GrandGreen

Not that bad of an analysis. A couple of minor points, Stratford is reportedly the fastest receiver NT has, not sure were he gets that he is comparatively slow. At cornerback, a concern by this writer; he has forgotten about Royce Hill and downplays that NT has two fairly highly regarded transfers coming in: Ford and Wood. Over all, a good job by the writer. He actually is higher on NT's defensive line than I am. He also is fairly optimistic about the quarterback position.

I am certainly not that familiar with La Tech finances. I have heard they have a few major supporters, but the state financing crisis in Louisiana has got to be scary. Although it didn't mention La Tech specifically, I recently saw an article that most schools in the Louisiana state system get about fifty percent of their athletic funding from the state. With big state funding cuts looming, I think La Tech may have a lot of cost cutting to do and staying in the WAC looks increasingly foolish. Problem is that a lot of their administrators have apparently make a lot of big promises relating to never going back to the Belt. I frankly don't know why CUSA would be anymore interested in them now, than in the past. I really don't think upgrading programs is their immediate concern, they may be more in a survival mode as they lose millions in state funds.

Hey that is working well for La Tech. This is one of the most far out reasons for courting the WAC I've heard, that it will make us more attractive to CUSA. I guess no one at CUSA realizes that NT really wants in their conference. Comparing this to A&M and the SEC is ridiculous. Someone has to believe a bluff for it to work. If CUSA loses Eastern Teams, I am afraid NT will be far down the list of replacements because they will want replacements out of the Eastern Division's locale not Texas. Unfortunately, although geography is one of NT's biggest assets; it works against them as it relates to CUSA. CUSA already has 4 Texas teams and that is more than enough for out of state members. Texas schools don't want anymore in-state recruiting and fan competition with another state school and are unlikely to offer any NT support. Unfortunately, NT's recent football record has given them an easy out even though NT has to rate high in other factors.

Maybe being in a local division with close rivals had a little to do with that. It led to better things because the majority of the Eastern division split off into a different leauges to get out of the WAC leaving only La Tech behind.

It is difficult for me to believe anyone in authority at NT would even consider a move to the WAC. However, I never thought that as many fans would be behind such a move. Vito for move rationale is very weak. The WAC may be still a slightly better overall conference than the Belt but assuming NMSU and La Tech are better rivals than what is in the Belt is highly suspect. La tech has never really been a rival of any kind to NT other than in recruiting. NMSU likewise was only a big football game when the conference title was in play. NMSU is a good BB program but has never really created a stir at the Pit. I assume that the WAC will have a better tv contract but it will be much diminished after the Boise exit. The one plus point that Vito had is the perceived move up. This is much more smoke than substance, the WAC is not that much better; and if the Belt stays together it could quickly bypass the WAC in perception as well as substance. As far as the point, of the WAC being the more stable conference; are you kidding? I also take issue that the WAC would be a big step up in competition. The WAC does still have some attractive teams but Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii are not teams that are going to help NT with attendance or fan interest. USU, NMSU and Idaho were not even big factors in the Belt. The WAC makes no sense for NT. NT is not an UT were travel costs and local rivalries are not important. As for the WAC establishing an Eastern presence, didn't they already try that with disastrous results. La Tech is in an awful position in the WAC. They will bleeding money if they stay and are definitely not wanted by the rest of the conference. Why should NT even entertain joining such a mess? NT is doing exactly what they should be doing, building a solid athletic program. The only fly in the ointment now, is a poor football program. I think a lot of fans would be a lot less flusterated with the Belt, if NT was once again making frequent trips to New Orleans.

I believe that La Tech will be a formidable candidate also, but that to me is different from them being cast as a natural. They have definite budget issues and the likelihood of most or any of the Northern Louisiana state schools being concentrated under the La Tech banner is miniscule and even if they did, I am not sure how that would directly benefit their athletic program. I doubt even La would shut down schools to add a portion of those savings to athletes at Ruston. The only perceived advantage La Tech has is a prior association with many of the CUSA schools that where in the WAC. If you look closely at the current college landscape and what is happening and almost happened in conference shakeups, you can see the value of those prior relationships is not much. One thing about La Tech posters, they have no doubt that La Tech is one of the best programs outside of the AQ conferences. This is opposed to many NT fans who seem to think that anyone who has a fb division program is some how vastly superior. In the case, of UTSA and TSUSM; they don't even have to be fb division. La Tech has been successful and in many ways is to be admired, but they don't have NT's facilities, media market, transportation hubs, number of alums, general resources and potential. A lot of average fans base their assumptions on the current football program and name recognition. So you get people who believe for instance that Troy will be a coveted conference member or that La Tech is a "natural". People who make decisions are going to do it on a long term basis. Facilities, geography, academic standards, and overall resources are the major factors. Plus unfortunately the fear of competition for recruits and fans definitely enters into the equation. I frankly think that NT compares very favorably with the rest of the Belt as well as La Tech and the Texas newcomers. I just wish more of our fans would look at the many positives and believe in a program that is at long last moving quickly forward.

Why would La Tech be a natural? Small market, budget problems; yes they have it all.

Yes, losing in the WAC in football would be much more beneficial than losing in the Belt. Thus far, there has been one team make the leap from a non-automatic qualifier conference to an AQ conference, Utah. One other, Boise State made the leap from the WAC to the MWC. I am sure that Utah and Boise State's records over the last five years playing in BCS bowls and being rated in the top 10 had a lot more to do with their advance than what league they came from. Do you really think that fans on message boards make conference affiliation decisions? Their perceptions means next to nothing. There is very little different between CUSA, MAC, WAC and the Belt; if you want to view everything in generalities; the average college football fan thinks that all these conferences are second rate. Joining the WAC earlier, would not have gotten NT anything but poorer. The coverage in this area would be even less, NT would still be stuck in a conference with no other Texas teams. Now, NT would be in true panic mode as La Tech should be as they realize that their revenues are going to shrink even more. North Texas made the right decision then and should continue to work on the things that really matter in upgrading athletics; simultaneously building winning programs and support of those programs.

Has anyone looked to see who is actually in the WAC? Idaho, NMSU, Utah State, Fresno State, Nevada, La Tech, Hawaii, and San Jose State. I am not sure who would see this as a move up, I think more would view NT joining the WAC has desperate. Yes, the WAC has a lot more history and is better known than the Belt but, a very slight improvement in perception among the casual college football fan certainly would not offset the additional costs and lost of a much more regional conference. I like playing NMSU in BB, but certainly don't view them as a big rival. NT has much more history with ULM, ASU and ULL than La Tech. The rest of the WAC is just to far, and I had much rather play teams in Alabama and Florida than the West Coast.

If the WAC was not a good option before, why would it be without Boise? Without some kind of wild conjured up regional division of the WAC, it makes no sense. At this point, the Belt is a better geographical fit, and I had just as soon see games against ULL, ASU, the Muts and Troy as anyone in the WAC.

Noticed, these coaches are going to UNC-Wilmington, a 12-19 club last year in the Colonial conference; not exactly a big step up. Stephens' explanation of why they are leaving is bs at it's best.

Another good sign, Lama's job is to win. NT was one of the last teams around not to go the foreign route, and it routinely put them at the bottom of the conference. I do wish there were limits to the number of foreign players on a squad as they have basically taken over tennis and cross country. However, I want NT to field the best team it can and if it takes a team of martians, so be it.

Why? Until all this settles, there is no way to tell what secondary conference is going to be in the best shape or even exist. As they are now, the WAC would be my last choice.

Couldn't come at a worst time, for Louisiana state school athletes. Those numbers are horrible. Interesting how close ULM and La Tech are on receiving state funds, suprised that Southeastern gets substantial more than both. SEU must have more students. I have always kind of admired La Tech's administration and fans fanaticism, however misguided. However, they are going to be hard pressed along with ULM to survive this. I think ULL will survive but it will be tough. I read somewhere recently that many of the Louisiana schools get half of their athletic budgets from state funds. I understand that currently Louisiana schools are forbidden from assessing students fees for athletes. Maybe that can be changed but it still will be hard for those schools to maintain a competitive posture for the long haul. The conference turnover adds to La Tech woes. Even the most crazy of their fans has got to realize that if they really had any better chance at an upgraded conference; this has got to almost end it. Does CUSA or for that matter, the Belt need another school in a small market with extreme budget issues?

Well, if the bill posted above is indeed the final document; there apparently is no limitation for the athletic fee to be used only for capital projects although the fees continuation is contingent on having on-going bond service requirements. So I stand corrected. The question than becomes what are the debt restrictions placed on the fees by the bond agreements. Those agreements could limit the use or completely restrict those athletic fees from being used for other purposes. I don't comprehend your last sentence. There was no mention in my post of eliminating the fee until the stadium obligation is met. The question was can those funds be used for operating expenses and can the fee continue after the student portion of the bonds is paid for. The apparent answer to both questions is yes assumming that NT continues to issue bonds for athletic facilites and the BOR is behind the use.

A copy of actual bill, could have been amended; but it seems to indicate that the student athletic fee can be used for other uses than construction and can be raised within guidelines by the BOR. If this is the approved bill, it is all good news and contradictory to what I though I knew. Sometimes it feels good to be wrong. AN ACT relating to an intercollegiate athletics fee at the University of North Texas. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Subchapter E, Chapter 54, Education Code, is amended by adding Section 54.5191 to read as follows: Sec. 54.5191. INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS FEE; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS. (a) The board of regents of the University of North Texas System may charge each student enrolled at the University of North Texas an intercollegiate athletics fee in an amount not to exceed $10 per semester credit hour for each semester or summer session. ( A student enrolled in more than 15 semester credit hours shall pay the fee in an amount equal to the amount imposed on a student enrolled in 15 semester credit hours during the same semester or session. © The fee may not be charged before the first semester a new football stadium is available for use at the university. (d) If compulsory student services fees are charged to students enrolled at the university under Section 54.503, the total amount of those fees charged to a student shall be reduced by $3 per semester credit hour for the first semester in which an intercollegiate athletics fee is charged under this section. (e) Revenue from the fee charged under this section may be used only for financing, constructing, operating, maintaining, or improving an athletic facility or for operating an intercollegiate athletics program at the university. (f) The fee may not be charged unless approved by a majority vote of the students enrolled at the university who participate in a general student election held for that purpose. The ballot for the election to approve the fee must state a maximum amount of the fee that may be charged per semester credit hour, not to exceed the maximum amount prescribed by Subsection (a). (g) The amount of the fee may not be increased to an amount that exceeds by 10 percent or more the amount of the fee as last approved by a student vote under Subsection (f) or this subsection unless the increase has been approved by a majority vote of the students enrolled at the university who participate in a general student election held for that purpose. (h) The chief fiscal officer of the university shall collect the fee and shall deposit the revenue from the fee in an account to be known as the intercollegiate athletics fee account. (i) A fee charged under this section is not considered in determining the maximum amount of student services fees that may be charged each student enrolled at the university under Section 54.503. (j) The fee may not be charged after the fifth academic year in which the fee is first charged unless, before the end of that academic year, the university has issued bonds payable from the fee, in which event the fee may not be charged after the academic year in which all such bonds, including refunding bonds for those bonds, have been fully paid. SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2009. ____________________________________________________________ President of the SenateSpeaker of the House

As I have indicated several times in these forums, it is hazy at best what the new athletic fee will or will not do. The point of these posts was to caution over enthusiastic fans about bragging about all the increased millions of dollars NT is going to have once the new student athlete fee as kicked in. My recollection is that the student fee use is limited to 50% of the construction costs of the new football stadium. Like the student recreation center, once those costs are gone; the fee will be eliminated and not one cent will go to the athletic operating budget. The truth is that the NT students athletic fee election was not like those passed at UTSA and TSUSM were they approved fees for major increases to their athletic budgets. However, some how that NT election has morphed into the belief that these athletic funds can not only be used for other purposes but they will increase to the state's supposed limit of $20 a hour. Is that a plan or some one's dream? Yes, I believe the BOR has the power to unilaterally enact additional fees but, that is far from a done deal. There is a fear that the stadium will end up actually putting a strain on the athletic budget not the other way around. The issue is were will the other estimated $39M construction cost come from. It has been disheartening at least to me that I have heard of no big donations or sponsorship agreements. Yes, new revenue streams such as suites will be initiated and donations and sponsorships should be much more attractive with a new stadium. It will be sad, however if all these new or enhanced revenues end up going to debt service and not increasing NT's athletic budget. I would assume the Administration and BOR had a plan to raise these dollars without destroying athletics at NT. I hope the extension of RV's contract by the BOR signals that all is well. However, their handling of the Dr. Bataille situation causes some doubts.

Yes, losing in the WAC would be much more impressive than losing in the Belt. Where is all this love for the WAC coming from? It is too far West and if Boise leaves is not much of an upgrade. All these development of a regional Eastern division scenarios that would make the WAC attractive are not more likely to happen than the Belt developing a football Western Division or inclusion in some regional combination of CUSA and/or the Belt. Do you really think that the current members of the WAC with the exception of La Tech want to expand eastward? Yes, the conference could be blown up if several teams go to other conferences and they are forced to go East but at that point, it is a much less attractive option. If we are going to dream about some newly minted regional division, I would rather it be connected to the South than the West Coast.

Data gathered about walk ons: DE Brandon McCoy - 6'2 260-270 (look at video posted above): 24 year old Iraq veteran. This guy could be the real deal. LB Nick Crewe - 6'3 215 Woodlands All dist 2nd team: Good size LB Khary Alexcee - Clear Springs Hm all district LB Drew Miller - 6'2 225 Prosper District MV Def player DB Connor Higgins - 6' 175 Graham All District wide receiver DB Jimmy Reynolds - 6'3 165 Grand Prairie, good frame from great town McCoy and Miller based on very limited knowledge look like good bets.

NT signs new player. Can't get link to work but it is from Austin Statesman. Akins High senior Knockus Sashington has signed to play football at the University of North Texas. Sashington, who played as a wide receiver and cornerback, was named Offensive Player of the Year and first team All-District. He also played basketball and ran track, and is graduating in the top 25 percent of his class. “We are looking for young men who are committed to bring the best they can be in all areas of their lives,” said University of North Texas Head Coach Todd Dodge in his letter to Sashington. “We strongly feel that you will make a huge impact in our program on the field and in the classroom.”

I would be very disappointed if Dickey came anywhere close to the NT Hall of Fame. I give him all the credit for an incredible run in the Belt but character has to be a factor when selecting a coach to the HOF. Even if you disregard the pitiful antics after he was terminated, DD was all about DD. He continued throughout his career to berate his situation at NT, I guess to elevate his achievements despite the poor circumstances at NT. Even though there was more than just a grain of truth in his comments, it didn't do anyone any good to continually be reminded that NT athletics had issues. It is no wonder that recruiting against any other school became increasingly difficult when the HC continually bemoaned the situation at NT. It also didn't help that IMO after a couple of bowl appearances that Dickey appears much more interested in getting a job upgrade than growing or even maintaining the program. Yes, DD had success at NT and build a great Belt program but you can't disregard that he also was responsible for the dismantlement of that program.

Lets see Thomas led the nation and had the best year of any running back in NT history but he is not NT HOF worthy? Have you bothered to look at the athletes already in there? Thomas, Kennedy, Hall, Cobbs and Brewster will all probably be inducted at some point, but for my money no one should go in till they honor the late Walter Chapman. Sorry, that is my usual rant when HOF discussions happen. He was arguably the best player on the Fry team's and dominated a game from the interior line like Greene and Kennedy. Once had 22 tackles from the nose position, and had stats that were much better than Kennedy.

Obviously, the Belt picked ULM; how else did they become a member. I would be a little careful throwing around reported athletic budgets, because there are practically no reporting standards and they can be very misleading. For example, private school tuition such as SMU could amount to over a $6m difference between their budget and NT and yet their real out of pocket costs are close to the same. Unless they have recently changed, athletes tuition in Louisiana is not counted in the athletic budget. A lot if not most universities do about everything they can to hide the obvious, they lose a lot of money on athletes. Instead of berating ULM maybe we should hire someone from there, with their budget they are playing the same number of sports and have about the same number of coaches as NT. I am not so sure that NT is not going to have more budget problems with this new stadium. Unless, they have some major donations they are keeping undercover; paying for half of the stadium may put a definite drain on the budget and revenues that would normally go for operating expenses may be used for debt service. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but even new revenue streams such as premium seating and suites may not be enough to cover stadium construction costs. Back to ULM, based on what I have recently read all football programs in Louisiana expect LSU are heavily subsidized by the state. ULL and ULM may get over half their athletic budget from the state. With more state cutbacks probably coming in Louisiana, it may be very tough for not only ULM but ULL and La Tech to remain viable in the FB division. Just be aware that weeding out the undesired may have some very bad consequences. NT is at the bottom in almost every category when compared to the FB schools as a whole; budget, attendance, and stadium size.

Hand held times are faster because the timer's reaction time in starting the stopwatch is always slow and most often the timer stops the watch early because they must anticipate the finish. I doubt very seriously that any coaches take quoted 40 times very seriously. The problem is that coaches know that a fat (fully automated time) time of 4.7 is ultra fast, but the majority of fans that are used to seeing all these 4.5 and lower times are going to question why they ever signed a wide receiver with that kind of speed. There is an article that I use to have bookmarked but lost it, talking about the ridiculousness of 40 times and how a roided-up Ben Johnson when running a record 100 meter on a track and using blocks didn't run as fast as a lot of quoted football player's times. I agree obviously that 40 times are quoted often although it is almost a meaningless statistics. It has developed into a type of shorthand that been established. A 4.5 time is pretty much standard for any running back, defensive back or wide receiver and means that the player has good speed. A sub-4.5 time means that the player is very fast. In reality the only time that is really important is how fast the player is in pads which is seldom reported. As far as height go, generally the players are at least an inch shorter with two not uncommon. Weights are all over the place. Again coaches perpetuate the false stats because they don't want anyone to think they are recruiting smaller and slower athletes.

Yes, that would be a little too much of a difference.