wanted NOTHING to do with SMU or Rice as far as being conference mates again. Obviously, both of these schools have always had terrific support from their students, alumni, and communities. I don't remember SMU being that fortunate with support--which makes their disdain for UNT even more unbelievable. I will say this, if we take off like we all want to see us to, then I may be in the group that says no to playing SMU anymore. When they need a game to get some local interest going because they continue to suck, that nice crowd they got in Dallas last year when we visited should serve as a nice memory for what they could have continued enjoying for years if they weren't so snooty.

I think that the real question is whether any of these schools want to be in a conference with us. We know SMU doesn't, but what about UH, and UTEP? We fit in the same boat as them institutionally--large, public universities that serve a large metro area. Sometimes, I think if UNT had the leaders to pull it off, I would discuss forming a conference with UTEP, UH, Texas State, MTSU, La Tech, NMSU, ULL, Arkansas State, Southern Miss, UAB, MTSU, and Troy. All are public schools, would make regional travel a strong possibility, and would match similar goals for the future for all of us. Yes, the conference would still stretch from Las Cruces to Nashville, but a west/east division could be a nice conference.

This is the best post I have read on this site in a long time concerning our place in the Division-1 FCS football. If the scenario plays out concerning the Big East splitting, what you would have is the 8 that currently play football forming their own league--then gobbling up 4 others to get a conference championship game for the revenue that would generate. Those 4 would include immediately Memphis, UCF, and ECU. The 4th team would be A.) Notre Dame--big dream, but could happen B.) Marshall--name recognition, good geographical presence, although could get blocked by WVU (ala SMU vs UNT) C.) a big MAC school--Central Michigan perhaps, which draws well and gets the Motor City Bowl with them. CUSA then has to replace 3 or 4 teams--which would mean WKU, MTSU, La Tech, and probably FAU--all within their footprint of being southern oriented and programs that have succeeded in the past in several revenue sports (i.e. football, mens and womens hoops, and baseball). Trust me, with SMU in CUSA we WILL NOT be there. It just ain't gonna happen--we have no facilities, no money, and frankly, poor leadership that won't install a student fee.

4 of the bottom 8 are in the SBC(UNT included)--and 2 others (Idaho and Utah State) are former SBCers, now WAC. Ouch.

wow

I totally agree with your assessment and the concept of how to fix the problem. However, it sounds like the problem can't/won't be fixed for whatever reasons. This all leads me to ask a few questions. What happens to UNT Football if we don't get a new stadium in the next 5 years? If the students vote down another fee for stadium/athletics/football, would FCS be in our future ever again? (I pray not.) My fears are that no stadium gets built, and that Dodge, if successful as the head coach, pulls a Fry and leaves because the university just doesn't improve the facilities. Actually, there are some profs that I have heard over the years that tell their students that we should drop football because of the cost and the fact that we are a "music and arts" school. I guess this is my worst fear for UNT. I am just interested to hear what folks think about the future if we don't get what we want. We often talk about the other side of when we get a new stadium, but what if...

Chris, No offense taken. I don't think that football has anything at all to do with my degree value from UNT in the Metroplex. My degree in finance was very appreciated by employers when I graduated and ever since--probably because of the proximity to the Dallas/Ft.Worth area and the knowledge of our business school's strength. Remember, we get many profs that have expereince in business in the Metroplex, which of course would carry alot of weight. That is what I was trying to convey--that my degree from UNT will always have more value here, with or without football becoming anything bigger than a lower-rung program (bottom 20). No offense to your TSU degrees, which, of course, they have strong programs in other areas, but, as far as my degree goes, I really believe that my UNT degree in finance will have more worth here in the Metroplex. It might be different in Austin or San Antonio, but I am fairly certain that I won't ever have to find that out. I will say that the amount of donations and LOYALTY that Texas State has created over the last few years and will continue to build is highly admirable. For that, I am extremely envious. If they do get to play in a confernece with people like UH, La Tech, UTEP, SMU, or even TCU, while we get Florida International and Louisiana-Monroe, I think we all could figure out the big winner in that scenario--and that is what burns most of us up about our school's habitual dragging-of-the-feet with a new stadium. Now, as far as building a football program, if Texas State or UTSA can make things happen to move forward their programs, ala UCF, USF, WKU,etc., and we can't, I think it says more about what we shouldn't keep doing than what it says about the forward movement of Texas State and UTSA. That's all I am saying.

Could you imagine how embarrassed we all would feel if UTSA or Texas State pass us by in terms of Division I-A football? I believe that my UNT degree will always carrry more weight than a degree from either of those places, even if they move forward and make all of their football dreams come true, but the level of donations and prestige for those schools would soar compared to where they are now--which could really raise the view of a degree from either of those places. Meanwhile, back in Denton....

All I know is that if they do start up a new program with a big-name coach and get into CUSA real fast (within 3-5 years of startup), we better not be in the Sunbelt still. Because if we are still here in the SBC and UTSA and Texas State move over there, we should just quit I-A football. It would be proven at that point that we just don't want to be serious about college football if in 5 years those two schools pass us by. We may have been paseed by many other programs across the country over the decades, but we have never had a state-program blow by us--yet. That would be the sign of the apocalypse, as far as D-I football goes.

I only saw two games in Irving listed, but I am sure that they were well-attended, since they involved two other Metroplex teams. I imagine the SMU game was big just because they were making their way back to the top with $$ and Texas Stadium was their home stadium at the time. I was just imaging what the folks would say now, in 2008, if we only had 4 "home" games, of which two were scheduled at Fouts. I do still think that scheduling a game at Texas Stadium/ JErry World/ Cotton Bowl to play a huge team would be great for UNT. I still think that a "home" game against a huge Big Ten team or Pac-10 team could be done. This would be a nice in-road for recruiting for those schools. I could see us playing a Michigan or Penn State or UCLA one day if we scheduled it correctly (2 for 1). Could you imagine the attention that a local game against a ranked team like Ohio State would bring. Heck, even Iowa or Purdue or a team like West Virginia or Louisville would be absolutely great teams for our program to get to play down here. Of course, all of this would probably not be necessary if a new stadium does get built in the future to accomodate the bigger crowds.

Could you imagine the uproar that having only 2 games (out of 11) in Denton would sound like today?

Thanks for your answers and your research. I truly didn't know who Howie had scheduled, but I figured that it would be a decent team to come there. Trust me, I agree with much of what you have posted regarding UNT's program.

Speaking of this, and I don't know the answer, but who has FAU scheduled at home with Schnellenberger as head coach?

Troy usually plays these teams very well--something to prove. It only falls apart when they have to play SBC teams that they don't get motivated for. Reminds me of the Corky days at UNT--play D-I teams very tough, lose to Southland teams that were less talented.

I wouldn't be at all suprised if one day the elite programs try to form their own super-conference...

I don't know if I agree with this. TCU has been good-to-great for a while now and their attendance has been around 30K for that whole time. But, when Tech or Baylor show up, the crowds are huge and Patterson even says that these games mean more to the fans and his team than the MWC games do because of Texas ties. As a matter of fact, TCU's average attendance last year was 30K, which was 77th out of 119 I-A teams. I know that the winning helps, but so does playing teams that people care to go see--like the Texas schools, for example. They know that the casual Ft. Worth fan that has taken up TCU as their home-team want to see OU, Tech, Baylor, etc. come to town. When they play a FCS team at home or a MWC doormat, their crowds are not close to 30K. All that being said, your Creighton friend is right about winning!!

The money may be there, but the facilities for each of those schools are similar to UNT. Tulsa's football stadium is awful, Moody Coliseum is terrible, and Autry Court is worse than every D-1 arena except Texas Hall in Arlington. To me, Fouts is god-awful, but the Super Pit is terrific, much like Ford Stadium is great. The thing about the Sun Belt is that there are schools that have made tremendous strides in the last 10 years--much like Tulsa, who I don't include in the mix with SMU or Rice. The other two have not made significant progress in anything as far as winning goes. If the Belt can continue winning in tournaments and bowls and CUSA keeps struggling, it wouldn't surprise me to see the public schools in CUSA leave these schools behind (SMU, Rice, Tulane) and get into a conference with other state schools that have much more in common. It is not easy for me to see SMU ever letting UNT in a conference with them. It is not hard for me, though, to imagine a day (in less than a decade) where a conference existed like this: UNT UAB Houston Troy So.Miss ULL Arkansas State Memphis UTEP La Tech New Mexico State Middle Tennessee These schools are large, public, and in need of good traveling crowds. You would get the Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, El Paso, Memphis, Birmingham, and Nashville markets, which are all growing with large alumni bases of each school. What gets me going the most is that the private schools in the state (Baylor, TCU, SMU, and Rice) think that they deserve to determine who they should be conference-mates with. It ought to be the other way around. SMU should never be able to dictate if North Texas gets in a conference, whether we are talking SWC or CUSA. It galls me to no end that our leadership over the years has let that happen. Those schools may have money but there support in terms of viewership is piss poor-and it ain't gonna get better. The SBC/CUSA public schools have the potential to do just that if they would sit down and find some common ground. It would make for a better sports world in football and hoops--that I can guarantee myself.

Poor posting--don't type after midnight anymore.

My thoughts are this on the subject: I would prefer to get in the MWC if at all possible for one reason--prestige. But, BYU and Utah are often mentioned as teams that could move up to the PAC-10 if the politics of the situation could get settled. If that happens, the MWC immediately gets Boise, Fresno, and Nevada to come over, and probably entertain getting Hawaii, since they used to be in the same conference for years with most of the MWC as it currently sits. That would leave 11 teams in the MWC, meaning that they would need one more to get that coveted championship game. The perfect fit would be a Texas school. Our dream would be that they got us to come over. Reality probably suggests that an Original WAC member, UTEP, would get the call. I just can't see TCU jumping up and down to get us in the league with them. Even if BYU and Utah never leave the MWC, it is not out of the question to see them get Boise, Nevada, and Fresno to move over to get to 12 for a championship game and petition to become a BCS conference, which could happen with another power conference forming and a bowl slot available in the new game that was created last year. This last scenario is why the WAC makes no sense to me for us now--cost is too high and the power teams in the WAC want to move up, too. Trust me, out west, this is discussed often. Unfortunately, I think that our days in the Belt and having teams like Ark. State, ULL, ULM, FAU, FIU, WKU, and Middle Tennessee as our peers will continue for a long time. What I would do if I worked for UNT right now, is propose that Texas State be admitted to the SBC in 2011 (?) and immediately begin talking to UH, UTEP, So. Miss., and UAB about the why it is more important and beneficial for them to be partnered with large public universities in the Belt vs. their current benefits of being partnered with the private schools that have limited potential, support, resources, etc. Schools like SMU and Rice and Tulane may have dollars, but not much else--not much of a base to travel to watch games in your stadiums/arenas. This is where you could get some realignment that could get us in a better fit with schools that fit our mold--large, public, and, in many cases, metropolitan. Any thoughts?