untjim1995

1987-1991 were my years at Southwest. I do remember that Paschal ended a losing streak that was like 4 years long by beating Granbury in a game that I tihnk ended at 2-0 Paschal. At the time, Granbury was a 3A schoool, I believe. My senior year, Paschal almost beat us, but we held on to win by 5 or so. VERY BAD FOOTBALL!!

I am a grad of Southwest as well. As a matter of fact, my sophomore thru senior years at SHS, we won exactly one game per year--all against Paschal!! When I got to North Texas, I was there for 5 football seasons (student manager)--in 4 of those years we won 3,4,4 and 2 games. Including the 94 UNT team that won the SLC and racked up 7 wins, the teams I was a part of had a winning percentage of 23-60-2. Maybe I should get a grad degree from OU and pass on my luck to the Sooners!!

Sadly, you are right on the money about both of those schools--throw in UTEP and Tulsa while you are at it.

GEO, I understand many of your points, but, again, to the TCU fan and alum, they don't see any value in playing UNT. Remember that SMU is their rival--always has been. Even if they are in much better shape right now than SMU, they are still big rivals and always have been. They are peers in that they share a rivalry that is very old, involved two cities that rival each other, and are both private schools. This will never change as the TCU fans and SMU fans hate each other. They stopped playing their series one year and their fans were all up in arms about that because they both believe that they should always play each other. That is a rivalry and that is why they will always play each other. The same goes for UH and Rice (conference mates for now again but were not for awhile), and will eventually get there for UNT and SMU, which assumes that the contract to play each other never gets cancelled in the future. And, of course, SFA is a much less risk than playing UNT--they aren't peers either, but their athletic department recognizes that you should beat an FCS school, but getting one that will bring people to the game is a win-win for them. Playing UNT may bring people to the stands, but they could lose to us, which is the entire point of the TCU fan. Sure, they have lost to FCS teams in the past, but the risk is lower than playing UNT, which could play with them and be motivated to beat them with talent that feels as if TCU looked down at them. The best questions in my opinon to ask yourself are if you weren't a UNT alum, and your team was playing us, a huge public school that has really not done much on the field in the last 30 years or so, what would you think if your ranked team (or at least close to being ranked team) played UNT, especially in Denton? Would you care that they don't draw people to their dump of a stadium, except for the few games when a well-known team comes to town? Would you think that it would really help you in recruiting all that much if you win, but could really hurt if you lost? Most people on the outside of this would definitely tell TCU to avoid us, try and get games against former Big XII foes that you do recruit against, and keep your long-standing rival in the OOC. Just my $.02. And, oh by the way, I hate their sentiment toward us. Its just what we face from all of these old SWC schools' fans and alumni.

I am from Ft. Worth and know many TCU alums and supporters. It is really simple why they don't play UNT. They don't believe that there is enough advantages to outweigh the negatives if they lose--and they are right. Look at it this way, they are the big dog right now in non-AQ BCS, at least in the Southwest. They play their metroplex rival that is their peer every year. TCU is in great shape--they get strong recruits, good hometown support, and have a lot of funds. To schedule UNT right now--or even in the next five years--doesn't serve their interests at all. Maybe it will in the future, but even if we got our program going in the right direction, TCUs alums made it clear when we played them in that last series that they didn't like it at all. We have our work cut out for us on many levels beyond just winning and building a new stadium. In the state of Texas and the entire Southwest, most schools' alumni still believe that we aren't worth the risk of playing because of where we stand in today's NCAA. The good news, though, is that the success of the SMU series for both schools may have opened up some eyes to the other athletic departments in the state to look at us more closely when scheduling games in the future.

I actually thought KU did a smart thing on their scheduling. KSU followed this premise for over a decade with Bill Snyder. Even when they got really good, they often only played the dregs of d-1 and would end up top ten. Aside from a series with USC, during K-state big years, their non-conference had lots of weaklings on it--mostly at home. It uilt success, confidence, and led to better recruiting. In my opinion, what has hurt KSU is that OU got really good again. Those recruits that were leaving Oklahoma are staying home now, unlike during the mid-to-late 90s when the great John Blake roamed the sidelines in Norman. Man, it was a better world when he coached OU--oh how we all miss his incompetence.

If a university decided to field a D-I team in football, but never put many resources toward it that could have made the program grow big-time, would that university be able to get rid of that program eventually (say in 3 years) and say that the program was never going to do anything for the university, since the priorities of the unviersity are music, education, and art? Another question would be along the same lines. If the students were to turn down another fee increase, would that give the university's "leaders" the ammunition to do another student referendum to abolish the program like was done back in the early 70s, which thankfully failed?

This is my biggest fear. It would be a very sad day.

IF so, why did the guy say, "except for the Sun Belt"?

[business (competitive with any other program other than UT).

As for the BCS, as more 1-AA teams continue to move up and swell the numbers after the moratorium is lifted, I have fears of the BCS breaking off to form their own upper-tier of college football. A new era of 1-A and 1-AA evolving again with the top 70 schools in their own league?

GEO, In always enjoy reading your posts. They are always insightful. I am curious to hear about your views concerning Al Hurley, Norval Pohl, and now Gretchen in regards to athletics.

I agree with you on all of this--but the question of the post is what is holding us back? Ther are many answers there that deal with past, present, and future.

Here is my take on all of this, in order of greatest party responsible for us being insignificant to most people that are college fans: 1.) The administration--this includes the BOR. This school cares about one main thing--being a great value. That is why teachers love us, musicians love us, and commuters love us. We're cheap. As Silver said, teachers don't make much money. If they don't feel connected to the university, then there is no giving back. The profs at the school adamently oppose athletics because they feel it takes away from academia. 2.) City of Denton--the residents of this city don't really care about the program like many other cities do of the local team. It could be done (look at the way Ft. Worth supports TCU or the way the city of Tulsa supports TU), but this town wants a sleepy college feel that is eclectic--not athletic. 3.) The entire student body and alumni base--By and large, most don't care that we suck at sports and received no points on the recent Sears Cup standings. In many cases, the students want to follow other bigger schools because it is more cool. This is understandable when UNT plays in the same conference as teams that are not like us at all and are far away--no one really cares about a matchup with Middle Tennessee, Louisiana-Monroe, or Florida International. All the while, Texas and A&M play each other, OU, Tech, Kansas, Nebraska, etc. who have big histories and big attachments to the history of the school. What attachments do the children of UNT alums have to the university from an athletic standpoint? None--even Fry's teams, which were great and deserved better, got little attention, little support, and no bowl recognition, which is why the history here stinks compared to the old SWC. 4.) The Old SWC--this conglomerate owned Texas--still does. Through government, media, and alums, they basically said to everyone else that you don't matter (UNT and UTEP). The alums of each of these schools still hate to play us--why is that? Because they either look at us as a tune-up game that will be a blowout or they feel like it is unwinnable situation for them. These are both true today. When Baylor got clobbered by us, many of their alums were asking a very good question to themselves--Why do we play them in Denton? What good do we get for beating them vs. getting beaten by them? If you ask many TCU fans, they will tell you point blank that they hate playing us for these reasons. Tech started scheduling SMU for local games--ask yourself why? SMU hasn't been within 10 points of them in their recent series with Tech. 5.) Fouts Field--self-explanatory. As is the case with all of this, many of these are generalizations and their are certainly exceptions to each case. But folks, if our football program continues to go south over the next 5 years or so and we have no new stadium, it wouldn't be too big of a surprise to me to see the program dropped. Especially if Gretchen were to leave and got replaced by another Hurley-type. D-I football costs alot if done the right way--doing it the way we are right now is at best half-assed, IMHO. Ask yourself this question, if the students still won't vote on a fee, the BOR won't increase it (whether legal or not), and the team goes 2-10 again for the next couple of seasons, what do you think will happen?

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